- Amsterdam - New York - Santa Cruz - New Zealand - Montreal -
News, Views and Actions
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)



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
  = 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.
          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.
          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.
          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.
          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
          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
          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.
          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.
          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 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

   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)


  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.
  When we get the specifics on these meetings we will  send
  out a follow up alert. We need to pack these meetings!!
  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 
  Consumer Inquiries:  888-SAFEFOOD
  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


 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
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:



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
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:



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:



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:


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:

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:

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:

       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



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:



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:


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:


October 19, 1999 12:56 AM
Navy Sonar System Draws Activists' Fire + much much more


  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

  Read also "LFAS feedbacks and more information on the subject" posted at:

  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

  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

  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

  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

  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
  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


   SUBJECT:  U.S. Navy Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System
  (SURTASS)           Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar system


  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.


  _________________________________ 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.


  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -

  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
  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

  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:

  The HSUS has also posted an action alert on its web page at
  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

  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:

  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

  For larger images, you can use:

  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:

  Perhaps I should suggest that people contact their local newspapers, radio   & TV stations.   What do you think of that?


  Cheryl A. Magill


Fact Sheet on Preserving Our Forests for Future Generations

                              THE WHITE HOUSE

                       Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release                                    October 13, 1999

                              October 13, 1999

     Today, in a visit to the George Washington and Jefferson National
  Forests in Virginia, President Clinton will launch a sweeping effort to
  preserve millions of pristine acres within America's national forests.
  A new rule to be proposed by the U.S. Forest Service would prohibit road
  building in more than 40 million acres of "roadless" area, from the
  Appalachian Mountains to the Rockies to the Sierra Nevada.  In addition,
  the President will call on Congress to fully fund his environmental
  budget priorities - including his Lands Legacy initiative, which would
  provide $1 billion to protect other precious lands - and to pass budget
  bills free of anti-environmental riders, or he will veto the bill.

  Restoring Balance to Our National Forests.  The National Forest system,
  established in 1905, today encompasses 192 million acres in 46 states
  and territories.  Over the past seven years, the Clinton-Gore
  Administration has dramatically improved management of these forests,
  moving to end overlogging and timber road subsidies, and strengthen
  protections for water quality, wildlife and recreation.  In 1994, the
  President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan broke the stalemate over the
  northern spotted owl, balancing the preservation of old-growth stands
  with the economic needs of timber-dependent communities.  A
  comprehensive planning regulation proposed last month by the Forest
  Service would promote similar balance throughout the national forests,
  ensuring both stronger protection for water quality and wildlife, and
  steady, sustainable supplies of timber and other commodities.

  Protecting America's Last Wildlands.  Although much of the land within
  the national forests has been logged or otherwise developed - and some
  remains set aside for these purposes - large portions are relatively
  untouched.  These remote, pristine lands produce high-quality drinking
  water, provide critical wildlife habitat, and offer extraordinary
  recreation opportunities for hikers, campers, hunters, and anglers.
  Past inventories have identified more than 40 million of these
  "roadless" acres, generally in parcels of 5,000 acres or more.

  In February, the Forest Service placed an 18-month moratorium on road
  building within most "roadless" areas so it could evaluate long-term
  options for managing them.  Today, the President is directing the Forest
  Service to prepare and propose a rule to:
  -  provide long-term protection for most or all of these previously
  inventoried "roadless" areas; and
  -  determine whether and how such protections should be extended to
  smaller "roadless" areas.
  The proposed rule would ban road building in these areas and could also
  prohibit logging or other activities that harm their unique ecological
  values.  The Forest Service aims to release the proposed rule this
  spring and, following extensive public input, adopt a final rule in late 2000.

  Progress, Not Partisanship, on the Environment.  In his balanced budget
  for FY 2000, President Clinton proposed major new investments to protect
  precious lands, fight air and water pollution, restore salmon and other
  wildlife, and combat global warming.  His Lands Legacy initiative would
  commit $1 billion in FY 2000 - and seek permanent funding of at least
  that much in future years - to save natural treasures and to help
  communities protect farms, forests, urban parks, and other local green
  spaces.  Yet Congress is denying full funding for these priorities - for
  instance, cutting FY 2000 funding for Lands Legacy by two-thirds.  At
  the same time, Congress is loading up budget bills with special-interest
  riders that permit over-logging on national forests, provide a windfall
  to major companies that produce oil on federal lands and waters, and
  allow more dumping of mining wastes on public lands.  The President will
  declare today that if the Interior budget bill is presented to him in
  its current form - with inadequate funding and loaded with
  anti-environmental riders - he will veto it.



   Letter From The Jatibonicu Taino Tribal Nation, To:
   All Native American Tribes And Nations.

   :                 The Taino Tribal Council of Jatibonicu'
   :                     US Regional Tribal Affairs Office
   :                            703 South Eight Street
   :                          Vineland New Jersey 08360
   October 12,1999
   Tau Ah Taiguey Adanatiao,
   Hello and Good  Day to All Our Relatives,
        We bid you a warm greeting from The Jatibonicu Taino Tribe, its
   Telcesta Florida Tribal Band, the Taino People, and its' Nation.  I will
   speak my heart so that all of my relatives will understand that I, Guanikeyu
   (Noble Bird of The White Earth), Principal Chief of The Taino Tribe speaks
   the truth in the eyes of our Creator the Great Spirit.
        It has been 507 years since our Taino National Homeland of the
   Caribbean, Bahama Islands and Florida were invaded and overthrown by the
   Spanish Europeans in 1493.  As peaceful people, we stood by and observed the
   destruction of our Atabey (Mother Earth) and our ancestral ceremonial
   grounds.  With chains on our hands and feet, we stood alone without the
   power to protect ourselves.  The souls of the Taino people cried out in pain
   and anguish as our daughters were being raped and our people became the
   victims of mass genocide.  A conservative estimate of three to six million
   Tainos died due to the intentional introduction of many new European
   diseases. Our ancestral blood fell upon our land like rain drops into a red
   river of blood, that was caused by the Spaniard's Bull Mastiff hunting dogs
   and their bloody Toledo swords. Many of our relatives of other Native American
   Nations do not remember our Taino People, the first nation to encounter Columbus
   on the morning of October 12, 1492, in the Caribbean Bahama Island of
   Guanahani (San Salvador).  We have been waiting patiently for the
   completion of our Taino 500 year prophecy.  The prophecy states that we the
   Taino people would reemerge after 500 years as a proud and noble
   Nation. This would come to pass within our traditional homelands in the sixth
   generation of our Arocoels (Elders or grandparents) in the year 1993.
        Presently, The Taino Jatibonicu (Great People of the Sacred High
   Waters) Tribe and its Tekesta  (People of the Good Earth) Tribal Band of
   Bimini (Mother of Many Waters, the original name of Florida in the Taino
   language)  must beg to our relatives of the other Tribes and Nations to come
   to our aid.  Our Taino ceremonial grounds in Bimini has fallen into the
   hands of a group of private business people.  We have been in a struggle to
   reaffirm and preserve our traditional Taino cultural heritage within our
   Bimini and Circum- Caribbean Island  homeland.  Our Tekesta Taino Tribal
   Band of Bimini Florida, currently is struggling to help gather the needed
   funding of 8.7 million dollars to buy back one of the most sacred and
   ancient ceremonial grounds found within North America. This site is better
   known in the local Florida newspapers, as The Miami Circle.
         It seems that a local business person, insensitive to our native
   spirituality, would like to destroy our sacred ceremonial center.  He plans
   to built a new high rise apartment complex upon the bones of our ancestors.
   The Miami Circle is known to our people as the Navel of Amikekia (name of
   Turtle Island or America in the Taino language). This Taino ancestral
   ceremonial site belongs to all the indigenous people of the Americas.
        According to The Taino Book of Prophecies, the destruction of this
   sacred site by the Guamikena (The Covered People, name give by the Tainos to
   the Europeans) would come to trigger a natural disaster as never seen on
   Turtle Island since the dawn of its creation.  This is prophesied to happen
   in the seventh generation on or about the year 2005. We can humbly say that
   our Taino Jatibonicu Tribe and its two tribal Bands are the poorest of the
   Tribal Nations of Turtle Island.  As you already know, all our tribal
   homelands were lost to the past European colonial powers.  We, further, must
   inform our brothers and sisters that within sixty days we must find a way to
   buy back our land from this Guamikena business man located in Dade County
   southern Florida. Our Tribe has never begged nor asked anything from our
   relatives of Turtle Island.  We must stress upon our relatives the
   importance of preserving this sacred site. The destruction of this site will
   effect all our families here on Turtle Island.
        We ask that you open your hearts to the pleas of our Tribe and its Band
   here in Florida.  We ask that you share, in the matum (generosity)   Native
   American way, of sharing whatever money your Tribes and Nations can spare to
   aid us in this most noble struggle to preserve our past indigenous heritage.
   It is sad to see in this day and age that what is sacred to the indigenous
   people is not respected by some people.  It is unfortunate that the value of
   our ancestral heritage and indigenous spirituality is not respected by some.
   The only value these people seem to have in their hearts is money and power.
   It seems that, they enjoy running  over, native people, fish and foul and
   breaking up the Sacred Wheel of our Native American way of life.
        It is also sad to note that we as Native Americans, must  now be forced
   to buy back our own lands and sacred sites.  We hope and pray to the Creator
   that our brothers and sisters of Turtle Island will not abandon us in this
   time of need.  We are all one Nation of Amikekia also known as The Caguama
   (The Great Mother Sea Turtle).
   Respectfully Yours,
   Pedro Guanikeyu Torres
   Cacike/ Principal Chief of the Jatibonicu Taino
   Tribe of Boriken  Puerto Rico
   Taino Tribal Council of Jatibonicu Boriken
                       PO Box #253
      Orocovis, Puerto Rico  00720-0253
   Karlos Rodriquez
   Nitayno/ Sub-Chief of The Tekesta Taino Tribal Band
   of Bimini Florida
   Tekesta Taino Tribal Band of Bimini Florida
                     PO Box #6080
        Deltona, Florida 32728-06080
   (C) Copyright: Jatibonicu Taino Tribe of Boriken


Brazil's Problems-Earth's Problems
October 17, 1999

AN HOUR’S DRIVE inland and the city gives way to pine-covered cliffs that tower above lushly carpeted valleys, a nod to the good sense of King John VI of Portugal, who in the early 19th century, chose the mountains behind Rio for his courtly home.
       But behind Rio’s striking beauty lies a cautionary tale of epic proportions. It began not long after the last Brazilian monarch abandoned his throne near the turn of the last century, when a growing population began to cut down the country’s forests to make way for agriculture. That practice continues virtually unabated today. The State of Rio de Janeiro used to be 97 percent covered in natural forest. Today, less than 20 percent remains.

   Similar destruction appears throughout the Mata Atlantica, a plant- and animal-rich ecosystem that once covered 800,000 square miles of Brazil’s coastline. Now, only about 7 percent of the original Mata remains, 171 species are threatened with extinction, and conservationists say that the survival of the ecosystem is unlikely.
       “The Mata Atlantica has a terminal illness,” said Mario Mantovani, director of Sao Paulo-based SOS Mata Atlantica. “It no longer has the ability to resist. If there were 20 or 30 percent of the Mata left, it might be possible revert the damage. Today no.”
       In a struggle between man and nature that has echoes around the planet, massive environmental concerns have reared up throughout Brazil as the government attempts to meet the needs of its growing population. On the western border near Bolivia, the huge Pantanal wetlands are being drained to make way for hydroelectric projects, eliminating an entire habitat. Deforestation in Brazil's interior rain forest is eating away at a region environmentalists call "the lungs of the planet."
       The worst drought in almost 200 years in the arid northeast is turning about 110,000 square miles of once fertile land into desert. Overcrowding in Sao Paulo and Rio, with populations of 18 million and 7 million respectively, has polluted water sources, denuded mountainsides and spawned outbreaks of disease and unmanageable criminal violence. Because the country is so large, and the variations in climate so broad, Brazilians are being forced to find solutions to virtually all of the world’s environmental problems within their own borders.
       The pressure put on Brazil by environmentalists and politicians in the developed world to curb these trends has often spawned resentment. After all, ask Brazilians, Egyptians, Chinese and Indians alike, were not Europe and North America once covered by forest? Should developing countries put their dreams of prosperity on hold on the evidence offered by foreign scientists?
       “Brazil has a huge tropical rainforest that includes a large percentage of the world’s biological diversity, and the population is growing rapidly and is becoming progressively more affluent,” said Lester Brown, an environmental authority at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington. “The possibility of a quarter of a billion relatively affluent consumers in the future in Brazil means a lot of additional pressure on world resources.
       “If the Brazilian Amazon goes, the rest of the Amazon will go with it. How this would affect the climate, no one really knows,” he said.

       Further complicating the debate in Brazil is the misconception here that the nation is a bottomless reserve of natural resources. Flying over the Amazon, it is hard to envision that the solid block of green below is being destroyed at a rate of 5,000 football fields a day, as conservative figures estimate. Or that an area between up to four times the size of California has already been stripped of vegetation in recent decades by “clear cutting,” a process by which ranchers and developers cut or burn down huge swaths of forest to make way for grazing lands and other agriculture.        The sheer immensity of the Amazon, the largest tropical rainforest in the world covering an area more than half the size of the continental United States, means that until recently locals have treated the forest as if its bounty would never end. Now, it may be too late to save.
       “If we can’t find a path to sustainable development in the next 10 to 20 years, it is very likely that by the year 2050 there will be very little forest left,” said Carlos Nobre, head of Brazil’s Center for Weather and Climate Research.
WORLDWIDE IMPACT        The majority of the world’s scientists believe that the loss of the Amazon rainforest would be devastating to the globe’s environment. There is an active debate over how quickly and dramatically the results will show themselves, but few now argue that such devastation will pass unnoticed. Among the more catastrophic forecasts: enormous decreases in air quality and resulting increases in lung diseases and cancer; the melting of polar ice caps and the submergence of many of the Earth’s inhabited coastlands — among them, large parts of New York, Hong Kong, London and Shanghai.
       Back in the Amazon, Nobre leads a group of international scientists who recently launched an ambitious project to discover just how the rainforest fits into the global environmental cycle. Working from a neatly manicured compound at Kilometer 40 of a lonely stretch of halfway between Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, Nobre’s small group directs a larger, global effort involving over 200 researchers funded by NASA, the Brazilian government, universities and European donors. Ultimately, Nobre said, they hope to pinpoint exactly how crucial a role the rainforest plays in cleansing the Earth’s air of carbon dioxide, and in turn, controlling the build up of greenhouse gas.
       From there, the group hopes to apply its knowledge to devise sustainable solutions for the Amazon, as well as tropical rainforests in Africa and Asia.
       The Amazon has a long history of defeating grand efforts to tame it, to develop it and, more recently, to save it. One of the most spectacular failures occurred in the 1920s, when Henry Ford began buying up tracts of land for development as a rubber plantation. A combination of factors, including the mistaken planting of Ford’s trees too close together, led to a blight that wiped out the entire project.
       “All of the efforts to develop the forest have not been based on a solid knowledge of the functioning of the ecosystem,” Nobre said. “If you start with Henry Ford and the rubber plantations in the ’20s and ’30s to the cattle ranches today, all have been failures. We know why these things fail, but we don’t know how to make them work.”
       Several hundred non-governmental groups also are working in Brazil to find alternatives to clear cutting and other environmental degradation. Many point to Brazil’s rich biodiversity, which includes 55,000 different types of plants or 22 percent of the world’s known species, as a means to profit off of the growing market for medicinal herbs. Others, including Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and U.S. Vice President Al Gore, have advocated the use of “matching funds” that would create an incentive for Brazil to spend on the environment.        So far, however, those efforts which have progressed beyond talk have failed to make a major impact. Any successful assault on the problems of Brazil would need to count on the full support of the government. To date, Brazilian governments have been notoriously lax in making the environment a priority, preferring to concentrate on economic growth and — some critics would say — patronage and corruption.
       Even in the face of catastrophe, inaction often prevails. Despite the fact that more than 12 percent of the Amazonian state of Roraima burned to the ground last year from uncontrollable wildfires during the February to April dry season, environmentalists say the government has failed to take preventive measures this year.
       “The major problem with the environment in Brazil is that we are not forward looking,” said Garo Batmanian, Director of the Worldwide Fund for Nature in Brazil. “We usually come in after the problem has already happened and spend billions of dollars to try and fix it.”
       The fiscal crisis and near economic collapse earlier this year set efforts back even further. Acting to quell the market and meet International Monetary Fund strictures, the Brazilian government has had to drastically cut its budget. Invariably, one of the main casualties of the cuts was Brazil’s environmental agency and related programs.
       “What the government seems to forget,” said SOS’s Mantovani, “is that you can’t stop drinking water. You can’t stop breathing. You can’t buy biodiversity. These are issues that are basic for the country, but we tend to live hand to mouth, without any plan for the future.”
       In any other country on this planet, that might be a local or at most a regional problem. But Brazil’s problems, scientists say, are everybody’s problems.


Scientists warn of mass extinction
Tuesday, August 3, 1999

Remember the dinosaurs? Kings of the hill for 150 million years, then phttt, gone, poster animals of mass extinction. There have actually been five mass extinctions in the Earth's past — and we're well on our way to number six, says Peter Raven, an expert in plant conservation.

By the second half of the next century, between one-third and two-thirds of all plant and animal species, most in the tropics, will be lost, Raven, who is the director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, said Monday at the XVI International Botanical Congress in St. Louis.

In each of the prior mass extinctions, somewhere between one-fourth and one-half of all species died out over the course of a few million years — half a heartbeat in geologic times.

Two points make this mass extinction episode different from prior episodes. First, this extinction event is happening in hundreds, not hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Second, though the cause of the prior extinctions is up for debate, all were the result of natural phenomena. This is the first time that one species — homo sapiens — is the direct cause of the extinctions.

The population explosion and its consequences are held as the culprits. Human activities, including the clearing of forests, the spread of agriculture, the introduction of animals into new environments, and the pollution of air, water, and soil, account for almost all of the extinctions of the last several thousand years..

Scientists have calculated what they call a background extinction rate — the rate at which species have been becoming extinct for the past 65 million years, since the last major extinction. The current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, Raven says.

Raven, who is a botanist and thus focused on plants rather than animals, presented a seven-point plan to slow the extinction rates of plants around the world in his presentation:.

Held only once every six years, more than 4,000 scientists from 100 countries are meeting at the International Botanical Congress this week to discuss the latest results of research on plants for human survival and improved quality of life.


16 Oct 1999 12:47:52 -0400
  Please note activity in and around Neah Bay has increased.  Coast Guard is standing by to prevent
  any interference with the Makah hunt.  Protestors have been advised of a $100,000 fine for
  encroachment upon the "off limits zone"  of the hunt area. 
  Here is a link to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals:
    and Here is the index to the Marine Treaties
  You'll find the IWC treaty as well as a number of other documents dealing with
  maritime laws
                    Local News : Thursday, October 23, 1997
                    Makah whaling OK'd
                    by Danny Westneat
                    Seattle Times Washington bureau
  The commission, established to monitor world whale
  populations and regulate the small whaling industry,
  agreed to a deal by the United States and Russia to
  allow 124 gray whales a year to be killed by native
  groups in the North Pacific. The understanding was
  that the Makah tribe would be allotted four per year.
  In recent years, Russian natives have been allowed
  to kill up to 140 gray whales per year, so the new
  quota will mean an increase in the number of groups
  whaling but a decrease in the number of whales killed.
  From: "sue arnold" <arnolds@mullum.com.au  
  At 11:45 AM 10/15/1999 +1000, sue arnold wrote:
   I'm sending out an alert my group is circulating  in the US environmental
   community.   Australians for Animals is deeply involved in this issue, we
   initiated a lawsuit against the US Government to stop the kill. This lawsuit
   was lost in Tacoma last year and is currently before the 9th Circuit Court
   of Appeal.  It will probably end up in the US Supreme Court.  This issue has
   critical ramifications for whales world wide.
   If you care to protest, please write to the Ambassador at the American
   Embassy, Yarralumla, Canberra.   Thanks, Sue Arnold, Australians for
   Protestors at Neah Bay report the Makah canoe has been loaded with the
   harpoon; coast guard vessels and coast guard are in the area practicing boat
   seizure, the area is crawling with FBI agents and Government officials who
   are there to ensure the kill will happen without intervention.
   There is likely to be NO media coverage.  The two major Seattle papers and
   Washington television stations are "bored " with the story.   This attitude
   is entirely predictable, it is likely that Americans will never hear that
   another whale has been killed.
   The migration of gray whales has not yet commenced.   Therefore it appears
   that another resident whale will be slaughtered.  In May it was a juvenile
   whale, probably no more than 12 months old.    This is illegal but it is
   clear the US Government intends to ignore any of its own legislation which
   happens to be in the way.
   We urgently need to generate protest in the US.  To allow whales to be
   killed in US waters, in a National Marine Sanctuary, is a damning indictment
   of the most powerful nation on earth.  Combined with the LFAS and the US
   Navy's intention to ensonify 80% of the world's oceans, it is clear that the
   No l enemy of ceteceans is not the Japanese and Norwegian, but the Clinton
   Just look at the record.
   The US hasnot signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea which would
   prohibit the use of LFAS.   The Clinton Administration in permitting the
   Makah to kill gray whales, has flouted and usurped the role of the IWC and
   created precedents which will allow any member country to make its own
   recognition of Aboriginal whaling.   The Makah have not whaled for over 70
   years.   The frozen flesh of what remained of the young whale killed in May
   has been left to spoil.  Most of it was eaten by eagles and sea otters as
   the corpse was left hanging in a net in Neah Bay.
   There is little doubt the next major marine issue ( in a queue with LFAS and
   Makah whaling) is going to be indigenous rights versus the environment.   The
   Makah are backed by extremely powerful sources with a vested interest in
   more plunder and rape disguised as indigenous rights.
   Please call your congress person, Senators, write letters to the media, get
   on talk back radio.   Please do something.   There is footage available of
   the last terrible kill, no American TV station would broadcast it because
   people would be so upset.  It took ten dreadful minutes for the young whale
   to die, the waters red with her blood as she thrashed in agony.
   Please don't let this happen in the United States.   The world is watching.
   For more information please contact me directly,  Sue Arnold, Co-ordinator,
   Australians for Animals Email:  arnolds@mullum.com.au

  Reprinted under the Fair Use  http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
  doctrine of international copyright law.


15 Oct 1999 13:47:20 EDT
Breaking News on NYC Epidemic
  Giuliani's Lies Exposed about the Malathion Brand Used to Spray NYC
  In this article:
  *Read for yourself the labels of the actual Malathion product,
  FYFANON ULV, used in NYC.
  *Interview with the helicopter pilot who did the spraying
  *Samples from Queens show Malathion residue on playgrounds
  one month after spraying
  *Three theories that explain what is actually happening in NYC
  By Robert Lederman (718) 369-2111 artistpres@aol.com
  During the 10/12/99 NY City Council Hearing on Malathion and
  during numerous interviews that same day Mayor Giuliani's
  Office of Emergency Management [OEM] director Jerry Hauer
  repeatedly stated that Malathion is completely safe.
  He also took great pains to attempt to discredit Dr. Robert Simon
  and others who oppose the spraying, claiming that the actual
  product that was used, Fyfanon ULV, which is a concentrated jell
  form of Malathion, is also completely safe.
  No one in the media or among the general public has to depend
  solely on Mr. Hauer or on anti-spray activists like myself or Dr.
  Simon for the facts on this issue. The manufacturers and the
  NYS Department of Environmental Control have websites [see
  below] which contain a great deal of factual information on this
  product, including the actual labels from the canisters used in the
  spraying. The media has a responsibility to reveal this
  information to the public or forever lose all credibility in this City.
  Below you will find the links to each of the labels.
  We have also spoken to the helicopter pilot who was contracted to
  do the spraying, North Fork Helicopters, John Sondgroth
  (516) 734 5515. Mr. Sondgroth spoke on 10/14/99 to Joyce
  Shepard about the spraying procedure. During this conversation he
  apparantly admitted to having not read the labels, not knowing
  that this product degrades at temperatures over 77 degrees
  Fahrenheit and numerous other failures to properly use the product.
  According to Mr. Sondgroth there was no oversight by State or
  City officials of the loading, storage, mixing or
  application of this product. We have also found out that the spraying
  commenced almost an entire month before the required permit
  was obtained from NY State authorities. It was shipped here from
  Texas, a location where the September temperatures were well
  above 77 degrees at which temperature the product degrades
  into even more harmful substances.
  The labels on the actual product used clearly refute Mr. Hauer's
  assurances in the exact same way that the Mayor's Chem-bio
  Handbook refutes both the Mayor's and Mr. Hauer's daily press
  conference assurances that Malathion is completely safe and
  The ULV in the products' name stands for Ultra Low Volume.
  What this means is not ultra low concentration but just the
  opposite. It is concentrated at a 95% purity in order to take up as
  little volume and weight on the aircraft being used as possible. In
  other words, those who were directly sprayed and received even a
  single tiny globule of the spray on their skin or who breathed it
  in received a dose of 95% pure Malathion.
  Among the many boldfaced lies being told by the Giuliani
  administration is that this product is being used in a significantly
  diluted form and that at this level of dilution it is harmless. The
  exact opposite is true. According to its label the Fyfanon ULV
  form of Malathion is a jell concentrate containing 95%
  Malathion and 5% unidentified inert ingredients.
  According to the pilot who did the spraying, the jell is aerated
  by a compressed air machine on the aircraft into a fine mist.
  Therefore, it is not in any way mixed with another substance and diluted.
  Any droplets, vapor or mist from this product that comes into
  contact with a human, insect, plant, car, body of water or other
  property involves being in contact with 95% pure unadulterated
  The following are verbatim quotes of just a few key sentences
  from the four page label of Fyfanon ULV [Malathion].
  "Fyfanon ULV Ultra Low Volume Concentrate Insecticide
  Active ingredient....Malathion 95% ...inert ingrediants .05%.
  One gallon contains 9.7 lbs. of Malathion"
  "Harmful by swallowing, inhalation or skin contact. Avoid
  breathing spray mist. Avoid contact with skin. do not
  contaminate food or feed products"
  "Before using read the directions contained in this leaflet for the
  proper methods and procedures which must be followed to
  achieve effective insect control and avoid permanent damage to
  automobiles and other paint finishes".
  "This product is toxic to fish. Keep out of lakes, streams, ponds,
  tidal marshes and estuaries. Do not apply when weather
  conditions favor drift from areas treated. This pesticide is highly
  toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or to residues remaining
  on the treated area."
  "It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner
  inconsistent with its labeling."
  "Storage: Fyfanon ULV should be stored at temperatures not
  exceeding 25 degrees C or 77 degrees F".
  "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or
  other persons either directly or through drift. Do not enter or
  allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry
  interval [RTI] of 12 hours. Personal Protective Equipment {PPI]
  required for early entry into treated areas that is permitted under
  the [OSHA] Worker Protection Standard and that involves
  contact with anything that has been treated such as plants, soil or
  water is:Coveralls and Chemical resistant gloves such as barrier
  laminate or Butyl rubber or Nitrile."
  On the fourth page of the instructions you will find an entire
  page of very small type describing the Federal requirement to
  microscopically determine the droplet size being released from
  the spray nozzles before commencing the spraying. Based on the
  conversation with the applicator, this was not in any way followed.
  Dr. Robert Simon announced today 10/14/99 that samples he
  collected from his own hotel room, from playgrounds and from
  soil all tested positive for Malathion and its degraded and highly
  toxic chemical derivative, Maloxon. These samples are from the
  original area in Queens that was sprayed more than 30 days ago.
  Therefore, it is now proven that we are all still breathing,
  touching and ingesting the residues of this toxic
  organophosphate nerve gas. Dr. Simon's phone number
  is (703) 928 5945.
  The conclusions that can be drawn from the above facts are
  inescapable; we are being systematically lied to by the Giuliani
  administration and the CDC. I believe there are three possible
  scenarios to explain what is actually taking place, as follows.
  1. There is an actual encephalitis epidemic that was caused by an
  imported or migrating bird or insect or by a foreign visitor. The
  authorities are merely guilty of bureaucratic stupidity. In their
  rush to appear to be doing something, which is a political not a
  public health concern, they chose a dangerous chemical and
  caused it to be applied both indiscriminately and ineffectively.
  Now they are stuck in the unenviable position of having to lie to
  protect themselves from lawsuits and possibly criminal charges.
  2. There is an actual encephalitis epidemic, but the virus was
  released either accidentally or deliberately and was not the result
  of a naturally occurring strain infecting birds or mosquitoes. The
  source may be the Plum Island bio-warfare/exotic animal disease
  lab off the tip of Long Island; Rockefeller University in
  Manhattan which has been experimenting with West Nile Virus
  for decades; the Ft. Dietrick Md. Bio-warfare lab or another source.
  The Bronx Zoo animal pathologist who first suspected that this
  was not St. Louis encephalitis, Dr. Tracy McNamarra, testified at
  the City council hearing that she was trained at the same Plum
  Island bio-warfare lab. Due to the fact that the virus has been
  reclassified three times and is now described as a previously
  unknown strain of Japanese Encephalitis, it is extremely unlikely
  that the source is naturally occurring. All of the above mentioned
  labs have been working with Japanese Encephalitis. Their work
  includes creating man-made genetic variations of the virus using
  DNA manipulation techniques. In this scenario the necessity of
  eliminating a very dangerous man-made disease justified the
  illegal and improper use of Malathion. Both the OEM and the
  media would have been instructed not to expose or investigate
  the actual facts in order to prevent panic or public outcry about
  these dangerous research facilities.
  3. There is no encephalitis epidemic. The CDC, the Army or a
  bio-tech corporation has carefully scripted and produced the
  appearance of an emergency in order to accomplish one of a
  number of things. The following are three possible explanations.
  A. The epidemic scare was initiated by a bio-tech company in
  order to create a market for their vaccine. As described in my
  previous articles on this issue, in 1996 the U.S. Army
  bio-warfare lab at Ft. Dietrick licensed a man-made strain of
  Japanese Encephalitis which the Army had invented and patented
  to a bio-tech company, Oravax, which has since developed a
  vaccine. They announced their intention to begin clinical trials at
  the end of 1999. They have a warehouse full of the vaccine which
  is already manufactured and ready to be approved. Oravax is a
  widely traded stock and despite not having a single product in
  the market at this time is considered to be a very promising
  company. Oravax's Japanese Encephalitis vaccine is bizarrely
  named, "Chimerivax". A chimera is, according to the Webster
  Dictictionary, an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous
  parts; an illusion or fabrication of the mind; a dream; a fancy.
  B. The epidemic scare was initiated by the CDC or the Army in
  order to justify spraying NYC with Malathion or whatever the
  actual substance is that's being used. In this scenario the
  spraying may be part of a biological warfare experiment or worse,
  an actual biological warfare exercise. The U.S. government has
  publicly admitted to 50 years of bio-warfare experiments on
  unsuspecting U.S. citizens. The CDC, which is supervising the
  entire operation, is infamous for the Tuskeegee Syphilis
  experiment and for administering experimental vaccines to
  minorities and third world populations resulting in illness and
  death. Many medical experts believe the CDC is responsible for
  starting the AIDs epidemic. Simultaneously with the spraying a
  U.S. government contracted company called TRI [Triangle
  Research Institute], began a study in the NYC area. They are
  exclusively seeking Black or Latino subjects in poor
  neighborhoods for their study. We have a form letter they sent
  out and a video tape of an actual visit by TRI to someone's home.
  While TRI claimed they were investigating, "social problems,
  crime, drugs, grafitti, children doing poorly in school, etc", their
  website contains links to bio-warfare sites and bio-tech
  companies. Certain neighborhoods appear to have received an
  inordinate amount of spraying as compared to other
  neighborhoods. Some predominantly Black and Latino areas of
  the City have been sprayed on a daily basis although they appear
  to have little in the way of trees, fields, bodies of water or other
  features that would encourage large numbers of mosquitoes.
  Organizations like the CDC the WHO [World Health
  Organization], the Rockefeller Institute and the Manhattan
  Institute (which Mayor Giuliani is intimately associated with)
  share a common philosophical, economic and administrative
  origin in the eugenics movement that was widespread and very
  openly advocated in this country before WWII. Population
  control/social control continues to be the not so very secret
  agenda of each of these organizations. Mandatory vaccinations,
  forced sterilization and euthanasia are among their past and
  present policy goals as is the militarization of the police and the
  curtailment of civil liberties. It is a historical fact that the Nazis
  borrowed many of their ideas about population control directly
  from the American eugenics movement of the 1920's and 1930's.
  There are many possible variations on this scenario.
  Administering a toxic substance in order to cause sterility, illness
  or death need not result in any immediate fatalities or in any
  immediately discernible symptoms. These organizations seek to
  achieve long term goals. If the purpose of the spraying were
  intended to cause a decrease in fertility among minorities, it
  would not be statistically noticed for years and the cause might
  never be uncovered. Likewise if the creation of immune system
  diseases, DNA mutations (which Malathion is known to cause)
  or an increase in asthma was the intended result.
  In warfare, civilian casualties and casualties among one's own
  troops from so-called friendly fire are part of the expected
  "collateral damage". From the point of view of eugenics based
  organizations which have a world wide agenda, the collateral loss
  of non minorities including a few thousand elite NYC big shots
  would be an acceptable and even desirable feature of such an
  operation. If the spraying were only done in minority
  neighborhoods the purpose would be immediately evident. By
  spraying the entire City to some limited degree suspicions are
  reduced. You might recall that until there was an  uproar, OEM
  had initially intended to do no spraying at all in midtown Manhattan.
  From the month's worth of investigation that I and numerous
  others have done on this issue we have discovered nothing at all
  that supports the Mayor, the OEM or the CDC versions of this
  crisis. Just yesterday the FBI publicly stated that the Mayor had
  lied when he claimed that the heightened security around City
  Hall was the result of an FBI request. Every piece of evidence so
  far points to this being a far more insidious event than has been
  depicted. Lying is of course the stock in trade of politicians
  generally, and of the Giuliani administration in particular. It is
  not too big a leap to conceive of this Mayor willingly permitting
  a Federal agency like the CDC or a corporation to conduct such
  an experiment or bio-warfare action on the eight million
  residents of New York City. Giuliani has made it clear that we
  are not his "real" constituency and that even Federal law is
  nothing more than an inconvenience to the carrying out of his
  goals. It's also notable in this context that his policy goals are
  without exception focused on surpressing minorities, unions and
  the poor while catering to corporate interests.
  Lastly, yet another truly amazing "coincidence" must be added to
  the mix. For an unprecedented six day period ABC News
  Nightline has broadcast an interactive feature on bio-warfare
  with none other than NYC OEM director Jerry Hauer as its main
  guest. SEE: ABC NEWS Series on Bio Warfare with Jerry Hauer
  The significance of this six day special taking place during the
  spraying with the same players as guests cannot be
  underestimated. About six months ago during a chance meeting
  on West Broadway, Ted Koppel personally told me he enjoyed
  seeing me get arrested for criticizing Giuliani. He is thought by
  some writers on government conspiracies to be a key media
  representative of the NWO.
  -Robert Lederman 10/15/99
  NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation

  [This is the brand of Malathion OEM Director Jerry Hauer
  Testified is being used] page 1 of label

  page 2 Label

  page 3 label

  page 4 label





  CDC Encephalitis webpage

  FROM: 10/6/97 Tampa Tribune on Malathion Fyfanon ULV
  What is malathion?
  By JAN HOLLINGSWORTH of The Tampa Tribune
  -- Product name: Fyfanon ULV
  -- Active ingredient: Malathion
  -- Classification: Toxicity Category III, signal word: Caution
  -- Storage precautions: Stable at temperatures under 77 degrees F.
  -- Health hazards (acute and chronic): Rapidly enters the body on
  contact with all skin surfaces and eyes. Clothing contaminated
  with material must be removed immediately and all skin must be
  washed thoroughly. Repeated exposures to such cholinesterase
  (blood enzyme) inhibitors may cause, without warning, increased
  susceptibility to doses of any cholinesterase inhibitor.
  -- Work practices: People working with this product for a long
  period should have frequent blood tests. If the cholinesterase
  (blood enzyme) level falls below a critical point, no further
  exposure should be allowed until it has been determined by
  means of blood tests that the level has returned to normal.
  -- Hygienic practices: Before removing gloves, wash them with
  soap and water. Always wash hands, face and arms with soap and
  water before smoking, eating or drinking. After work, take off all
  work clothes and shoes. Shower using soap and water. Wear only
  clean clothes when leaving the job. Do not wear contaminated
  clothing. Wash protective clothing and protective equipment with
  soap and water after each use.  
  First aid:  If inhaled - Remove victim to fresh air immediately.
  If in eyes - Flush with water for at least 15 minutes and get
  medical attention.  If swallowed - Call a physician or poison control
  center immediately. Induce vomiting by giving 1 or 2 glasses of water
  and touching back of throat with finger. Do not induce vomiting
  or give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.Source:
  Cheminova Agro, Material Safety Data Sheet
  Fyfanon ULV is manufactured by Cheminova (201)
  DEET info FROM:
  INFO SOURCE on bio-technology, terminator seeds, etc.
  Daily News 10/14/99 We Didn't Say Close City Hall to Public:
  "The FBI took issue yesterday with Mayor Giuliani's repeated
  assertion that it recommended shutting off City Hall to the
  public."The FBI has made no recommendations to the city as far
  as what security protections should be taken," said bureau
  spokesman Joseph Valiquette. "That's not our role. Those are
  decisions that are made strictly by the city, City Hall in
  conjunction with the NYPD." "We have never weighed in on
  what security measures should be taken at City Hall, City Hall
  Park," he added."
  Peptide Therapeutics Group plc is a biopharmaceutical company
  engaged in the research and development of novel vaccines and
  therapeutics. Its focus is primarily on disorders of the immune
  system and infectious diseases. It is based in Cambridge, UK
  and, following the recent acquisition of OraVax, Inc. also has
  operations in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It has seven products
  in clinical trials and several pre-clinical and research programmes
  underpinned by five proprietary technology platforms. ts mission
  is to build a profitable biopharmaceutical company by
  discovering novel vaccines and therapeutics and developing these
  products through collaborations with leading pharmaceutical
  Product Portfolio
  Japanese Encephalitis Vaccine
  Peptide is developing a vaccine for the prevention of Japanese
  encephalitis viral infections using its ChimeriVax(tm)
  technology. JE is a potentially fatal neurotropic viral infection
  common in Asia, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China, India
  and Thailand. The World Health Organisation has identified the
  development of safer and less expensive vaccines against JE as a
  high priority, which should ensure its use in endemic regions. In
  addition, a safer vaccine that requires only a single dose for
  immunisation would better meet the needs of travellers and the
  military. Safety and preclinical efficacy of the JE vaccine has
  been demonstrated in pre-clinical studies. a Phase I trial is
  scheduled to commence by the end of 1999. PMC [Peptide
  Therapeutics Group]
  * Watch Tony Brown's Journal this Saturday 10/16/99 at 11 AM
  on WNET channel 13 for an entire show about the connection
  between Plum Island and the encephalitis outbreak in New York,
  titled, "Hysterical Environmental Terrorists or Good Citizens?".
  Tony Brown's guests are David Levner of the Green Party, author
  Curtis Cost and Robert Lederman. If you do not live in the NY
  area see your local listings for the time and date.
  * SEE
  OR http://www.American-Politics.com for a just published
  article by David J. Gonzo about Robert Lederman v Giuliani
  tiltled, "He's Giuliani's Worst Nightmare".
  Malathion information sites:

  The Eugenics movement in the US
  Dr. Robert Simon (703) 928 5945
  Joyce Shepard, CSW Citizens' Action Committee for Change
  E-Mail: CactionC@jps.net Telephone: 718-279-2069
  This site contains most of Robert Lederman's writings on this issue
  You may freely copy, quote from or redistribute this article
  The above information is an expression of a theory  for
  educational and informational purposes only and is
  not intended to definitively state that the individuals,
  corporations or agencies mentioned are behind the encephalitis epidemic.
  Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
  (Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics)
  ARTISTpres@aol.com  (718) 369-2111


Heritage_Forests alert: Historic Step for Heritage Forests
  Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:39:16 GMT

  You can take action on this alert either on the web or by email.

  Here's what this alert is about:
  Historic Step for Heritage Forests

  Dear Forest Enthusiast:

  As you may already know, this Wednesday, October 13, President
  Clinton announced  that he is taking historic action to protect
  America's Heritage Forests.  This is a tremendous victory for
  our last wild forests!

  At Little Rivers Roadless Area in Virginia, Bill Clinton called
  for a renewal of the human spirit and requested that the
  National Forest Service develop a policy for permanently
  protecting roadless areas in our National Forests.  While we
  still have much to do to ensure the President's vision becomes
  reality, this is a giant step in the right direction.

  Clinton's announcement took place in no small part because of
  your involvement with the Heritage Forests Campaign.  You were
  one of over 185,000 Americans who expressed concern over the
  future of National Forests via the Internet.

  Your e-activism caught the attention of the Clinton
  Administration and is one of the key reasons why these
  endangered areas are on track to be permanently protected.
  However the timber industry and their allies in Congress will be
  fighting hard to ensure that this proposal is never implemented,
  which is why your input is needed.

  Please help us thank President Clinton for caring about our
  forests. We want to make sure he knows how important it is
  that he continue to move forward on this critical issue.  All
  you have to do click the "reply" button to this e-mail and an
  email copy of your letter will be automatically sent to
  President Clinton.

  For the Forests, for the Future,

  Rebekah Brooks

  PS.  Visit http://www.ourforests.org/update.htm for more
  detailed information and news about this announcement.


  If you have access to a web browser, you can take action on this
  alert by going to the following URL:


  Responding via email to this alert is easy.  Just choose the "reply to
  sender" option on your email program, and edit the letter below as you
  wish.  If your email program does not have a "reply to sender" option,
  you can copy and paste the letter below into a new email message and
  mail it to alert-response-350611A2769B939933556C88088@actionnetwork.org.
  You must include the whole letter in your response starting with
  "-YOU MAY EDIT THE LETTER BELOW-" and ending with "-END OF LETTER-".

  We STRONGLY encourage you to make edits directly to our sample letter
  below, and put the alert talking points into your own words. An
  individualized letter is worth ten computer generated letters. Of
  course, hundreds of unedited letters will still create a large impact,
  so please reply even if you don't have time to personalize the letter.

  Your letter will be addressed and sent to:
  President Bill Clinton


  I want to thank you for announcing plans to implement a policy
  that will hopefully provide much needed protection to our
  country's remaining roadless wild lands in the National Forests.
  This bold and decisive action is the first step toward ensuring
  that a true legacy of heritage forests is passed on to future
  generations of Americans.

  Roadless areas provide a host of important public values.  They
  are sources of clean water and healthy and viable wildlife
  habitat and provide unlimited opportunities for recreation and
  spiritual renewal.  With a mere 18 percent of National Forest
  lands protected as wilderness and more than 50 percent
  already open to logging, road-building, and other destructive
  activities, we need to act now to safeguard these remaining wild

  The announcement that you will be pursuing a roadless area
  protection policy is an excellent first step.  Your continued
  engagement is critical to ensuring that the final policy affords
  permanent protection to roadless areas in all National Forests
  from logging, mining, and other destructive activities as well
  as from new roads.

  Thank you for your commitment to protecting National Forest
  roadless areas.

  -------END OF LETTER-------------------------

For Other Petitions click over to our Petitions Page



Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:21:08 -0500 (CDT)
  From: Grassroots Media Network <gnn@grassrootsnews.org

  U.K. The Independent 11.10.99
  Thank you to Paul Davis, Paul & Katrin Davis,devatalk@mcmail.com, for this


  THE WORLD'S biggest-selling weedkiller, the chemical glyphosate, is
  facing a European ban after a confidential European Union report showed
  that it also kills beneficial insects and spiders.

Get the FULL Story on our Monsanto Page -click here


1999-10-13 Memorandum on Protection of Forest Roadless Areas

                              THE WHITE HOUSE
                       Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release                                    October 13, 1999
                              October 13, 1999
  SUBJECT:    Protection of Forest "Roadless" Areas
  At the start of this century, President Theodore Roosevelt dedicated
  this Nation to the conservation of natural resources -- our land, our
  water, our wildlife, and all the other precious gifts nature had
  bestowed upon us.  One of America's great central tasks, he declared, is
  "leaving this land even a better land for our descendants than it is for
  In pursuit of that goal, President Roosevelt established new protections
  for millions upon millions of acres across America.  His remarkable
  legacy includes 5 national parks, 18 national monuments, and dozens of
  wildlife refuges.  Among his most notable conservation achievements were
  the consolidation of 65 million acres of Federal forest reserves into
  the National Forest System, and the creation of the United States Forest
  Service to ensure wise stewardship of these lands for future
  generations.  In this effort, he was guided by Gifford Pinchot, the
  first Chief of the Forest Service and a founder of America's
  conservation movement.
  Today, the National Forest System has grown to 192 million acres of
  forests and grasslands in 46 States and territories.  These lands
  provide a broad array of benefits to the American people.  They support
  rural industries, sustain fish and wild-life, generate drinking water
  for 60 million Americans, and provide important recreation opportunities
  to an increasingly urban population.
  Over the years, unfortunately, our Nation has not always honored
  President Roosevelt's vision.  Too often, we have favored resource
  extraction over conservation, degrading our forests and the critical
  natural values they sustain.  As the consequences of these actions have
  become more apparent, the American people have expressed growing concern
  and have called on us to restore balance to their forests.
  My Administration has made significant strides in improving the
  management of our Federal forestlands.  Beginning with the adoption of a
  comprehensive, science-based forest plan for the Pacific Northwest, we
  have sought to strengthen protections for wildlife, water quality, and
  other vital ecological values, while ensuring a steady, sustainable
  supply of timber and other commodities to support stable rural
  economies.  The new forest planning regulation proposed last month
  represents another major step in that direction.
  It is time now, I believe, to address our next challenge -- the fate of
  those lands within the National Forest System that remain largely
  untouched by human intervention.  A principal defining characteristic of
  these lands is that they do not have, and in most cases never have had,
  roads across them.  We know from earlier inventories that there are more
  than 40 million acres of "roadless" area within the National Forest
  System, generally in parcels of 5,000 acres or more.  A temporary
  moratorium on road building in most of these areas has allowed us time
  to assess their ecological, economic, and social values and to evaluate
  long-term options for their management.
  In weighing the future of these lands, we are presented with a unique
  historic opportunity.  From the Appalachian Mountains to the Sierra
  Nevada, these are some of the last, best unprotected wildlands in
  America.  They are vital havens for wildlife -- indeed, some are
  absolutely critical to the survival of endangered species. They are a
  source of clean, fresh water for countless communities.  They offer
  unparalleled opportunities for hikers, campers, hunters, anglers, and
  others to experience unspoiled nature.  In short, these lands bestow
  upon us unique and irreplaceable benefits.  They are a treasured
  inheritance -- enduring remnants of an untrammeled wilderness that once
  stretched from ocean to ocean.
  Accordingly, I have determined that it is in the best interest of our
  Nation, and of future generations, to provide strong and lasting
  protection for these forests, and I am directing you to initiate
  administrative proceedings to that end.
  Specifically, I direct the Forest Service to develop, and propose for
  public comment, regulations to provide appropriate long-term protection
  for most or all of these currently inventoried "roadless" areas, and to
  determine whether such protection is warranted for any smaller
  "roadless" areas not yet inventoried.  The public, and all interested
  parties, should have the opportunity to review and comment on the
  proposed regulations.  In the final regulations, the nature and degree
  of protections afforded should reflect the best available science and a
  careful consideration of the full range of ecological, economic, and
  social values inherent in these lands.
  I commend you, along with the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and
  the Environment, Jim Lyons, the Chief of the Forest Service, Michael
  Dombeck, and the entire Forest Service for your leadership in
  strengthening and modernizing the management of our Federal forests --
  lands held by us in trust for all Americans and for future generations.
  With the new effort we launch today, we can feel confident that we have
  helped to fulfill and extend the conservation legacy of Theodore
  Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, and to ensure that the 21st century is
  indeed a new century for America's forests.
                              WILLIAM J. CLINTON

                                   # # #


Republican Budget - A Two-Pronged Attack on the Environment

Like blowing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty isn't enough.


Amsterdam - New York - Montreal
Santa Cruz - New Zealand

From: The White House <Publications-Admin@pub.pub.whitehouse.gov
To: <Public-Distribution@pub.pub.whitehouse.gov
Wednesday, October 13, 1999 1:23 PM
1999-10-13 Republican Budget - A Two-Pronged Attack on the Environment

                              THE WHITE HOUSE

                       Office of the Press Secretary
  For Immediate Release                                    October 13, 1999

                           THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET:
                              October 13, 1999

  In the Administration's balanced budget for fiscal year 2000, President
  Clinton and Vice President Gore proposed significant new investments to
  protect precious lands, clean our air and water, restore endangered
  salmon and combat global warming. But the Republican majority in
  Congress is again waging a two-pronged attack on the environment and
  public health - cutting funding for these key priorities, while loading
  budget bills with special-interest "riders" that would roll back
  protections already in place. The President calls on Congress to fund
  major environmental priorities - without spending the Social Security
  surplus -- and to pass budget bills free of anti-environmental riders.

  Shortchanging our Environment and Public Health

  - Protecting Precious Lands. The President's $1 billion Lands Legacy
  initiative would protect coastal resources and natural treasures -
  including the Everglades, Civil War battlefields, and the Mojave Desert

  - and provide communities with $434 million to protect urban parks,
  farmland, forests, and other green spaces.  But Congress has slashed the
  President's request by two-thirds.

  - Leading the Fight Against Global Warming. The President proposed $1.4
  billion, a 34-percent increase, to research and develop clean energy
  technologies that save money and reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  Yet
  Congress is shortchanging these common-sense programs, as well as the
  Global Environmental Facility, an international fund that invests in
  clean energy and other environmental projects in developing countries.

  - Providing Clean, Safe Water. Congress is refusing to fully fund the
  President's Clean Water Action Plan, which helps communities, farmers,
  and other property owners curb dirty runoff and clean up waterways too
  polluted for fishing and swimming.

  - Restoring Endangered Salmon. The President proposed a new $100 million
  Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to help state, local, and tribal
  governments rebuild dwindling salmon stocks, and $60 million to begin
  implementing an historic salmon recovery treaty with Canada.  Yet the
  Senate has provided nothing for the treaty, and the House nothing for
  either initiative.

  Rolling Back Protections through Backdoor Attacks

  Once again, Congress has loaded up appropriations bills with
  special-interest riders that aim to block progress or roll back key
  environmental safeguards.  Among other things, these riders would pave
  the way for more logging on national forests; cripple endangered species
  protections; short-change taxpayers by letting oil companies pay
  below-market royalties on oil produced on federal lands; ease
  restrictions on the dumping of mining wastes on public lands; and
  hamstring common-sense efforts to reduce global warming pollution.




Constituional Law and Nuclear Treaty commentary -
New Book: The Constitution: Fact or Fiction

From: "Ellis Smith" <smithorg@bellatlantic.net
October 13, 1999

This is an interesting read although I have to take exception to its
obvious Republican slant. To call the last ten years a "de facto
economic depression" is beyond ridiculous, but patently insane.
However, the legal facts regarding the usurping of the constitutional
perogatives is in my opinion quite factual.  However, if the Executive
Branch had the capablity that this book infers, then the Nuclear Test
Ban treaty would be fact instead of being delayed.  Which by the
way is another example of Republican insanity.  Bush ended testing
in 1992.  To not approve this treaty not only undermines the entire
worlds safety but opens the door to every nation on earth to join
the nuclear club and test at will which is in effect global suicide
both environmentally and geo-politically.  Even though it was
originally  a Republican effort, now, for purely partisan politics
they are willing to throw the entire planet into jeopardy for their
own petty political interests.  In light of the latest members into
the nuclear club this kind of political manuvering once again ranks
as not only Domestic National Treason but should be considered
by the UN as crimes against humanity.  IMHO


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 9:40 PM
New Book: The Constitution: Fact or Fiction
  From:  http://buffalo-creek-press.com/cffrev.htm
  Constitution: Fact or Fiction 
  by Dr. Eugene Schroder with Micki Nellis
  The Story of the Nation's Descent from a Constitutional Republic
  through a Constitutional Dictatorship to an Unconstitutional
  Buffalo Creek Press
  PO Box 2424
  Cleburne, TX 76033.
  ISBN 188553406X. $14.95
  1-800-610-4908. Visa, MC, Discover, Personal Checks, Money Orders.
  Explains how the president can send 500,000 troops to fight
  overseas with or without the consent of congress, how he can bail
  out the Mexican economy over the objections of the American
  people, and why we have lost our Constitutionally guaranteed
  rights. The government's own documents prove the case.
  Constitution: Fact or Fiction
  Through the insidious, yet steady encroachment of "emergency
  powers," the government has achieved the ability to rule by
  statute or decree, without the vote or consent of the ruled.
  Senate Report 93549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933,
  the United States has been in a state of declared national
  It goes on to say "A majority of the people of the United States
  have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years,
  freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the
  constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws
  brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United
  States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have
  ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a
  permanent state of National emergency."
  And further "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of
  Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President
  extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which
  affect the lives of American citizens in a host of
  allencompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken
  together, confer enough authority to rule this country without
  reference to normal constitutional process.
  "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
  seize property; organize and control the means of production;
  seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute
  martial law; seize and control all transportation and
  communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise;
  restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control
  the lives of all American citizens."
  The US constitution provided for the president to be granted
  emergency powers in times of war or enemy attack. The fatal flaw
  in the constitution, however, is that the only provision to end
  emergency powers is for the president to declare the emergency
  ended. Once the president has these powers, he himself must
  relinquish them. Eleven presidents, both Democrat and Republican,
  have failed to reinstate the constitution and give up these
  emergency powers. Today we see the president and entrenched
  bureaucracy passing rules through the executive branch's many
  agencies without challenge from congress or the judicial system,
  originally meant to provide checks and balances.
  The emergency powers clause was included in the Constitution so
  that a president could legally assume all powers in case of
  rebellion or enemy invasion if the public safety required it, and
  was intended to be terminated immediately at the end of the
  Through a maze of political maneuvers, the emergency powers
  granted to President Roosevelt in 1933 have become part of the
  U.S. Code as permanent everyday powers. America has continued
  under the "constitutional dictatorship" of war and emergency
  powers to this day, more than 60 years later.
  In reality, under this "constitutional dictatorship," the people
  have no rights except those granted by the government. Under our
  constitutional government, the people retained all rights except
  those specifically granted to the government.
  Government has grown so big, so unreachable, that the ordinary
  citizen has no chance to influence it. Even those with clout and
  political savvy, such as state governors, are stymied.
  The US government today, with its inflated bureaucracy, political
  posturing, and ineffectual programs, would be a laughingstock if
  it weren't for the sinister side arbitrary seizure of property
  without proven cause by many government agencies, ruthless
  invasion of privacy, federally mandated but unfunded programs
  that are choking the states' right to rule themselves, an unsound
  money system based on debt, and de facto economic depression for
  the last 10 years. A growing separation between "haves" and "have
  nots" makes a powder keg on a slow fuse.
  Today most Americans have not been taught the constitution, have
  never enjoyed the constitutional rights for which our forefathers
  fought a revolutionary war, and know that something is terribly
  wrong with government but have no idea what to do.
  The writing is clear, concise, and easy to understand. The
  subject is compelling.


What Biotech Food Issue?
7 Oct 1999
  From:   gnn@grassrootsnews.org (Grassroots Media  Network)
   Source: http://www.gallup.com

    Americans not alarmed by application of  biotechnology in food   production
    by Lydia Saad
    PRINCETON, NJ  U.S. public concern about  genetically modified foods
   barely registers a ripple in a new Gallup Poll  survey. While    Europe is
   reportedly in an uproar over  biotechnology-related food safety and
   environmental concerns -- fraught with boycotts, vandalism, and charges
   of  "Frankenfood"--only 10% of Americans report having heard "a great deal"
   about the issue and just   one quarter, 27%, currently believe it poses a
   serious health hazard to consumers.
    The biotech controversy focuses on concerns that specialized   strains of
   corn, soybeans and other agricultural products may not   be safe for human
   consumption when they utilize genetic manipulation rather than traditional
   cross pollination methods. The debate encompasses food testing issues
   that could eventually test the trust Americans have in  the United States Food
   and Drug  Administration's ability to guarantee the safety of the food supply.
    According to the September 23-26 Gallup survey, Americans today seem
   quite  relaxed about food safety issues. Without reference to any specific
   hazard, 80% say they feel confident that the food available in most grocery stores
   is safe to eat; 69% feel confident  in the safety of restaurant food.
   This conviction stands in stark contrast to the situation in Europe, where
   consumer concerns and   boycotts have forced a mounting number of food
   producers and grocery chains to take a "biotech free" pledge.
    When asked specifically about the use of biotechnology in food production,
   Americans express a fair amount of uncertainty, but  nevertheless come
   down on the side of biotechnology.  Only 27% of the U.S. public currently
   believe biotechnology poses a serious health hazard to consumers; 53% think it
   does not pose a hazard, and the rest, 20%, are unsure. These levels of doubt
   and concern   are reflected in the public's responses to an additional
   question -- one that measures overall support for the use of biotechnology
   in   food production. A bare majority of Americans, 51%, say they support
   such a use of biotechnology, while 41% are opposed.
    Even though Americans' overall reaction favors the biotech industry, the
   Gallup survey--which allowed respondents to register their intensity of
   feeling on the issue--reveals that its harshest critics outnumber its
   fervent advocates by close to two to one. Overall, 9% of Americans
   strongly support biotech methods, 42% say they moderately support them, 25%
   moderately oppose them and 16% strongly oppose them.
    The strongest opposition to biotechnology is levied by lower income and
   less educated Americans, while those with college degrees and high incomes
   are most likely to be strong supporters. For instance, 21% of those with no
   college experience strongly oppose the technology, compared with
  only 8% of those with a college or postgraduate degree.
    Low public awareness of the biotech issue in the U.S. could be one
   explanation for Americans' widespread confidence in the food supply.
   Only 10% of those surveyed in the September 23-26 poll claim to have heard "a
   great deal" about the issue--defined in the survey as new scientific
   techniques such as genetic engineering and genetic modification for
   producing food and medicine. Another  40% of Americans say they have
   heard or read "some" while half indicate they have heard little to nothing about
    However, at this early stage of public awareness, those most familiar
   with the issue are also the most supportive.Two-thirds of  those who have
   heard a great deal of information about biotechnology, 66%, say they support its
   use in food production, compared to 63% among those who have heard
  "some" information, 42% of  those who have heard "not much" and 30% of   those who
  have heard nothing.
    Another potentially important factor in Americans' confidence in the safety
   of the food on their grocery store shelves is their basic confidence in
   federal oversight. Fifteen percent of Americans say they have a great deal
   of confidence in the federal government to "ensure the safety of the food
   supply," and an additional 61% have a fair amount of confidence. Just
   one-quarter express low   confidence, including 19% who have "not much"
   confidence and another 5% who express no confidence at all.
    One challenge that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
   may soon face is whether to require special labeling for products that include
   genetically modified food. Because biotech products enter foods through
   direct sources such as soy, and indirect sources such as grain feed for
   cattle, labeling of foods may require separate food distribution tracks.
   Some industry experts say this may ultimately raise consumer costs. Still,
   despite the low level of concern about potential biotech hazards,   two-thirds
   of Americans currently say they would be willing to pay more in order to
   require such labeling.
    The results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected
   national sample of 1,039 adults, 18 years and older, conducted September
   23-26, 1999. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95 percent
   confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other   random
   effects is plus or minus 3 percentage points. In addition to sampling   error,
   question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can
   introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


  Clinton Administration seeks a way out of test ban debate
October 11, 1999
  Well short of the number of votes needed to push the Comprehensive
  Test Ban Treaty through the Senate, the Clinton Administration is
  pressing for a delay of Tuesday's scheduled vote.
  President Bill Clinton wrote a letter to the Senate on Monday
  formally asking that it postpone a vote on ratifying the treaty in an
  attempt to avoid a potentially embarrassing public defeat on the issue.
  But the letter will not meet a Republican demand that Clinton
  promise not to seek a vote on the treaty for the remainder of his
  More information:


Sunday October 10

 CIA Reportedly Probing New York Virus Outbreak

 NEW YORK (Reuters) - The CIA is investigating whether a
 recent outbreak of West Nile-like fever in New York might
 have been an attempt at bio-terrorism, The New Yorker
 magazine reported Sunday.

 The virus, which killed five people and made at least 27 others
 ill, is believed to have been passed to people via mosquitoes
 that bit infected birds.

 Without quoting anyone directly at the Central Intelligence
 Agency, the magazine describes analysts there as having a
 ''whiff of concern'' that it might have been sent deliberately to
 the United States.

 Many experts have been warning for years that the United
 States is vulnerable to a bio-terrorism attack. But none has
 ever named West Nile as one of the potential weapons --
 anthrax, botulin toxin and even bubonic plague are
 considered to be the potential weapons of choice.

 West Nile virus is not particularly deadly and causes only mild
 flu-like symptoms in most people. The very young, very old or
 ill can develop encephalitis -- a swelling of the brain -- and die.

 Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 (CDC) said 50 potential or definite cases of West Nile-like
 fever had been identified in New York and said the outbreak
 was definitely on the wane. No new cases have been reported
 since Sept. 17.

 But the report in The New Yorker said the CDC had been
 asked to check on whether the virus could have been
 deliberately spread.

 ``We're taking it seriously. We'll see where the data take us,''
 the magazine quoted ``a person at the CDC'' as saying.

 Navy Secretary Richard Danzig told the magazine he was not
 alarmed. ``Even if you suspect biological terrorism, it's hard
 to prove,'' he said.

 The magazine cites a book written by a man using the name
 Mikhael Ramadan, who claimed to be an Iraqi defector and
 said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was planning to make a
 weapon out of a strain of West Nile virus.

 He described it as being ``capable of destroying 97 percent of
 all life in an urban environment.''

 The CDC has said it is concerned about the New York
 outbreak because West Nile fever has never been seen in the
 Americas before. It is common in Africa and Asia.

 Last year, U.S. and Romanian experts reported in The Lancet
 medical journal that a 1996 outbreak in Romania had been
 identified as West Nile fever, with a mortality rate of between
 4 and 8 percent. They said Europe was vulnerable to more
 such outbreaks.

 Last week, Thomas Briese and colleagues at the University of
 California at Irvine said they had identified the New York virus
 as a Kunjin/West Nile-like flavivirus.


Date: 8 Oct 1999 17:05:28 -0000
Serpent River FN to block nuclear waste
   Activists band to block nuke waste
   Uranium-laced shipment will pass through Michigan as
   it heads north to Canadian reactor
   Dale Atkins / Associated Press
   "No more. We've had enough," says Chief Earl
   Commanda of the Serpent River First Nation about a
   nuclear waste shipment through his tribal land in
   By Dee-Ann Durbin / Associated Press
   LANSING -- A Canadian Indian chief whose tribal land
   has endured nuclear waste dumping for decades joined
   Michigan activists Tuesday to try to stop a
   scheduled shipment of plutonium through the state.
   Chief Earl Commanda of the Serpent River First
   Nation, which is on the north shore of Lake Huron in
   Ontario, said the tribe has suffered from increased
   rates of lung cancer and thyroid disease since
   uranium mines opened on tribal land in the 1950s.
   Wildlife also has been decimated by the estimated
   250 million tons of uranium-laced waste in the area,
   Commanda said. Now, the tribe is determined not to
   let a shipment of weapons-grade plutonium move
   through tribal land on its way from New Mexico to an
   Ontario reactor. "When something like this issue
   comes up, the community says, 'No more. We've had
   enough,'" Commanda said. "It seems like we've become
   kind of a nuclear sacrifice zone." This fall, the
   U.S. Energy Department wants to ship a mixture of
   plutonium oxide and uranium oxide from
   the Los Alamos nuclear lab in New Mexico to a
   reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, about 100 miles
   west of Ottawa. The fuel contains four ounces of
   plutonium from disassembled nuclear weapons. Under
   the department's plan, special trucks carrying the
   mixture would pass Kalamazoo, Battle Creek and
   Lansing before heading north on Interstate 75 at
   Flint. Trucks would then cross the Mackinac Bridge
   and the International Bridge at Sault Ste. Marie.
   Federal officials insist the plan is safe. The
   plutonium would be encased in ceramic and
   transported in a container that has been tested to
   withstand severe impact, punctures, fire and water,
   the Energy Department said. But that's not enough to
   satisfy Anabel Dwyer, head of a Lansing coalition
   trying to stop the shipment. Her group is sending
   letters to the Energy Department before the
   department's Oct. 24 deadline for public comment.
   The group is also trying to get Lansing and other
   cities to pass resolutions against the shipment.
   Dwyer said her
   concern goes beyond the Michigan route. "We have no
   clue, apparently, how to deal with (nuclear waste),
   and yet we keep producing it," she said. "If this
   goes through, it will just be a precursor to many
   more shipments and it does not reduce the
   radioactivity or the danger of the weapons." Marion
   Anderson, head of Employment Research Associates in
   Lansing, agreed. "Why is the human race producing a
   material that cannot be stored in the earth, on the
   earth, in the air or in the water?" she said. The
   Michigan Environmental Council, which also met
   Tuesday with Commanda, said it has sent alerts to
   its 7,000 members and expects many of them to
   protest to the Energy Department. James Clift,
   policy director for the council, said his group
   doesn't accept the idea that the Canadian reactor
   might turn the waste into a new source of fuel. "The
   gain that we're getting out of it is so minuscule
   and it's so dangerous that it's not worth the risk
   to the people of the United States and Canada,"
   he said. Commanda said it's important for his tribe
   to work with Michigan because the issue affects the
   entire region. "If it doesn't come through
   (Michigan), it doesn't come to us," he said.


Healing Global Wounds heal@kay-net.com
Activists Protest Failed Ratification of CTBT & Yucca Mt. Nuke Dump
  Wednesday, October 06, 1999
  For immediate release from Healing Global Wounds
  Activists Gather to Protest Failed Ratification of Comprehensive
  Test Ban Treaty and Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Dump
  Nevada Test Site, October 8-11, 1999
  Where: One hour north of Las Vegas on Hwy 95, southbound Mercury Exit,
  across from the entrance to NTS.
       Activists from all over the United States and Native Nations will
  gather at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site for four days, October 8-11,
  1999. The event is hosted by Healing Global Wounds, a multi-cultural
  Alliance of Native and other environmental groups. They are there to
  protest the failure of the Senate this week to ratify the Comprehensive
  Test Ban Treaty. They are also opposed to the Department of Energy's
  (DOE) continued attempts to push through the Yucca Mt. High-Level
  Nuclear Waste Repository despite overwhelming evidence that it is a
  seriously flawed plan.
       Simultaneously, some members of HGW will be joining the U.S.
  Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, meeting in Ann Arbor Michigan to
  discuss the next steps in nuclear disarmament strategy. In France,
  Movement Pour La Paix (Movement for Peace) will be meeting and
  demonstrating over the weekend against the French nuclear Weapons
  testing facility in Bordeaux.
       Since the United States resumed nuclear weapons testing at the
  Nevada Test Site in 1997, other nations around the world have resumed or
  initiated their own nuclear weapons testing plans. The U.S. weapons
  testing program threatens world security by encouraging further
  development of nuclear weapons worldwide, rather than moving towards
  nuclear disarmament.
       On August 6th, The DOE released the Draft Environmental Impact
  Statement for the Yucca Mountain Repository. A peer review by other
  scientists found the document to be highly flawed, misleading,
  indecisive, and illegal under many aspects of the National Environmental
  Protection Act.
      In addition, the Yucca Mountain plan proposes to withdraw a total of
  230 square miles of Western Shoshone lands guaranteed under the 1863
  Treaty of Ruby Valley. Activists from around the world are part of a
  growing movement to support the Shoshone and other Native Nations in
  their fight for basic human, land and health rights. Federal policies
  have adversely and disproportionately targeted Native lands in every
  aspect of the nuclear chain, from uranium mining through the siting of
  processing, research, weapons testing, and now dumping sites. Coalitions
  based on Native/activist alliances have successfully defeated proposed
  low-level dumps in Ward Valley, California, and Sierra Blanca, Texas.
       Each day will begin at dawn with a traditional Native Sunrise
  Ceremony on the Nevada Test Site itself, stolen from the Western
  Shoshone in 1948. Ceremonies will be led by Western Shoshone Spiritual
  Leader Corbin Harney, and will encourage prayer offerings by individuals
  of all faiths.
  Friday Oct 8th: Planning for the Honor Your Mother 2000 gathering at
  NTS, May 11-14, 2000.
  Saturday 9th: Workshop on Yucca Mt Waste Repository DEIS, with Judy
  Treichel and Steve Frishman of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force. Open
  mike for updates from member organizations about their own sites and
  Sunday 10th: Nonviolence training and action planning for Monday
  Monday 11th: Celebrate Indigenous Peoples' Day with Sunrise Ceremony and
  site inspection at Yucca Mt. itself.
  Healing Global Wounds, PO Box 420, Tecopa CA 92389 USA
  (760) 852-4175  Fax (760)852-4151  heal@kay-net.com
  Aliance Coordinator: Jennifer Olaranna Viereck
  Fall Healing Global Wounds Gathering Oct. 8-11,
  Nevada Nuclear Test Site gates.
     Workshops on Yucca Mt Waste Repository DEIS and sane alternatives.
     Celebrate Indigenous Peoples' Day on Western Shoshone lands with
       Ceremony and site inspection of Yucca Mt.
  For a complete 16 page newsletter on many nuclear
  issues worldwide, send
  postal address.
     Religious Action For Nuclear Disarmament
     A gathering for 30 Dec 1999 - 2 Jan 2000, Las
  Vegas and NTS
  For more information, please see:

For Other Events..Click Here


Activists band to block nuke waste

Uranium-laced shipment will pass through Michigan as
it heads north to Canadian reactor
Dale Atkins / Associated Press

"No more. We've had enough," says Chief Earl
Commanda of the Serpent River First Nation about a
nuclear waste shipment through his tribal land in

By Dee-Ann Durbin / Associated Press

LANSING -- A Canadian Indian chief whose tribal land has endured nuclear waste dumping for decades joined Michigan activists Tuesday to try to stop a scheduled shipment of plutonium through the state. Chief Earl Commanda of the Serpent River First Nation, which is on the north shore of Lake Huron in Ontario, said the tribe has suffered from increased rates of lung cancer and thyroid disease since uranium mines opened on tribal land in the 1950s. Wildlife also has been decimated by the estimated 250 million tons of uranium-laced waste in the area, Commanda said. Now, the tribe is determined not to let a shipment of weapons-grade plutonium move through tribal land on its way from New Mexico to an Ontario reactor. "When something like this issue comes up, the community says, 'No more. We've had enough,'" Commanda said. "It seems like we've become kind of a nuclear sacrifice zone." This fall, the U.S. Energy Department wants to ship a mixture of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide from  the Los Alamos nuclear lab in New Mexico to a reactor in Chalk River, Ontario, about 100 miles west of Ottawa. The fuel contains four ounces of plutonium from disassembled nuclear weapons. Under the department's plan, special trucks carrying the mixture would pass Kalamazoo, Battle Creek and Lansing before heading north on Interstate 75 at Flint. Trucks would then cross the Mackinac Bridge and the International Bridge at Sault Ste. Marie. Federal officials insist the plan is safe. The plutonium would be encased in ceramic and transported in a container that has been tested to withstand severe impact, punctures, fire and water, the Energy Department said. But that's not enough to satisfy Anabel Dwyer, head of a Lansing coalition trying to stop the shipment. Her group is sending letters to the Energy Department before the department's Oct. 24 deadline for public comment. The group is also trying to get Lansing and other cities to pass resolutions against the shipment. Dwyer said her concern goes beyond the Michigan route. "We have no clue, apparently, how to deal with (nuclear waste), and yet we keep producing it," she said. "If this goes through, it will just be a precursor to many more shipments and it does not reduce the radioactivity or the danger of the weapons." Marion Anderson, head of Employment Research Associates in Lansing, agreed. "Why is the human race producing a material that cannot be stored in the earth, on the earth, in the air or in the water?" she said. The Michigan Environmental Council, which also met Tuesday with Commanda, said it has sent alerts to its 7,000 members and expects many of them to protest to the Energy Department. James Clift, policy director for the council, said his group doesn't accept the idea that the Canadian reactor might turn the waste into a new source of fuel. "The gain that we're getting out of it is so minuscule and it's so dangerous that it's not worth the risk to the people of the United States and Canada,"  he said. Commanda said it's important for his tribe to work with Michigan because the issue affects the entire region. "If it doesn't come through (Michigan), it doesn't come to us," he said.


Mohawk leaders promise fight against plutonium

For your information:
National News
Calgary Herald    


KAHNAWAKE, Que. (CP) - Mohawk leaders promised Friday
their communities will use "human resistance" to stop the
shipment of plutonium through native territory. Atomic
Energy of Canada is planning to move up to 50 tonnes of
fuel containing plutonium along the St. Lawrence Seaway
before it reaches its final destination of Chalk River, Ont.

Part of the route would go through Mohawk territory on the
Kahnawake reserve south of Montreal and the Akwesasne
reserve which straddles Quebec, Ontario and New York state.

Mohawk leaders warned they won't let the plutonium pass.
It is expected to arrive in Canada from Russia in November.

"We will use every means possible to prevent it from coming
through our territory," Joe Norton, grand chief of the
Kahnawake Mohawks, told a news conference.

Norton and Akwesasne Grand Chief Mike Mitchell both referred
to the nuclear accident in Japan on Thursday when 55 people
were exposed to radiation at a uranium-processing plant.
Three people were listed in serious condition and given
little chance of survival.

"We feel no reassurance that the kind of precautions and
safety measures that are being taken will in any way prevent
something happening," Norton said.

Mitchell said the Mohawks hope "common sense" will prevail.
But if the plan goes ahead, court action is a possibility.
And if that doesn't work, "human resistance" will be next,
Mitchell said.

Asked to be more specific, he said: "That speaks pretty
clear, what that would mean - humans getting together and
resisting. We don't wish to participate in one big
experiment hosted by Canada."

Mitchell said there is also a danger that the ship could run
aground before it reaches Cornwall, Ont., because of lower
water levels in the St. Lawrence.

Norton, meanwhile, raised the possibility that terrorists
might be interested in hijacking the ship. He also urged all
Canadians to voice their opposition to the plan.

"Canadians in general are too damned complacent," Norton
said. "They just sit back and allow things to happen."

Transport Canada official John Read said Atomic Energy of
Canada has filed a request to get the federal agency to
approve its emergency response plan.

Read said Canadians have until Oct. 15 to make their
comments known on the idea. Transport Canada will decide by
Oct. 29 whether to grant permission.

Read said not enough plutonium is being shipped for
explosions to be a possibility.

"To have a critical mass, you need four kilograms, 4,000
grams," he said from Ottawa. "What's involved is 132 grams.
So, for this shipment, we've dismissed the possibility."

The ship will sail from St. Petersburg to Cornwall, where
the contents will be shipped by road to a nuclear-research
facility in Chalk River in the Ottawa Valley.

Norton said that if the mission goes off without a hitch,
federal officials might be encouraged to allow Canada to
become a dumping ground for nuclear waste from abroad.

Larry White, a member of the Akwesasne emergency
preparedness team, said the plutonium will likely be shipped
in November.

Š The Canadian Press, 1999


WOMEN: Tampon makers include asbestos in tampons.
October 7, 1999

Please  pass on to as many women as possible. . .If
you use pads, but especially if you use tampons read
this and pass on to your friends (for the men,
please forward it to your friends, significant
others, sisters, mothers, daughters, etc.) thanks!

Have you heard that tampon makers include asbestos in
tampons?  Why would they do this? Because asbestos
makes you bleed more. . . if you bleed more, you're
going to need to use more. Why isn't this against the
law since asbestos is so dangerous?  Because the
powers that be, in all their wisdom(not), did not consider
tampons as being ingested, and therefore wasn't
illegal or considered dangerous.

This month's Essence magazine has a small article
about this and they mention two manufacturers of a
cotton tampon alternative.  The companies are Organic
Essentials @ (800) 765-6491 and Terra Femme

A woman getting her Ph.D. at University of Colorado @
Boulder sent the following: "I am writing this because
women are not being informed about the dangers of
something most of us use - tampons.   I am taking a
class this month and I have been learning a lot about
biology and woman, including much about feminine

Recently we have learned that tampons are actually
dangerous(for other reasons than TSS). I'll tell you
this, after learning about this in our class, most of
the females wound up feeling angry and upset with the
tampon industry, and I for one, am going to do
something about it.  To start, I want to inform
everyone I can, and email is the fastest way that I
know how.

Here is the scoop:  Tampons contain two things that are
potentially harmful: Rayon (for absorbency), and
dioxin (a chemical used in bleaching the products).
The tampon industry is convinced that we, as women, need
bleached white products - in order to view the product as pure
and clean.  The problem here is that the dioxin
produced in this bleaching process can lead to very
harmful problems for a woman.  Dioxin is potentially
carcinogenic (cancer-associated) and is toxic to the
immune and reproductive systems.  It has also been
linked to endometriosis and lower sperm counts for men-
for both, it breaks down the immune system.

Last September the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) reported that there really is no set
"acceptable" level of exposure to dioxin given that it
is cumulative and slow to disintegrate.  The real danger comes from
repeated contact (Karen Houppert "Pulling the Plug on
the Tampon Industry").  I'd say using about 4-5
tampons a day, five days a month, for 38 menstruating
years is "repeated contact", wouldn't you?

Rayon contributes to the danger of tampons and dioxin
because its a highly absorbent substance.  Therefore,
when fibers from the tampons are left behind in the
vagina (as it usually occurs), it creates a breeding
ground for the dioxin. It also stays in a lot longer
than it would with just cotton tampons.  This is also
the reason why TSS (toxic shock syndrome) occurs.

Using feminine hygiene
products that aren't bleached and that are all cotton.
Other feminine hygiene products ds/napkins) contain
dioxin as well, but they are not nearly as dangerous
since they are not in direct contact with the vagina.
The pads/napkins need to stop being bleached, but
obviously tampons are the most dangerous.

Top of page

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)