START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Oct 4, 2007
My moment of plastic panic came a few months ago. As a science writer, I've spent the past several years following the steady stream of research into the disturbing effects of the chemicals that leach into our bodies from everyday plastic objects. I'd managed to stay pretty calm about these unsettling discoveries, but then I went to yet another presentation where renowned scientists described new, peer-reviewed findings on how plastic's ingredients may cause reproductive abnormalities and obesity. Afterward, I huddled with the other journalists present, brimming with uneasy questions: Does this mean we should ditch our refillable plastic water bottles? Is it safe for our kids to chew on plastic toys? Should we try to go completely plastic free?

It's one thing to use cloth shopping bags in the name of ecofriendliness or to forswear plastic cutlery in the pursuit of style; it's another to eschew plastics because they might be a health risk. But are you about to give up your computer or cell phone? What about your bike helmet or your child's car seat? Your contact lenses? Your toothbrush? Probably not.

Full story:

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 4, 2007 8:59am
Sep 5, 2007
Prof.Jane Plant:Respected Scientist Tells of Remarkable Breast
Cancer Cure 1.24.00

http://members. uk/AllThingsChil dren/MilkCancer. htm

Daily Mail, Monday, May 27, 2000 Prof. Jane Plant, PhD, CBE
[ http://www.litopia. com/jplant/ bio.htm ]

Why I believe that giving up milk is the key to beating breast cancer

Professor Jane Plant is a wife, a mother, and widely respected
scientist, who was made a CBE for her work in geochemistry. When she
was struck by breast cancer in 1987 at the age of 42, her happy and
productive existence seemed destined to fall apart.

But despite the
disease recurring a further four times, Jane refused to give in. As
she describes in an inspiring new book, [Your Life In Your Hands]
serialised by the Mail this week, she devised a revolutionary diet
and lifestyle programme that she believes saved her life and can cut
the chances of other women falling prey to the disease.

Her theory remains a controversial one - but every woman should
read it and make up her own mind. Today, she explains her personal
breakthrough. ..

I had no alternative but to die or to try to find a cure for myself.
I am a scientist - surely there was a rational explanation for this
cruel illness that affects one in 12 women in the UK?

I had suffered the loss of one breast, and undergone radiotherapy. I
was now receiving painful chemotherapy, and had been seen by some of
the country's most eminent specialists. But, deep down, I felt
certain I was facing death.

I had a loving husband, a beautiful home and two young children to
care for. I desperately wanted to live. Fortunately, this desire
drove me to unearth the facts, some of which were known only to a
handful of scientists at the time.

Anyone who has come into contact with breast cancer will know that
certain risk factors - such as increasing age, early onset of
womanhood, late onset of menopause and a family history of breast
cancer - are completely out of our control. But there are many risk
factors, which we can control easily.
These 'controllable' risk
factors readily translate into simple changes that we can all make
in our day-to-day lives to help prevent or treat breast cancer. My
message is that even advanced breast cancer can be overcome because
I have done it.

The first clue to understanding what was promoting my breast cancer
came when my husband Peter, who was also a scientist, arrived back
from working in China while I was being plugged in for a
chemotherapy session.

He had brought with him cards and letters, as well as some amazing
herbal suppositories, sent by my friends and science colleagues in

The suppositories were sent to me as a cure for breast cancer.
Despite the awfulness of the situation, we both had a good belly
laugh, and I remember saying that this was the treatment for breast
cancer in China, then it was little wonder that Chinese women
avoided getting the disease.
Those words echoed in my mind. Why
didn't Chinese women get breast cancer? I had collaborated once with
Chinese colleagues on a study of links between soil chemistry and
disease, and I remembered some of the statistics.

The disease was virtually non-existent throughout the whole country.
Only one in 10,000 women in China will die from it, compared to that
terrible figure of one in 12 in Britain and the even grimmer average
of one in 10 across most Western countries.

It is not just a matter of China being a more rural country, with
less urban pollution. In highly urbanised Hong Kong, the rate rises
to 34 women in every 10,000 but still puts the West to shame.

The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have similar rates.
And remember, both cities were attacked with nuclear weapons, so in
addition to the usual pollution-related cancers, one would also
expect to find some radiation-related cases, too.

The conclusion we
can draw from these statistics strikes you with some force. If a
Western woman were to move to industrialized, irradiated Hiroshima,
she would stash her risk of contracting breast cancer by half.

Obviously this is absurd. It seemed obvious to me that some
lifestyle factor not related to pollution, urbanization or the
environment is seriously increasing the Western woman's chance of
contracting breast cancer.

I then discovered that whatever causes the huge differences in
breast cancer rates between oriental and Western countries, it isn't
genetic. Scientific research showed that when Chinese or Japanese
people move to the West, within one or two generations their rates
of breast cancer approach those of their host community.

The same thing happens when oriental people adopt a completely
Western lifestyle in Hong Kong. In fact, the slang name for breast
cancer in China translates as 'Rich Woman's Disease'. This is
because, in China, only the better off can afford to eat what is
termed 'Hong Kong food'.

The Chinese describe all Western food, including everything from ice
cream and chocolate bars to spaghetti and feta cheese, as 'Hong Kong
food', because of its availability in the former British colony and
its scarcity, in the past, in mainland China.

So it made perfect sense to me that whatever was causing my breast
cancer and the shockingly high incidence in this country generally,
it was almost certainly something to do with our better-off, middle-
class, Western lifestyle.

There is an important point for men here, too. I have observed in my
research that much of the the data about prostate cancer leads to
similar conclusions.

According to figures from the World Health Organization, the number
of men contracting prostate cancer in rural China is negligible,
only 0.5 men in every 100,000. In England, Scotland and Wales,
however, this figure is 70 times higher.

Like breast cancer, it is a middle-class disease that primarily
attacks the wealthier and higher socio-economic groups - those that
can afford to eat rich foods.

I remember saying to my husband-- 'Come on Peter, you have just come
back from China.

What is it about the Chinese way of life that is so
different. Why don't they get breast cancer?'

We decided to utilize our joint scientific backgrounds and approach
it logically. We examined scientific data that pointed us in the
general direction of fats in diets.

Researchers had discovered in the 1980s that only l4 % of calories
in the average Chinese diet were from fat, compared to almost 36% in
the West. But the diet I had been living on for years before I
contracted breast cancer was very low in fat and high in fibre.

Besides, I knew as a scientist that fat intake in adults has not
been shown to increase risk for breast cancer in most investigations
that have followed large groups of women for up to a dozen years.

Then one day something rather special happened. Peter and I have
worked together so closely over the years that I am not sure which
one of us first said: 'The Chinese don't eat dairy produce!'

It is hard to explain to a non-scientist the sudden mental and
emotional 'buzz' you get when you know you have had an important

It's as if you have had a lot of pieces of a jigsaw in your mind,
and suddenly, in a few seconds, they all fall into place and the
whole picture is clear.

Suddenly I recalled how many Chinese people were physically unable
to tolerate milk, how the Chinese people I had worked with had
always said that milk was only for babies, and how one of my close
friends, who is of Chinese origin, always politely turned down the
cheese course at dinner parties.

I knew of no Chinese people who lived a traditional Chinese life who
ever used cow or other dairy food to feed their babies. The
tradition was to use a wet nurse but never, ever, dairy products.

Culturally, the Chinese find our Western preoccupation with milk and
milk products very strange. I remember entertaining a large
delegation of Chinese scientists shortly after the ending of the
Cultural Revolution in the 1980s.

On advice from the Foreign Office, we had asked the caterer to
provide a pudding that contained a lot of ice cream. After inquiring
what the pudding consisted of, all of the Chinese, including their
interpreter, politely but firmly refused to eat it, and they could
not be persuaded to change their minds. At the time we were all
delighted and ate extra portions!

Milk, I discovered, is one of the most common causes of food

Over 70% of the world's population are unable to digest the milk
sugar, lactose, which has led nutritionists to believe that this is
the normal condition for adults, not some sort of deficiency.
Perhaps nature is trying to tell us that we are eating the wrong

Before I had breast cancer for the first time, I had eaten a lot of
dairy produce, such as skimmed milk, low-fat cheese and yoghurt. I
had used it as my main source of protein. I also ate cheap but lean
minced beef, which I now realized was probably often ground-up dairy

In order to cope with the chemotherapy I received for my fifth case
of cancer, I had been eating organic yoghurts as a way of helping my
digestive tract to recover and repopulate my gut with 'good'

Recently, I discovered that way back in 1989 yoghurt had been
implicated in ovarian cancer. Dr Daniel Cramer of Harvard University
studied hundreds of women with ovarian cancer, and had them record
in detail what they normally ate. I wish I'd been made aware of his
findings when he had first discovered them.

Following Peter's and my insight into the Chinese diet, I decided to
give up not just yoghurt but all dairy produce immediately. Cheese,
butter, milk and yoghurt and anything else that contained dairy
produce - it went down the sink or in the rubbish.

It is surprising how many products, including commercial soups,
biscuits and cakes, contain some form of dairy produce.
Even many
proprietary brands of margarine marketed as soya, sunflower or olive
oil spreads can contain dairy produce. I therefore became an avid
reader of the small print on food labels.

Up to this point, I had been steadfastly measuring the progress of
my fifth cancerous lump with callipers and plotting the results.
Despite all the encouraging comments and positive feedback from my
doctors and nurses, my own precise observations told me the bitter

My first chemotherapy sessions had produced no effect - the lump
was still the same size.

Then I eliminated dairy products. Within days, the lump started to
shrink. About two weeks after my second chemotherapy session and
one week after giving up dairy produce, the lump in my neck started
to itch. Then it began to soften and to reduce in size. The line on
the graph, which had shown no change, was now pointing downwards as
the tumour got smaller and smaller.

And, very significantly, I noted that instead of declining
exponentially (a graceful curve) as cancer is meant to do, the
tumour's decrease in size was plotted on a straight line heading off
the bottom of the graph, indicating a cure, not suppression (or
remission) of the tumour.

One Saturday afternoon after about six weeks of excluding all dairy
produce from my diet, I practised an hour of meditation then felt
for what was left of the lump. I couldn't find it.

Yet I was very experienced at detecting cancerous lumps - I had
discovered all five cancers on my own. I went downstairs and asked
my husband to feel my neck. He could not find any trace of the lump

On the following Thursday I was due to be seen by my cancer
specialist at Charing Cross Hospital in London.

He examined me thoroughly, especially my neck where the tumour had
been. He was initially bemused and then delighted as he said, "I
cannot find it.' None of my doctors, it appeared, had expected
someone with my type and stage of cancer (which had clearly spread
to the lymph system) to survive, let alone be so hale and hearty.

My specialist was as overjoyed as I was. When I first discussed my
ideas with him he was understandably skeptical. But I understand
that he now uses maps showing cancer mortality in China in his
lectures, and recommends a non-dairy diet to his cancer patients.

I now believe that the link between dairy produce and breast cancer
is similar to the link between smoking and lung cancer. I believe
that identifying the link between breast cancer and dairy produce,
and then developing a diet specifically targeted at maintaining the
health of my breast and hormone system, cured me.

It was difficult for me, as it may be for you, to accept that a
substance as 'natural' as milk might have such ominous health
implications. But I am a living proof that it works and, starting
from tomorrow, I shall reveal the secrets of my revolutionary action

Extracted from Your Life in Your Hands, by Professor Jane Plant, to
be published by Virgin on June 8 at £16.99. © Professor Jane Plant,

Evidence that reveals the dangers lurking in a pinta

Jane Plant's conviction that dairy products can cause cancer arises
from the complex chemical makeup of milk. All mature breast milk,
from humans or other mammals, is a medium for transporting hundreds
of chemical components.

It is a powerful biochemical solution, designed specifically to
provide for the individual needs of young mammals of the same
species. Jane says: "It is not that cow's milk isn't a good food. It
is a great food- for baby cows. It is not intended by nature for
consumption by any species other than baby cows.
It is nutritionally different from human breast milk, containing
threetimes as much protein and far more calcium.'

Breast milk, like cow's milk, contains chemicals designed to play an
important rote in the development of young cattle. One of these,
insulin growth factor IGF-1,causes cells to divide and reproduce.

IGF-1 is biologically active in humans, especially during puberty,
when growth is rapid. In young girls it stimulates breast tissue to
grow and, while its levels are high during pregnancy, the hormones
prolactin and oestrogen are also active, enlarging breast tissue and
increasing the production of milk ducts in preparation for breast-

Though the concentration and secretions of these hormones in the
blood are small, they exert a powerful effect on the body. All these
hormones are present in cow's milk. IGF-1 is identical in make-up,
whether in human or cow's milk, but its levels are naturally higher
in cow's milk. It is also found in the meat of cows.

High levels of IGF-1 in humans are thought to be a risk factor for
breast and prostate cancer. A 1998 study of pre-menopausal women
revealed that those with the highest levels of IGF-1 in their
bloodstream ran almost three times the risk of developing breast
cancer compared with women who had low levels. Among women younger
than 50, the risk was increased seven times.

Other studies have shown that high circulating levels of IGF-1 In
men are a strong indicator of prostate cancer. Interestingly, recent
measures to improve milk yields have boosted IGF-1 levels in cows.

Could IGF-1 from milk and the meat of dairy animals cause a build-up
in humans, especially over a lifetime, leading to inappropriate cell
division? Though we produce our own IGF-1, could it be that the
extra amounts we ingest from dairy produce actually cause cancer?

Jane Plant already knew that one way the high-profile drug
tamoxifen, used in the treatment of breast cancer, is thought to
work by lowering circulating levels of IGF-1.

IGF-1 is not destroyed by pasteurization, but critics argue that it
is destroyed by digestion
and rendered harmless. Jane believes the main milk protein, casein,
prevents this from happening and that homogenization, which prevents
milk from separating into milk and cream, could further increase the
risk of cancer-promoting hormones and other chemicals reaching the

She also believes there are other chemicals in cow's milk that may
be responsible for
sending muddied signals to adult tissue. Could prolactin, released
to stimulate milk production in cows, have a similar effect on human
breast tissue, effectively triggering the same response and causing
cells to become confused, stressed and start making mistakes in
replicating their own DNA?

Studies have confirmed that prolactin
promotes the growth of prostate cancer cells in culture.

Another hormone, oestrogen, considered one of the main risk factors
for breast cancer, is present in milk in minute quantities. But even
low levels of hormones are known to cause severe biological damage.
Microscopic quantities of oestrogen in our rivers are powerful
enough to cause the feminisation of many male species of fish. While
oestrogen in milk may not pose a direct threat to tissues, it may
stimulate the expression of IGF-1, resulting in long-term tumour

Jane, who has found growing support for her theories from cancer
specialists, stresses
that she is not setting out to attack more orthodox approaches. She
intends her dietary programme to complement the best therapies
available from conventional medicine, not to replace them.

Pure but deadly: Is milk potentially fatal?
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* ******

http://www.ostomyin ternational. org/June2000/ 1124.html

Dairy-free diet and breast/colon cancer
[ IOA Archived Discussion Forum May 2000 ]
Posted By Leslie Dungan on June 19, 2000 at 17:40:01:
The following review appeared last week in the Irish Times.

Has anyone out there opinions or experiences relevant to Prof
Plant's approach? British scientist Jane Plant, who believes a dairy-
free diet helped her recover from breast cancer, talks to Katie

Tempted by a cream bun, you talk yourself out of it with thoughts of
all that unhealthy fat clogging up your arteries. You opt for a low-
fat yoghurt instead, with skimmed milk in your tea, congratulating
yourself on your sensible self-control. Think again. According to a
ground-breaking new book about breast cancer (which kills over 600
women in Ireland annually), dairy products, whether low-fat or full
cream, should be off everyone's menu overnight. (They are also
culpable with regard to prostate cancer, so that really means

Prof Jane Plant CBE, author of Your Life in Your Hands, was
diagnosed with breast cancer 13 years ago. She was 42, a successful
geochemist (she is now chief scientist of the British Geological
Survey), and led, she thought, a healthy life.
There was no history
of breast cancer in her family. She discovered that "only five to 10
per cent of breast cancers are the result of inherited genes, and
the disease may not always develop, even in those carrying the
mutated gene." Bamboozled by jargon and frozen with panic, she fell
back on her scientific training to try and figure out how she had
developed the disease, and how best to cure herself.

She went on the Bristol diet, she had a mastectomy, she had
radiotherapy, she had her ovaries irradiated (to induce menopause
and eliminate oestrogen), she asked questions and did lots of
research. To no avail.

By the time of the cancer's fifth recurrence (it spread into the
lymph), she was given a course of chemotherapy and three months to
live. She had an egg-sized tumour on the side of her neck.

Brainstorming one night with her fellow scientist husband about why,
in the West, one in 10 women get breast cancer (one in 14 in
Ireland), while in China it's only one woman in 10,000, the pair
came up with the simple answer: Chinese people don't eat dairy

Plant eliminated all dairy products (including goat and sheep) from
her diet. Six weeks later, the tumour had disappeared.

When I meet her she is a youthful-looking woman in her mid-fifties,
quaffing mint tea and eating a tuna sandwich (no butter or
mayonnaise). She has stayed on her dairy-free diet and has remained
clear of cancer.

Giving up dairy products was only part of a healthy regimen she had
been following throughout her cancer, including taking folic acid
and zinc supplements, drinking filtered water and never consuming
anything that had been packaged in plastic (phthalates, harmful
carcinogenic chemicals, leak from soft plastic into food).

In spite of her best efforts it was only after she gave up all dairy
products that the cancer disappeared. Sixty-three other women who
had breast cancer and who came to her for advice, also recovered
after giving up dairy products.

So how, I ask, can dairy products-- beloved of both the Irish and
British alike, not to mention the Americans whose diet is 40 per
cent dairy-- have such a lethal effect? "Milk is designed as the
perfect food for newborn animals. They can't eat ordinary food, they
are dependent on milk to keep development and cell differentiation
going. But milk contains a chemical-- insulin-like growth factor, or

IGF-1 -- which girls have naturally as teenagers
to help their breasts develop. This chemical-- which is designed to
stimulate cell growth-- can send the wrong signal to adult breast

She quotes studies in the US and Canada in 1998 which found that pre-
menopausal women with the highest IGF-1 concentration in their blood
had a far higher risk of developing breast cancer (similar studies
have found a link between IGF-1 and prostate cancer). The drug
Tamoxifen, prescribed for women with breast cancer, is thought to
work by reducing circulating IGF-1 levels.

"Over 70 per cent of the world's population are unable to digest the
milk sugar, lactose," she observes. "Lactose intolerance may be
nature's early warning system: perhaps nature is trying to tell us
that we're eating the wrong food." Homogenization apparently only
enables cancer-producing chemicals to reach the bloodstream quicker.

Plant has done her homework: "Epidemiological studies have indicated
a positive correlation between dairy product consumption and breast
cancer risk going back two decades. Studies have found an increase
in breast cancer risk among women who consumed milk (especially
whole milk) and/or cheese."

In 1977 scientists examining the incidence of breast cancer in Japan
found "a significant increase in both the consumption of dairy
products and the occurrence of breast cancer in urban areas".

She quotes more research to suggest that "free oestrogens"- - found
in commercial pasteurized whole cow's milk and in skimmed milk-- may
stimulate expression of IGF-1 resulting in "indirect long-term
tumour growth".

She lists dioxins and other damaging environmental chemicals, some
of them carcinogenic, which are often fat soluble and end
up "particularly concentrated" in milk.

As for the argument that we need dairy products because they contain
calcium, Plant quotes the World Health Organization' s finding that
countries which have low intakes of calcium do not have an increased
incidence of osteoporosis:

"Scientific studies into calcium
absorption have shown that only 18 to 36 per cent of the calcium in
milk is taken up by the body."

Now that we're convinced, what should we be eating instead? Plant
recommends soya milk, herbal tea, humous, tofu, nuts and seeds, non-
farmed fish, organic eggs and lean meat (not minced beef, which
tends to be dairy cow) and plenty of fresh organic fruit and
vegetables (in salads, juiced, or lightly steamed).

But how can the average woman afford the time and energy it takes to
source and prepare such food? "Your priority should be good food,
not glop," she stresses. "Put organic food first. Your health is
more important than a new car. Anyway, I don't find it too costly--
after all, I don't buy any processed food, which is very expensive."

Her husband and two children have no problem following her diet. And
although she travels a lot for her job, she finds that she is able
to manage-- she includes many tips in her book about what to bring
with you on a trip (dried soya milk, herbal tea bags, kelp tablets
for iodine, etc).

She is about to start writing a new book, a guide for busy women who
want to stay healthy.

She advocates thorough and frequent self-examination of your
breasts, and, if you do develop breast cancer, self-empowerment by
working with your doctor "as a partner,
not as a victim".

She is not a fan of the Louise Hay You Can Heal Your Life
philosophy: "I do believe in positive thinking, but I'm also a
scientist and I wanted a rational explanation. I have friends with
diseases like MS who have read Hay's books and feel guilty because
they can't adapt their mental attitude; or, if they have adapted,
and the disease doesn't go away, they become distressed."

Plant, who is an advocate of acupuncture, has varying opinions of
alternative therapies. She is suspicious of aromatherapy, found
visualization didn't work, but took much comfort from cognitive
therapy and hypnotherapy (both of which helped her to reduce the
stress and anxiety caused by having cancer).

Overall, however, it was her professional research as a geochemist
into the links between disease and trace elements (such as selenium)
in the environment in China and Korea that led to her insight about
the role of dairy produce in her cancer. She finds the medical
profession particularly shortsighted about the influence of
environmental factors-- such as pollution and industrialization- - on
disease: "I think public health has done a lot for the elimination
of infectious diseases, but looking at the environment and nutrition
could do the same for a lot of degenerative diseases."

Plant started writing Your Life in Your Hands for her daughter Emma
(now 25). Emma's teen years were dominated by the fear that her
mother was going to die: "The book's original title was What I Want
My Daughter to Know," recalls Plant. "The 63 women with breast
cancer who followed my diet and survived their cancer encouraged me
to publish the book. I was reluctant at first-- I knew I'd get flak
for it, because science is an
adversarial process.

But morally, I felt if I had done the research and I had the
information, I should share it with others. Men and women have the
right to know what I know, and to draw their own
conclusions. "

Your Life in Your Hands by Jane Plant is published by Virgin at
£16.99 in UK

Leslie Dungan, Dublin
************ ********* ********* ********* ********* *******

http://www.litopia. com/jplant/

Welcome to BCUP's website
Breast Cancer Understanding & Prevention (BCUP)

BCUP is the foundation established by Professor Jane Plant CBE to
promote more widespread understanding of the insights into the
causes of breast cancer as first described in her book "Your Life In
Your Hands", published in Britain by Virgin Publishing Ltd. BCUP is
currently in the process of acquiring charitable status in the UK.

Professor Jane Plant is one of Britain's most distinguished female
scientists. She has won many scientific honors, and last year was
presented with British science's highest award
-- the Lord Kilgerran Prize.

http://www.alkalize forhealth. net/Lnotmilk6. htm

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 5, 2007 5:49pm
Apr 3, 2007

#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media

Sources:, July 18, 2005
Title: “Web of Deceit: How Internet Freedom Got the Federal Ax, and Why Corporate News Censored the Story”
Author: Elliot D. Cohen, Ph.D.

Student Researchers: Lauren Powell, Brett Forest, and Zoe Huffman
Faculty Evaluator: Andrew Roth, Ph.D.

Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as “network neutrality,” the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC’s Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day (June 2006).2
Most coverage of the issue framed it as an argument over regulation—but the term “regulation” in this case is somewhat misleading. Groups advocating for “net neutrality” are not promoting regulation of internet content. What they want is a legal mandate forcing cable companies to allow internet service providers (ISPs) free access to their cable lines (called a “common carriage” agreement). This was the model used for dial-up internet, and it is the way content providers want to keep it. They also want to make sure that cable companies cannot screen or interrupt internet content without a court order.

Those in favor of net neutrality say that lack of government regulation simply means that cable lines will be regulated by the cable companies themselves. ISPs will have to pay a hefty service fee for the right to use cable lines (making internet services more expensive). Those who could pay more would get better access; those who could not pay would be left behind. Cable companies could also decide to filter Internet content at will.

On the other side, cable company supporters say that a great deal of time and money was spent laying cable lines and expanding their speed and quality.3 They claim that allowing ISPs free access would deny cable companies the ability to recoup their investments, and maintain that cable providers should be allowed to charge. Not doing so, they predict, would discourage competition and innovation within the cable industry.

Cable supporters like the AT&T-sponsored Hands Off the Internet website assert that common carriage legislation would lead to higher prices and months of legal wrangling. They maintain that such legislation fixes a problem that doesn’t exist and scoff at concerns that phone and cable companies will use their position to limit access based on fees as groundless. Though cable companies deny plans to block content providers without cause, there are a number of examples of cable-initiated discrimination.

In March 2005, the FCC settled a case against a North Carolina-based telephone company that was blocking the ability of its customers to use voice-over-Internet calling services instead of (the more expensive) phone lines.4 In August 2005, a Canadian cable company blocked access to a site that supported the cable union in a labor dispute.5 In February 2006, Cox Communications denied customers access to the Craig’s List website. Though Cox claims that it was simply a security error, it was discovered that Cox ran a classified service that competes with Craig’s List.6
court decisions

In June of 1999, the Ninth District Court ruled that AT&T would have to open its cable network to ISPs (AT&T v. City of Portland). The court said that Internet transmissions, interactive, two-way exchanges, were telecommunication offerings, not a cable information service (like CNN) that sends data one way. This decision was overturned on appeal a year later.

Recent court decisions have extended the cable company agenda further. On June 27, 2005, The United States Supreme Court ruled that cable corporations like Comcast and Verizon were not required to share their lines with rival ISPs (National Cable & Telecommunications Association vs. Brand X Internet Services).7 Cable companies would not have to offer common carriage agreements for cable lines the way that telephone companies have for phone lines.
According to Dr. Elliot Cohen, the decision accepted the FCC assertion that cable modem service is not a two-way telecommunications offering, but a one-way information service, completely overturning the 1999 ruling. Meanwhile, telephone companies charge that such a decision gives an unfair advantage to cable companies and are requesting that they be released from their common carriage requirement as well.

On June 8, the House rejected legislation (HR 5273) that would have prevented phone and cable companies from selling preferential treatment on their networks for delivery of video and other data-heavy applications. It also passed the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act (HR 5252), which supporters said would encourage innovation and the construction of more high-speed Internet lines. Internet neutrality advocates say it will allow phone and cable companies to cherry-pick customers in wealthy neighborhoods while eliminating the current requirement demanded by most local governments that cable TV companies serve low-income and minority areas as well. 8

Comment: As of June 2006, the COPE Act is in the Senate. Supporters say the bill supports innovation and freedom of choice. Interet neutrality advocates say that its passage would forever compromise the Internet. Giant cable companies would attain a monopoly on high-speed, cable Internet. They would prevent poorer citizens from broadband access, while monitoring and controlling the content of information that can be accessed.

1. “Keeping a Democratic Web,” The New York Times, May 2, 2006.
2. Jim Goldman, Larry Kudlow, and Phil Lebeau, “Panelists Michael Powell, Mike Holland, Neil Weinberg, John Augustine and Pablo Perez-Fernandez discuss markets,” Kudlow & Company CNBC, March 6, 2006.
4. Michael Geist, “Telus breaks Net Providers’ cardinal rule: Telecom company blocks access to site supporting union in labour dispute,” Ottawa Citizen, August 4, 2005.
5. Jonathan Krim, “Renewed Warning of Bandwidth Hoarding,” The Washington Post, November 24, 2005.
6. David A. Utter, “Craigslist Blocked By Cox Interactive,”, June 7, 2006.
7. Yuki Noguchi, “Cable Firms Don’t Have to Share Networks, Court Rules,” Washington Post, June 28, 2005.
8. “Last week in Congress / How our representatives voted,” Buffalo News (New York), June 11, 2006.

Despite the fact that the Court’s decision in Brand X marks the beginning of the end for a robust, democratic Internet, there has been a virtual MSM blackout in covering it. As a result of this decision, the legal stage has been set for further corporate control. Currently pending in Congress is the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006”(HR 5252), fueled by strong telecom corporative lobbies and introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX). This Act, which fails to adequately protect an open and neutral Internet, includes a “Title II—Enforcement of Broadband Policy Statement” that gives the FCC “exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein.” With the passage of this provision, courts will have scant authority to challenge and overturn FCC decisions regarding broadband. Since under current FCC Chair Kevin Martin, the FCC is moving toward still further deregulation of telecom and media companies, the likely consequence is the thickening of the plot to increase corporate control of the Internet. In particular, behemoth telecom corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T want to set up toll booths on the Internet. If these companies get their way, content providers with deep pockets will be afforded optimum bandwidth while the rest of us will be left spinning in cyberspace. No longer will everyone enjoy an equal voice in the freest and most comprehensive democratic forum ever devised by humankind.

As might be expected, none of these new developments are being addressed by the MSM. Among media activist organizations attempting to stop the gutting of the free Internet is The Free Press (, which now has an aggressive “Save the Internet” campaign.

#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran


Global, August 5, 2005
Title: “Halliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team”
Author: Jason Leopold

Faculty Evaluator: Catherine Nelson
Student Researchers: Kristine Medeiros and Pla Herr

According to journalist Jason Leopold, sources at former Cheney company Halliburton allege that, as recently as January of 2005, Halliburton sold key components for a nuclear reactor to an Iranian oil development company. Leopold says his Halliburton sources have intimate knowledge of the business dealings of both Halliburton and Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies.

Additionally, throughout 2004 and 2005, Halliburton worked closely with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of the board of directors of Iran-based Oriental Oil Kish, to develop oil projects in Iran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team. Nasseri was interrogated by Iranian authorities in late July 2005 for allegedly providing Halliburton with Iran’s nuclear secrets. Iranian government officials charged Nasseri with accepting as much as $1 million in bribes from Halliburton for this information.

Oriental Oil Kish dealings with Halliburton first became public knowledge in January 2005 when the company announced that it had subcontracted parts of the South Pars gas-drilling project to Halliburton Products and Services, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Halliburton that is registered to the Cayman Islands. Following the announcement, Halliburton claimed that the South Pars gas field project in Tehran would be its last project in Iran. According to a BBC report, Halliburton, which took thirty to forty million dollars from its Iranian operations in 2003, “was winding down its work due to a poor business environment.”

However, Halliburton has a long history of doing business in Iran, starting as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company. Leopold quotes a February 2001 report published in the Wall Street Journal, “Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is “non-American.” But like the sign over the receptionist’s head, the brochure bears the company’s name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world.” Moreover mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded directly to its Dallas headquarters.

In an attempt to curtail Halliburton and other U.S. companies from engaging in business dealings with rogue nations such as Libya, Iran, and Syria, an amendment was approved in the Senate on July 26, 2005. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Susan Collins R-Maine, would penalize companies that continue to skirt U.S. law by setting up offshore subsidiaries as a way to legally conduct and avoid U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

A letter, drafted by trade groups representing corporate executives, vehemently objected to the amendment, saying it would lead to further hatred and perhaps incite terrorist attacks on the U.S. and “greatly strain relations with the United States primary trading partners.” The letter warned that, “Foreign governments view U.S. efforts to dictate their foreign and commercial policy as violations of sovereignty often leading them to adopt retaliatory measures more at odds with U.S. goals.”

Collins supports the legislation, stating, “It prevents U.S. corporations from creating a shell company somewhere else in order to do business with rogue, terror-sponsoring nations such as Syria and Iran. The bottom line is that if a U.S. company is evading sanctions to do business with one of these countries, they are helping to prop up countries that support terrorism—most often aimed against America.

During a trip to the Middle East in March 1996, Vice President Dick Cheney told a group of mostly U.S. businessmen that Congress should ease sanctions in Iran and Libya to foster better relationships, a statement that, in hindsight, is completely hypocritical considering the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

“Let me make a generalized statement about a trend I see in the U.S. Congress that I find disturbing, that applies not only with respect to the Iranian situation but a number of others as well,” Cheney said. “I think we Americans sometimes make mistakes . . . There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the way we would like.”

Cheney was the chief executive of Halliburton Corporation at the time he uttered those words. It was Cheney who directed Halliburton toward aggressive business dealings with Iran—in violation of U.S. law—in the mid-1990s, which continued through 2005 and is the reason Iran has the capability to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
It was Halliburton’s secret sale of centrifuges to Iran that helped get the uranium enrichment program off the ground, according to a three-year investigation that includes interviews conducted with more than a dozen current and former Halliburton employees.

If the U.S. ends up engaged in a war with Iran in the future, Cheney and Halliburton will bear the brunt of the blame.
But this shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Halliburton’s business activities over the past decade. The company has a long, documented history of violating U.S. sanctions and conducting business with so-called rogue nations.

No, what’s disturbing about these facts is how little attention it has received from the mainstream media. But the public record speaks for itself, as do the thousands of pages of documents obtained by various federal agencies that show how Halliburton’s business dealings in Iran helped fund terrorist activities there—including the country’s nuclear enrichment program.

When I asked Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, a couple of years ago if Halliburton would stop doing business with Iran because of concerns that the company helped fund terrorism she said, “No.” “We believe that decisions as to the nature of such governments and their actions are better made by governmental authorities and international entities such as the United Nations as opposed to individual persons or companies,” Hall said. “Putting politics aside, we and our affiliates operate in countries to the extent it is legally permissible, where our customers are active as they expect us to provide oilfield services support to their international operations. “We do not always agree with policies or actions of governments in every place that we do business and make no excuses for their behaviors. Due to the long-term nature of our business and the inevitability of political and social change, it is neither prudent nor appropriate for our company to establish our own country-by-country foreign policy.”

Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions.

An executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in March 1995 prohibits “new investments (in Iran) by U.S. persons, including commitment of funds or other assets.” It also bars U.S. companies from performing services “that would benefit the Iranian oil industry” and provide Iran with the financial means to engage in terrorist activity.
When Bush and Cheney came into office in 2001, their administration decided it would not punish foreign oil and gas companies that invest in those countries. The sanctions imposed on countries like Iran and Libya before Bush became president were blasted by Cheney, who gave frequent speeches on the need for U.S. companies to compete with their foreign competitors, despite claims that those countries may have ties to terrorism.

“I think we’d be better off if we, in fact, backed off those sanctions (on Iran), didn’t try to impose secondary boycotts on companies . . . trying to do business over there . . . and instead started to rebuild those relationships,” Cheney said during a 1998 business trip to Sydney, Australia, according to Australia’s Illawarra Mercury newspaper.

#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger


Mother Jones, March /April, 2006
Title: The Fate of the Ocean
Author: Julia Whitty

Faculty Evaluator: Dolly Freidel
Student Researcher: Charlene Jones

Oceanic problems once found on a local scale are now pandemic. Data from oceanography, marine biology, meteorology, fishery science, and glaciology reveal that the seas are changing in ominous ways. A vortex of cause and effect wrought by global environmental dilemmas is changing the ocean from a watery horizon with assorted regional troubles to a global system in alarming distress.

According to oceanographers the oceans are one, with currents linking the seas and regulating climate. Sea temperature and chemistry changes, along with contamination and reckless fishing practices, intertwine to imperil the world’s largest communal life source.

In 2005, researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found clear evidence the ocean is quickly warming. They discovered that the top half-mile of the ocean has warmed dramatically in the past forty years as a result of human-induced greenhouse gases.

One manifestation of this warming is the melting of the Arctic. A shrinking ratio of ice to water has set off a feedback loop, accelerating the increase in water surfaces that promote further warming and melting. With polar waters growing fresher and tropical seas saltier, the cycle of evaporation and precipitation has quickened, further invigorating the greenhouse effect. The ocean’s currents are reacting to this freshening, causing a critical conveyor that carries warm upper waters into Europe’s northern latitudes to slow by one third since 1957, bolstering fears of a shut down and cataclysmic climate change. This accelerating cycle of cause and effect will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.
Atmospheric litter is also altering sea chemistry, as thousands of toxic compounds poison marine creatures and devastate propagation. The ocean has absorbed an estimated 118 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, with 20 to 25 tons being added to the atmosphere daily. Increasing acidity from rising levels of CO2 is changing the ocean’s PH balance. Studies indicate that the shells and skeletons possessed by everything from reef-building corals to mollusks and plankton begin to dissolve within forty-eight hours of exposure to the acidity expected in the ocean by 2050. Coral reefs will almost certainly disappear and, even more worrisome, so will plankton. Phytoplankton absorb greenhouse gases, manufacture oxygen, and are the primary producers of the marine food web.
Mercury pollution enters the food web via coal and chemical industry waste, oxidizes in the atmosphere, and settles to the sea bottom. There it is consumed, delivering mercury to each subsequent link in the food chain, until predators such as tuna or whales carry levels of mercury as much as one million times that of the waters around them. The Gulf of Mexico has the highest mercury levels ever recorded, with an average of ten tons of mercury coming down the Mississippi River every year, and another ton added by offshore drilling.

Along with mercury, the Mississippi delivers nitrogen (often from fertilizers). Nitrogen stimulates plant and bacterial growth in the water that consume oxygen, creating a condition known as hypoxia, or dead zones. Dead zones occur wherever oceanic oxygen is depleted below the level necessary to sustain marine life. A sizable portion of the Gulf of Mexico has become a dead zone—the largest such area in the U.S. and the second largest on the planet, measuring nearly 8,000 square miles in 2001. It is no coincidence that almost all of the nearly 150 (and counting) dead zones on earth lay at the mouths of rivers. Nearly fifty fester off U.S. coasts. While most are caused by river-borne nitrogen, fossil fuel-burning plants help create this condition, as does phosphorous from human sewage and nitrogen emissions from auto exhaust.

Meanwhile, since its peak in 2000, the global wild fish harvest has begun a sharp decline despite progress in seagoing technologies and intensified fishing. So-called efficiencies in fishing have stimulated unprecedented decimation of sealife. Long-lining, in which a single boat sets line across sixty or more miles of ocean, each baited with up to 10,000 hooks, captures at least 25 percent unwanted catch. With an estimated 2 billion hooks set each year, as much as 88 billion pounds of life a year is thrown back to the ocean either dead or dying. Additionally, trawlers drag nets across every square inch of the continental shelves every two years. Fishing the sea floor like a bulldozer, they level an area 150 times larger than all forest clearcuts each year and destroy seafloor ecosystems. Aquaculture is no better, since three pounds of wild fish are caught to feed every pound of farmed salmon. A 2003 study out of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia concluded, based on data dating from the 1950s, that in the wake of decades of such onslaught only 10 percent of all large fish (tuna, swordfish) and ground fish (cod, hake, flounder) are left anywhere in the ocean.

Other sea nurseries are also threatened. Fifteen percent of seagrass beds have disappeared in the last ten years, depriving juvenile fish, manatees, and sea turtles of critical habitats. Kelp beds are also dying at alarming rates.

While at no time in history has science taught more about how the earth’s life-support systems work, the maelstrom of human assault on the seas continues. If human failure in governance of the world’s largest public domain is not reversed quickly, the ocean will soon and surely reach a point of no return.

After release of the Pew Oceans Commission report, U.S. media, most notably The Washington Post and National Public Radio in 2003 and 2004, covered several stories regarding impending threats to the ocean, recommendations for protection, and President Bush’s response. However, media treatment of the collective acceleration of ocean damage and cross-pollination of harm was left to Julia Whitty in her lengthy feature. In April of 2006, Time Magazine presented an in-depth article about earth at “the tipping point,” describing the planet as an overworked organism fighting the consequences of global climate change on shore and sea. In her Mother Jones article, Whitty presented a look at global illness by directly examining the ocean as earth’s circulatory, respiratory, and reproductive system.

Following up on “The Last Days of the Ocean,” Mother Jones has produced “Ocean Voyager,” an innovative web-based adventure that includes videos, audio interviews with key players, webcams, and links to informative web pages created by more than twenty organizations. The site is a tour of various ocean trouble spots around the world, which highlights solutions and suggests actions that can be taken to help make a difference.

This story is awash with new developments. Scientists are currently publishing at an unprecedented rate their observations—not just predictions—on the rapid changes underway on our ocean planet. First and foremost, the year 2005 turned out to be the warmest year on record. This reinforces other data showing the earth has grown hotter in the past 400 years, and possibly in the past 2,000 years. A study out of the National Center for Atmospheric Research found ocean temperatures in the tropical North Atlantic in 2005 nearly two degrees Fahrenheit above normal; this turned out to be the predominant catalyst for the monstrous 2005 hurricane season—the most violent season ever seen.

The news from the polar ice is no better. A joint NASA/University of Kansas study in Science (02/06) reveals that Greenland’s glaciers are surging towards the sea and melting more than twice as fast as ten years ago. This further endangers the critical balance of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which holds our climate stable. Meanwhile, in March, the British Antarctic Survey announced their findings that the “global warming signature” of the Antarctic is three times larger than what we’re seeing elsewhere on Earth—the first proof of broadscale climate change across the southern continent.

Since “The Fate of the Ocean” went to press in Mother Jones magazine, evidence of the politicization of science in the global climate wars has also emerged. In January 2006 NASA’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, accused the agency of trying to censor his work. Four months later, Hansen’s accusations were echoed by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as by a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at a NOAA lab, who claimed their work on global climate change was being censored by their departments, as part of a policy of intimidation by the anti-science Bush administration.

Problems for the ocean’s wildlife are escalating too. In 2005, biologists from the U.S. Minerals Management Service found polar bears drowned in the waters off Alaska, apparent victims of the disappearing ice. In 2006, U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center researchers found polar bears killing and eating each other in areas where sea ice failed to form that year, leaving the bears bereft of food. In response, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources revised their Red List for polar bears—upgrading them from “conservation dependent” to “vulnerable.” In February, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would begin reviewing whether polar bears need protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Since my report, the leaders of two influential commissions—the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy—gave Congress, the Bush administration, and our nation’s governors a “D+” grade for not moving quickly enough to address their recommendations for restoring health to our nation’s oceans.

Most of these stories remain out of view, sunk with cement boots in the backwaters of scientific journals. The media remains unable to discern good science from bad, and gives equal credence to both, when they give any at all. The story of our declining ocean world, and our own future, develops beyond the ken of the public, who forge ahead without altering behavior or goals, and unimpeded by foresight.

#4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US


The New Standard, December 2005
Title: “New Report Shows Increase in Urban Hunger, Homelessness”
Author: Brendan Coyne, March, 2006
Title: “US Plan to Eliminate Survey of Needy Families Draws Fire “
Author: Abid Aslam

Faculty Evaluator: Myrna Goodman
Student Researcher: Arlene Ward and Brett Forest

The number of hungry and homeless people in U.S. cities continued to grow in 2005, despite claims of an improved economy. Increased demand for vital services rose as needs of the most destitute went unmet, according to the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors Report, which has documented increasing need since its 1982 inception.

The study measures instances of emergency food and housing assistance in twenty-four U.S. cities and utilizes supplemental information from the U.S. Census and Department of Labor. More than three-quarters of cities surveyed reported increases in demand for food and housing, especially among families. Food aid requests expanded by 12 percent in 2005, while aid center and food bank resources grew by only 7 percent. Service providers estimated 18 percent of requests went unattended. Housing followed a similar trend, as a majority of cities reported an increase in demand for emergency shelter, often going unmet due to lack of resources.

As urban hunger and homelessness increases in America, the Bush administration is planning to eliminate a U.S. survey widely used to improve federal and state programs for low-income and retired Americans, reports Abid Aslam.
President Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal 2007, which begins October 2006, includes a Commerce Department plan to eliminate the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The proposal marks at least the third White House attempt in as many years to do away with federal data collection on politically prickly economic issues.
Founded in 1984, the Census Bureau survey follows American families for a number of years and monitors their use of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, child care, and other health, social service, and education programs.

Some 415 economists and social scientists signed a letter and sent it to Congress, shortly after the February release of Bush’s federal budget proposal, urging that the survey be fully funded as it “is the only large-scale survey explicitly designed to analyze the impact of a wide variety of government programs on the well being of American families.”
Heather Boushey, economist at the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Economic and Policy Research told Abid Aslam, “We need to know what the effects of these programs are on American families . . . SIPP is designed to do just that.” Boushey added that the survey has proved invaluable in tracking the effects of changes in government programs. So much so that the 1996 welfare reform law specifically mentioned the survey as the best means to evaluate the law’s effectiveness.

Supporters of the survey elimination say the program costs too much at $40 million per year. They would kill it in September and eventually replace it with a scaled-down version that would run to $9.2 million in development costs during the coming fiscal year. Actual data collection would begin in 2009.

Defenders of the survey counter that the cost is justified as SIPP &ldquorovides a constant stream of in-depth data that enables government, academic, and independent researchers to evaluate the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of several hundred billion dollars in spending on social programs,” including homeless shelters and emergency food aid.

As of the end of May 2006, hundreds of economists and social scientists remain engaged in a bid to save the U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). Ideologically diverse users describe the survey as pioneering and say it has helped to improve the uptake and performance of, and to gauge the effects on American families of changes in public provisions ranging from Medicaid to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and school lunch programs.

A few journalists took notice because users of the data, including the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which spearheaded the effort to save SIPP, chose to make some noise.By most accounts, the matter was a simple fight over money: the administration was out to cut any hint of flesh from bureaucratic budgets (perhaps to feed its foreign policy pursuits) but users of the survey wanted the money spent on SIPP because, in their view, the program is valuable and no feasible alternative exists or has been proposed.

That debate remains to be resolved. Lobbyists expect more legislative action in June and among them, CEPR remains available to provide updates.But is it just an isolated budget fight? This is the third time in as many years that the Bush administration has tried—and in the previous two cases, failed under pressure from users and advocates—to strip funding for awkward research. In 2003, it had tried to kill the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BL Mass Layoff Statistics report, which detailed where workplaces with more than fifty employees closed and what kinds of workers were affected. In 2004 and 2005, it had attempted to drop questions on the hiring and firing of women from employment data collected by the BLS. Hardly big-ticket items on the federal budget, the mass layoffs reports provided federal and state social service agencies with data crucial for planning even as it chronicled job losses and the so-called “jobless recovery.” The women’s questionnaire uncovered employment discrimination.

In other words, SIPP and the BLS programs are politically prickly. They highlight that, regardless of what some politicians and executives might say, economic and social problems persist and involve real people whose real needs remain to be met. This calls to mind the old line about there being three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. To be convincing, they must be broadly consistent. If the numbers don’t support the narrative, something simply must give. With the livelihoods, life chances, and rights of millions of citizens at stake, these are more than stories about arcane budget wrangles.

#5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo


The Taylor Report, March 28, 2005
Title: “The World’s Most Neglected Emergency: Phil Taylor talks to Keith Harmon Snow”

Earth First! Journal, August 2005
Title: “High-Tech Genocide”
Author: Sprocket

Z Magazine, March 1, 2006
Title: “Behind the Numbers: Untold Suffering in the Congo”
Authors: Keith Harmon Snow and David Barouski

Faculty Evaluator: Thom Lough
Student Researchers: Deyango Harris and Daniel Turner

The world’s most neglected emergency, according to the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, is the ongoing tragedy of the Congo, where six to seven million have died since 1996 as a consequence of invasions and wars sponsored by western powers trying to gain control of the region’s mineral wealth. At stake is control of natural resources that are sought by U.S. corporations—diamonds, tin, copper, gold, and more significantly, coltan and niobium, two minerals necessary for production of cell phones and other high-tech electronics; and cobalt, an element essential to nuclear, chemical, aerospace, and defense industries.

Columbo-tantalite, i.e. coltan, is found in three-billion-year-old soils like those in the Rift Valley region of Africa. The tantalum extracted from the coltan ore is used to make tantalum capacitors, tiny components that are essential in managing the flow of current in electronic devices. Eighty percent of the world’s coltan reserves are found in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Niobium is another high-tech mineral with a similar story.

Sprocket reports that the high-tech boom of the 1990s caused the price of coltan to skyrocket to nearly $300 per pound. In 1996 U.S.-sponsored Rwandan and Ugandan forces entered eastern DRC. By 1998 they seized control and moved into strategic mining areas. The Rwandan Army was soon making $20 million or more a month from coltan mining. Though the price of coltan has fallen, Rwanda maintains its monopoly on coltan and the coltan trade in DRC. Reports of rampant human rights abuses pour out of this mining region.

Coltan makes its way out of the mines to trading posts where foreign traders buy the mineral and ship it abroad, mostly through Rwanda. Firms with the capability turn coltan into the coveted tantalum powder, and then sell the magic powder to Nokia, Motorola, Compaq, Sony, and other manufacturers for use in cell phones and other products.
Keith Harmon Snow emphasizes that any analysis of the geopolitics in the Congo, and the reasons for why the Congolese people have suffered a virtually unending war since 1996, requires an understanding of the organized crime perpetrated through multinational businesses. The tragedy of the Congo conflict has been instituted by invested corporations, their proxy armies, and the supra-governmental bodies that support them.

The process is tied to major multinational corporations at all levels. These include U.S.-based Cabot Corp. and OM Group; HC Starck of Germany; and Nigncxia of China—corporations that have been linked by a United Nations Panel of Experts to the atrocities in DRC. Extortion, rape, massacres, and bribery are all part of the criminal networks set up and maintained by huge multinational companies. Yet as mining in the Congo by western companies proceeds at an unprecedented rate—some $6 million in raw cobalt alone exiting DRC daily—multinational mining companies rarely get mentioned in human rights reports.
Sprocket notes that Sam Bodman, CEO of Cabot during the coltan boom, was appointed in December 2004 to serve as President Bush’s Secretary of Energy. Under Bodman’s leadership from 1987 to 2000, Cabot was one of the U.S.’s largest polluters, accounting for 60,000 tons of airborne toxic emissions annually. Snow adds that Sony’s current Executive Vice President and General Counsel Nicole Seligman was a former legal adviser for Bill Clinton. Many who held positions of power in the Clinton administration moved into high positions with Sony.

The article “Behind the Numbers,” coauthored by Snow and David Barouski, details a web of U.S. corruption and conflicts of interest between mining corporations such as Barrick Gold (see Story #21) and the U.S. government under George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, as well as U.S. arms dealers such as Simax; U.S. defense companies such as Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Northrop Grumman, GE, Boeing, Raytheon, and Bechtel; “humanitarian” organizations such as CARE, funded by Lockheed Martin, and International Rescue Committee, whose Board of Overseers includes Henry Kissinger; “Conservation” interests that provide the vanguard for western penetration into Central Africa; and of course, PR firms and news outlets such as the New York Times.

Sprocket closes his article by noting that it’s not surprising this information isn’t included in the literature and manuals that come with your cell phones, pagers, computers, or diamond jewelry. Perhaps, he suggests, mobile phones should be outfitted with stickers that read: “Warning! This device was created with raw materials from central Africa. These materials are rare, nonrenewable, were sold to fund a bloody war of occupation, and have caused the virtual elimination of endangered species. Have a nice day.” People need to realize, he says, that there is a direct link between the gadgets that make our lives more convenient and sophisticated—and the reality of the violence, turmoil, and destruction that plague our world.

There are large fortunes to be made in the manufacturing of high-tech electronics and in selling convenience and entertainment to American consumers, but at what cost?

Conflicts in Africa are often shrouded with misinformation, while U.S. and other western interests are routinely downplayed or omitted by the corporate media. The June 5, 2006, cover story of Time, entitled “Congo: The Hidden Toll of the World’s Deadliest War,” was no exception. Although the article briefly mentioned coltan and its use in cell phones and other electronic devices, no mention was made of the pivotal role this and other raw materials found in the region play in the conflict. The story painted the ongoing war as a pitiable and horrible tragedy, avoiding the corporations and foreign governments that have created the framework for the violence and those which have strong financial and political interests in the conflict’s outcome.

In an article written by Johann Hari and published by The Hamilton Spectator on May 13, 2006, the corporate media took a step toward addressing the true reason for the tremendous body count that continues to pile up in the Democratic Republic of Congo: “The only change over the decades has been the resources snatched for Western consumption—rubber under the Belgians, diamonds under Mobutu, coltan and casterite today.”

Most disturbing is that in the corporate media, the effect of this conflict on nonhuman life is totally overlooked. Even with a high-profile endangered species like the Eastern lowland gorilla hanging in the balance, almost driven to extinction through poaching and habitat loss by displaced villagers and warring factions, the environmental angle of the story is rarely considered.

The next step in understanding the exploitation and violence wrought upon the inhabitants of central Africa, fueled by the hunger for high-tech toys in the U.S., is to expose corporations like Sony and Motorola. These corporations don’t want protest movements tarnishing their reputations. Nor do they want to call attention to all of the gorillas coltan kills, and the guerrillas it feeds.

It is time for our culture to start seeing more value in living beings, whether gorillas or humans, than in our disposable high-tech gadgets such as cell phones. It is time to steal back a more compassionate existence from the corporate plutocracy that creates destructive markets and from the media system that has manufactured our consent.

It is not just a question of giving up cell phones (though that would be a great start). We must question the appropriation of our planet in the form of a resource to be consumed, rather than as a home and community to be lived in.

“High-Tech Genocide” and other articles about cell phone technology are available by contacting the author:

War for the control of the Democratic Republic of Congo—what should be the richest country in the world—began in Uganda in the 1980s, when now Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni shot his way to power with the backing of Buckingham Palace, the White House, and Tel Aviv behind him.

Paul Kagame, now president of Rwanda, served as Museveni’s Director of Military Intelligence. Kagame later trained at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)—backed by Roger Winter, the U.S. Committee on Refugees, and the others above—invaded Rwanda. The RPF destabilized and then secured Rwanda. This coup d’etat is today misunderstood as the “Rwanda Genocide.” What played out in Rwanda in 1994 is now playing out in Darfur, Sudan; regime change is the goal, “genocide” is the tool of propaganda used to manipulate and disinform.

In 1996, Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni, with the Pentagon behind them, launched their covert war against Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko and his western backers. A decade later, there are 6 or 7 million dead, at the very least, and the war in Congo (Zaire) continues.

If you are reading the mainstream newspapers or listening to National Public Radio, you are contributing to your own mental illness, no matter how astute you believe yourself to be at “balancing” or “deciphering” the code.
News reports in Time Magazine (“The Deadliest War In The World,” June 6, 2006) and on CNN (“Rape, Brutality Ignored to Aid Congo Peace,” May 26, 2006) that appeared at the time of this writing are being interpreted by conscious people to be truth-telling at last. However, these are perfect examples filled with hidden deceptions and manipulations.
For accuracy and truth on Central Africa, look to people like Robin Philpot (Imperialism Dies Hard), Wayne Madsen (Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, 1993–1999), Amos Wilson (The Falsification of Consciousness), Charles Onana (The Secrets of the Rwanda Genocide—Investigation on the Mysteries of a President), Antoine Lokongo (, Phil Taylor (, Christopher Black (“Racism, Murder and Lies in Rwanda&rdquo. World War 4 Report has published my reports, but they are inconsistent in their attention to accuracy, and would as quickly adopt the propaganda, and have done so at times.

It is possible to collect little fragments of truth here and there—never counting on the mainstream system for this—but one must beware the deceptions and bias. In this vein, the elite business journal Africa Confidential is often very revealing. Some facts can be gleaned from and Africa Research Bulletin.

Professor David Gibb’s book The Political Economy of Third World Intervention: Case of the Congo Crises is an excellent backgrounder that identifies players still active today (especially Maurice Tempelsman and his diamonds interests connected to the Democratic Party). Ditto King Leopold’s Ghost by Adam Hocshchild, but—exemplifying the expedience of “interests”—remember that Hocshchild never tells you, the reader, that his father ran a mining company in Congo. Almost ALL reportage is expedient; one needs take care their propensity to be deceived.

Professor Ruth Mayer’s book Artificial Africas: Colonial Images in the Times of Globalization is a particularly poignant articulation of the means by which the “media” system distorts and manipulates all things African. And, never forget

Also hoping to correct the record and reveal the truth, the International Forum for Truth and Justice in the Great Lakes of Africa (, based in Spain, and co-founded by Nobel Prize nominee Juan Carrero Seraleegui, is involved in a groundbreaking lawsuit charging massive crimes against humanity and acts of genocide were committed by the now government of Rwanda.

#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy


Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility website
Titles: “Whistleblowers Get Help from Bush Administration,” December 5, 2005
“Long-Delayed Investigation of Special Counsel Finally Begins,” October 18,2005
“Back Door Rollback of Federal Whistleblower Protections,” September 22, 2005
Author: Jeff Ruch

Faculty Evaluator: Barbara Bloom
Student Researchers: Caitlyn Peele and Sara-Joy Christienson

Special Counsel Scott Bloch, appointed by President Bush in 2004, is overseeing the virtual elimination of federal whistleblower rights in the U.S. government.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), the agency that is supposed to protect federal employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse is dismissing hundreds of cases while advancing almost none. According to the Annual Report for 2004 (which was not released until the end of first quarter fiscal year 2006) less than 1.5 percent of whistleblower claims were referred for investigation while more than 1000 reports were closed before they were even opened. Only eight claims were found to be substantiated, and one of those included the theft of a desk, while another included attendance violations. Favorable outcomes have declined 24 percent overall, and this is all in the first year that the new special counsel, Scott Bloch, has been in office.

Bloch, who has received numerous complaints since he took office, defends his first thirteen months in office by pointing to a decline in backlogged cases. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) Executive Director Jeff Ruch says, “. . . backlogs and delays are bad, but they are not as bad as simply dumping the cases altogether.” According to figures released by Bloch in February of 2005 more than 470 claims of retaliation were dismissed, and not once had he affirmatively represented a whistleblower. In fact, in order to speed dismissals, Bloch instituted a rule forbidding his staff from contacting a whistleblower if their disclosure was deemed incomplete or ambiguous. Instead, the OSC would dismiss the matter. As a result, hundreds of whistleblowers never had a chance to justify their cases. Ruch notes that these numbers are limited to only the backlogged cases and do not include new ones.

On March 3, 2005, OSC staff members joined by a coalition of whistleblower protection and civil rights organizations filed a complaint against Bloch. His own employees accused him of violating the very rules he is supposed to be enforcing. The complaint specifies instances of illegal gag orders, cronyism, invidious discrimination, and retaliation by forcing the resignation of one-fifth of the OSC headquarters legal and investigative staff. The complaint was filed with the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which took no action on the case for seven months. PEER was one of the groups who co-filed the complaint against Bloch and Ruch wants to know, “Who watches the watchdogs?”

This is the third probe into Bloch’s operation in less than two years in office. Both the Government Accountability Office and a U.S. Senate subcommittee have ongoing investigations into mass dismissals of whistleblower cases, crony hires, and Bloch’s targeting of gay employees for removal while refusing to investigate cases involving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Department of Labor has also gotten on board in a behind-the-scenes maneuver to cancel whistleblower protections. If it succeeds, the Labor Department will dismiss claims by federal workers who report violations under the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. General Counsel for PEER, Richard Condit says, “Federal workers in agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency function as the public’s eyes and ears . . . the Labor Department is moving to shut down one of the few legal avenues left to whistleblowers.” The Labor Department is trying to invoke the ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity, which says that the government cannot be sued without its consent. The Secretary of Labor’s Administrative Review Board recently invited the EPA to raise a sovereign immunity defense in a case where a woman was trying to enforce earlier victories. Government Accountability Project General Counsel Joanne Royce sums up major concerns: “We do not want public servants wondering whether they will lose their jobs for acting against pollution violations of politically well-connected interests.”

With the decline in oversight by the U.S. Congress and the uneven quality of investigative journalism, outlets such as the U.S. Office of Special Counsel become even more important channels for governmental transparency. Unfortunately, under the Bush-appointed Special Counsel, this supposed haven for whistleblowers has become a beacon of false hope for thousands.

Each year, hundreds of civil servants who witness problems ranging from threats to public safety to waste of tax funds find that their reports of wrongdoing are stonewalled by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). Consequently, these firsthand accounts of malfeasance are not investigated and almost uniformly never reach the public’s attention.
The importance of this state of affairs is that the actual workings of federal agencies are becoming more shrouded in secrecy and disinformation. Americans are less informed about their government and less able to be in connection with the people who actually work for them—the public servants.

In a recent development, employees within the OSC have filed a whistleblower complaint about the Special Counsel, the person who is supposed to be the chief whistleblower defender. After several months delay, the Bush White House assigned this complaint to the Inspector General for the Office of Personnel Management for review. This supposedly independent investigation has just begun in earnest, nearly one year after the complaint was filed.

Also, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in May 2006 blasting the Bush-appointed Special Counsel for ignoring competitive bidding rules in handing out consultant contracts. GAO also recommended creating an independent channel whereby Office of Special Counsel employees can blow the whistle on further abuses by the Special Counsel.

In another recent development, PEER’s lawsuit against the Special Counsel to force release of documents concerning crony hires has produced more, heavily redacted documents showing that these sole source consultants apparently did no identifiable work. Ironically, the PEER suit was filed under the Freedom of Information Act, a law that the Special Counsel is also charged with policing.

And in a new annual report to Congress, OSC (stung by criticism about declining performance) has, for the first time, stopped disclosing the number of whistleblower cases where it obtained a favorable outcome. Consequently, it is impossible to tell if anyone is actually being helped by the agency.

PEER’s web page on the Office of Special Counsel has posted all developments since this story and also allows a reader to trace the story’s genesis.

# 7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq


American Civil Liberties Website, October 24, 2005
Title: “US Operatives Killed Detainees During Interrogations in Afghanistan and Iraq”

Tom, March 5, 2006
Title: “Tracing the Trail of Torture: Embedding Torture as Policy from Guantanamo to Iraq”
Author: Dahr Jamail

Faculty Evaluator: Rabi Michael Robinson
Student Researchers: Michael B Januleski Jr. and Jessica Rodas

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released documents of forty-four autopsies held in Afghanistan and Iraq October 25, 2005. Twenty-one of those deaths were listed as homicides. The documents show that detainees died during and after interrogations by Navy SEALs, Military Intelligence, and Other Government Agency (OGA).
“These documents present irrefutable evidence that U.S. operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogation,” said Amrit Singh, an attorney with the ACLU. “The public has a right to know who authorized the use of torture techniques and why these deaths have been covered up.”

The Department of Defense released the autopsy reports in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense, and Veterans for Peace.

One of forty-four U.S. military autopsy reports reads as follows: “Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq.”
Another report from the ACLU indicates: “a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and head. The exact cause of death was ‘undetermined’ although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.”
An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” covered in the autopsies were attributed to “arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease” (heart attack). Persons under extreme stress and pain may have heart attacks as a result of the circumstances of their detainments.

The Associated Press carried the story of the ACLU charges on their wire service. However, a thorough check of LexisNexis and ProQuest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95 percent of the daily papers in the U.S. did not bother to pick up the story. The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A4 with a 635-word report headlined “Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations.” Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine, page 8; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque, Iowa, page 6; Charleston Gazette, page 5; Advocate, Baton Rouge, page 11; and a half dozen others actually covered the story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on their website. MSNBC posted the story to their website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television.
Janis Karpinski, U.S. Brigadier General Commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade, was in charge of seventeen prison facilities in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2003. Karpinski testified January 21, 2006 in New York City at the International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush administration. Karpinski stated: “General [Ricardo] Sanchez [commander of coalition ground forces in Iraq] signed the eight-page memorandum authorizing a laundry list of harsh techniques in interrogations to include specific use of dogs and muzzled dogs with his specific permission.” Karpinski went on to claim that Major General Geoffrey Miller, who had been “specifically selected by the Secretary of Defense to go to Guantanamo Bay and run the interrogations operations,” was dispatched to Iraq by the Bush administration to “work with the military intelligence personnel to teach them new and improved interrogation techniques.” When asked how far up the chain of command responsibility for the torture orders for Abu Ghraib went, Karpinski said, “The Secretary of Defense would not have authorized without the approval of the Vice President.”

This story, published in March 2006, was merely a snapshot of the ongoing and worsening policy of the Bush administration regarding torture. And not just time, but places show snapshots of the criminal policy of the current administration—Iraq, like Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, and other “secret” U.S. military detention centers in Eastern European countries are physical examples of an ongoing policy which breaches both international law and our very constitution.

But breaking international and domestic law has not been a concern of an administration led by a &ldquoresident” who has claimed “authority” to disobey over 750 laws passed by Congress. In fact, when this same individual does things like signing a secret order in 2002 which authorized the National Security Agency to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by wiretapping the phones of U.S. citizens, and then goes on to allow the secret collection of the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans, torture is but one portion of this corrupted picture. This is a critical ongoing story, not just because it violates international and domestic law, but this state-sanctioned brutality, bankrupt of any morality and decency, is already coming back home to haunt Americans. When U.S. soldiers are captured in Iraq or another foreign country, what basis does the U.S. have now to ask for their fair and humane treatment? And with police brutality and draconian “security” measures becoming more real within the U.S. with each passing day, why wouldn’t these policies be visited upon U.S. citizens?

While torture is occasionally glimpsed by mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post and Time Magazine, we must continue to rely on groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International who cover the subject thoroughly, persistently, and unlike (of course) any corporate media outlets.
Since I wrote this story, there continues to be a deluge of information and proof of the Bush administration continuing and even widening their policy of torture, as well as their rendering prisoners to countries which have torturing human beings down to a science.

All of this, despite the fact that U.S. laws prohibit torture absolutely, clearly stating that torture is never, ever permitted, even in a time of war.

To stay current on this critical topic, please visit the following websites regularly:

Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , ,
Posted: Apr 3, 2007 9:37am
Apr 2, 2007
Focus: Peace
Action Request: Petition
Location: United States

Manifesto 2000
For A Culture Of Peace And Non-Violence

Over 75 million people have signed this document
Please join them and spread this message to as many people as you can

The Manifesto 2000 for a culture of peace and non-violence, was drafted by a group of Nobel Peace Prize, to translate the resolutions of the United Nations into everyday language and to make them relevant to people everywhere.

The Manifesto 2000 was made public in Paris on March 4th 1999, during a press conference at the Eiffel Tower and is open to signatures from the wider public throughout the world.

The Manifesto 2000 does not appeal to a higher authority, but instead it is an individual commitment and responsibility.

Because the year 2000 must be a new beginning, an opportunity to transform - all together - the culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and non-violence. ecause this transformation demands the participation of each and every one of us, and must offer young people and future generations the values that can inspire them to shape a world based on justice, solidarity, liberty, dignity, harmony and prosperity for all. ecause the culture of peace can underpin sustainable development, environmental protection and the well-being of each person. ecause I am aware of my share of responsibility for the future of humanity, in particular to the children of today and tomorrow.

I pledge in my daily life, in my family, my work, my community, my country and my region, to:

Respect the life and dignity of each human being without discrimination or prejudice;

Practice active non-violence, rejecting violence in all its forms: physical, sexual, psychological, economical and social, in particular towards the most deprived and vulnerable such as children and adolescents;

Share my time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion, injustice and political and economic oppression;

Defend freedom of expression and cultural diversity, giving preference always to dialogue and listening without engaging in fanaticism, defamation and the rejection of others;

Promote consumer behaviour that is responsible and development practices that respect all forms of life and preserve the balance of nature on the planet;

Contribute to the development of my community, with the full participation of women and respect for democratic principles, in order to create together new forms of solidarity;

Please sign at:

Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , , ,
Posted: Apr 2, 2007 8:49am
Mar 28, 2007

Is your paraben habit making you fat?

The Bite:

We interrupt our regular easy-breezy style to bring you this important nugget o’ knowledge: Parabens are synthetic preservatives found in shampoos, make-up foundations, shaving gels and even food. They have a chemical structure similar to estrogen that interferes with production of the body’s natural hormones - potentially leading to weight gain (and more importantly, containing potential links to cancer). So, look for products that don’t contain any parabens - methyl, propyl or butyl - to ward off the pounds and other health risks.

The Benefits

  • Shed some pounds.  We wish we could back that up with personal experience, but until then, we defer to the studies.
  • Protect yourself and the environment from cancer-causing components.  Products containing parabens and other dangerous chemicals are often flushed into our water systems after use, spreading even to the people who are avoiding them.
  • Preserve your looks naturally. Buy self-preserving organic products like moisturizing body oils made from organic cocoa butter, sunflower oils, peppermint oil, coconut oil, and organic spearmint oil. They stay preserved naturally for up to 18 months.

Personally Speaking

Go grab a bottle from your bathroom and scan the ingredients. You’ll be shocked how many contain parabens.  Try to buy products without parabens, parabens cause cancer!  Check your labels!
Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted: Mar 28, 2007 4:29pm
Mar 19, 2007
Focus: Government
Action Request: Petition
Location: United States

Please sign for FREE today!!  The Polar Bears need our help NOW!!
Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Mar 19, 2007 11:17am
Feb 28, 2007
Here is a list of books that I have read that I would reccomend to anyone:

Never Be Sick Again by Raymond Francis and Kester Cotton

Learning To Sing by Clay Aiken

Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser

Ascorbate  The Science of Vitamin C by Dr. Steve Hickey and Dr. Hilary Roberts

The Power of Kindness by Piero Ferrucci

Green Living by the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Secrets of the Savanna by Mark and Delia Owens

IF you have read any of these and would like to discuss any of them or comment on them please do so here, or email me.  Thanks!
Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Feb 28, 2007 11:34am
Feb 12, 2007

A mother asked President Bush,

"Why did my son have to die in Iraq ?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy,

"Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam ?"

Another mother asked President Truman,

"Why did my son have to die in Korea ?

Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt,

"Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima ?"

Another mother asked President W. Wilson,

"Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France ?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln,

"Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg ?"

And yet another mother asked President G. Washington,

"Why did my son have to die near Valley For ge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked...

"Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem ?"

The answers to all these are similar --

"So that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

This was emailed to me with no author, and I thought the magnitude and the simplicity were awesome.


Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted: Feb 12, 2007 10:06am
Feb 11, 2007
Name: Juan Carlos
Type: Tribute (for the living)
To Honor: Individual(s)
Location: , United States

Sea Turtle Conservation Comic Book Campaign
Juan Carlos Cantu, Defenders of WildlifeOne of Juan Carlos's most successful -- and wide reaching -- campaigns used comic books to promote sea turtle conservation.
Our Man in Mexico

Even before joining the Defenders team, Juan Carlos thought big. He came up with the idea of the largest national whale sanctuary in the world. Then in 2002, years of hard work paid off when then-Mexican President Vicente Fox set aside over 1.1 million square miles of ocean in the Pacific, Atlantic and Caribbean, protecting 24 species of whales and dolphins.

And he hasn’t stopped there. Since joining Defenders, Juan Carlos has played a major role in protecting Mexico’s sea turtles and other wildlife.

After successfully lobbying the Mexican Congress to grant law enforcement greater powers to combat sea turtle poaching, he developed a national campaign to educate the public. He wrote helped produce a series of comic books to promote sea turtle conservation. Hundreds of bus stop posters were displayed for six months all over the country featuring characters from the books. The campaign had a huge impact on the public -- even with environmental authorities.

“The campaign has been a big success,” Juan Carlos explains, “and it’s gotten a lot of attention in the Mexican media.” His campaign materials have even have made their way into Central and South America.

On the heels of this successful campaign, he worked with other conservation groups to fund ads featuring Mexican soccer stars to encourage the public to avoid sea turtle products.

Juan Carlos has even made it on to the airwaves. Working with other conservation organizations, he created a radio show highlighting Mexican wildlife. After only a year and a half on the air, the show won an award as the station’s most listened-to radio show of 2006.

And Juan Carlos’s successes just keep coming. His work in international trade has brought increased protections for imperiled birds, sharks and exotic wood species like mahogany. And just recently, Juan Carlos played a key role in winning strict protections for Mexico’s mangrove forests -- an entire ecosystem!

Visibility: Everyone
Tags: , , ,
Posted: Feb 11, 2007 12:21pm
Apr 21, 2006
Two Short Health Information Free Videos: First, "Store Wars" is hilarious! Have fun with this incredibly well done, five-minute spoof on the movie Star Wars as you watch Cuke Skywalker battle Darth Tater and lots more. A second fun one is a spoof on the Matrix called "The Meatrix." A little humor goes a long way in delivering this great message on eating healthy food.

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Apr 21, 2006 10:32am


 Next >
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.


Laura Olsen
, 2
Huntley, IL, USA
Shares by Type:
All (13) | Blog (7) | Alert (5) | Tribute (1)
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\r\\nCOME TO: \\r\\nTucson\\\' s 32nd Annual Peace Fair and Music Festival2014 Theme: Climate JusticeThis FREE event is Arizona\\\'s largest gathering of Peace, Justice, and Environmental groups, with Live Music, Tables, Food, Entertainment, Children\\\'s ...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
New Petition! Speak out against Time-Warner Merger with Comcast! Let your opinion be know before your bill goes up and your programming choices dwindle.\\r\\n\\r\\nUrge DOJ and FCC to Not Allow Merger of Time-Warner and Comcast\\r\\nhttp://www.t hepetitionsi...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
New Petition! Speak out against Time-Warner Merger with Comcast! Let your opinion be know before your bill goes up and your programming choices dwindle.\\r\\n\\r\\nUrge DOJ and FCC to Not Allow Merger of Time-Warner and Comcast\\r\\nhttp://www.t hepetitionsi...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND IN PERSON, TUNE IN ON TV, OR WATCH ONLINE:\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n \\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\ \r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\ r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r \\n\\r\\n\\r\\nFriday,&nb sp;\\r\\nFebruary \\ r\\n\\r\\n \\r\\n7\\ r\\n, 2014\\r\\n To watch the TV series: World Harmon...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\nWe declare that no man nor nation nor race have a greater right than others to enjoy the fruits of their work, as the ecological sphere is our common condition of life http://www.beat Nous déclarons qu\\\'auc...
(1 comments  |  discussions )
\\nI found this beautiful inspirational Winter poem and thought it might be a comfort to you.\\r\\n\\r\\nIt was to me and it\\\'s very well written.\\r\\n\\r\\nI felt it really captured my own feelings about Winter.\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n \\r\\n\\\"Winter\\\"\\r\\ n\\r\\nA poem by\\r\\n...
by Good H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\nNorthern California Beach Reading 500 CPM on 12/20/2013 - Fukushima Radiation Is Here. Via @ AGreenRoad. \\r\\nFr om Rense; \\\"The above video was taken today with an Inspector Plus Geiger counter by \\\'Dave\\\', giving readings on a Northern Californ...
(1 comments  |  discussions )
1. Go to a peaceful, serene spot that you feel most calm in. It must be quiet and free of clutter. 2. Close your eyes and get into a comfortable seated position. Take six deep breaths with a count of six seconds on the inhale through the nose and four...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\r\\n \\r\\n\\r\\n\ \r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\ r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r \\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\ \n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\ n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND IN PERSON, TUNE IN ON TV, OR WATCH ONLINE:\\r\\n\\r\\n\\r\\n  \\r\\nFriday,  \\r\\nDecember 6\\r\\n, 2013\\r\\n \\r\\nTo watch...
by Good H.
(0 comments  |  0 discussions )
\\n\\n\\nAntimatter  \\n\\nAccording to wiki; \\\"A classic staple of science fiction and superhero stories, anti-matter  is matter composed of antiparticles, subatomic particles that have mostly exactly the same properties (mass, intrinsic angu...