Soy Tyranny Video

Soy Tryanny The Tyranny of Soy Agribusiness in Paraguay tells how Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill and a series of Brazilians agribusinesses are flexing their muscles in Paraguay, currently occupying 25% of all arable land for the production of genetically modified soy for export.

"The losers are Paraguay's peasant farmers, and they've mobilized to defend themselves, including getting a president into power who promised to help them."

NEW Barrie Trower WiFi Report - Humanity At The Brink

With Deference to all Scientists: this Research Report has been written for all students and non-scientists to understand.

Abstract

As stated by University Researchers, Government Scientists and International Scientific Advisors; a minimum of 57.7% of schoolgirls exposed to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-fi) are at risk of suffering stillbirth, foetal abnormalities or genetically damaged children, when they give birth. Any genetic damage may pass to successive generations.

Wifi ­ a Thalidomide in the Making ­ Who Cares?

Professor John R Goldsmith, International / Advisor Consultant for R.F. Communication, Epidemiology and Communications Sciences Advisor to the World Health Organisation, Military and University Advisor, Researcher; wrote concerning the low level exposure of microwave irradiation (below thermal level) incident upon women:

“Of the microwave-exposed women, 47.7% had miscarriages prior to the 7^th week of pregnancy....”(1)

The level of irradiation incident upon the women was stated, as from, five microwatts per centimetre squared. This level of irradiation may seem meaningless to a non-scientist; however, when I say that it is below what most schoolgirls will receive in a classroom of wi-fi transmitters, from the age of approximately five years upwards, this level becomes more meaningful.

A distinction here must be made and a very important one: schoolgirls are not women. Schoolgirls are children and children are both neurologically and physiologically different from adults. A child’s brain tissue / bone marrow has different electrical conductivity properties than adults due to the higher water content (2) (this renders the Specific Absorption Rate obsolete). Children’s absorption of microwave radiation can be ten times higher than adults. 

Permanent low-level microwave exposure can induce chronic nitrosative and oxidative ‘stress’ thence, damage the cellular mitochondria (mitochondropathy). This ‘stress’ can cause irreversible mitochondrial DNA damage (mitochondrial DNA is ten times more susceptible to oxidative and nitrosative ‘stress’ than the DNA in the cell nucleus). Mitochondrial DNA is irreparable due to its low histone protein content, therefore any damage (genetic or otherwise) can be transmitted to all successive generations through the maternal line. (3)

Hence, we are subjecting each successive female generation to harm. Whether these two ten-fold increases ‘merge’ to become 57.7% or are additional, thence equal 67.7% of those to suffer, is a moot point. Either way we are facing the equivalent of a pandemic. I was invited to present a lecture at Brighton University recently and one Doctor commented on a +60% foetal birth rate damage from exposed farm animals. All mammalian species will of course suffer the same consequence resulting from low-level microwave irradiation. There is very little difference ‘biologically’ between our embryonic cells.

I invite the Reader to peruse my diagram and / or read my simple explanation concerning the microwaving of the ovarian follicles in schoolgirls.

Simple Explanation

Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen. Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years old. When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have been microwaved. Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child.

Should you become a pregnant as a student, your embryo (for its first 100 days ­ if it is female) is producing approximately 400,000 follicles (within its ovaries) for future child-birth.

The problem is that these developing follicle cells do not have the cellular protection of mature adult cells. Consequently your ‘Grandchild’ may have had every single follicle cell irradiated and damaged prior to its conception. Therefore when your child becomes an adult (with its irradiated follicles) there is a greater likelihood of its child (your Grand-daughter) suffering the ailments previously mentioned, during conception / embryonic and foetal development stages.

Beyond Belief

The shocking truth is, not only was all of this known and documented long before wi-fi was ever put in front of children, but the dangerous biological effects were concealed (as they are to this day) from the general public, in order to protect the industries profit.

Professor Goldsmith writes:

“.....effects from exposure to RF radiation in certain populations: reproductive effects.....increased spontaneous abortion.....increased incidence of childhood and other cancers.....” (1)

Confirming this with more than 2000 references is the Naval Medical Research Institute in their document: ‘Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (Effects) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation’ highlight ‘......Altered Menstrual Activity / Altered Foetal Development.....’ (4)

The World Health Organization’s ‘International Symposium’ Research Agreement No. 05-609-04 ‘Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation’ emphasizes in its 350 pages: Biological effects, health and excess mortality from artificial irradiation of Radio Frequency Microwaves. Section 28 deals with problems concerning Reproductive Function.

This document was classed as ‘Top Secret’ and its contents withheld by WHO and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). (5)

Eldon Byrd, a scientist for the Naval Surface Weapon Centre of the US Navy, in one of his 1986 lectures on the effects of low-level microwaves, is referenced as stating:

‘.....we can alter the behaviour of cells, tissue.....cause up to six times higher foetus mortality and birth defects....’. (6)

Finally, the Mobile Telecommunications Industry carried out a very thorough and exhaustive scientific study on its own product. This industries conclusion was:

Sec. 7 “.....it can be concluded that electro-magnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.”

“.....Direct damage on the DNA as well as influences on the DNA synthesis and DNA repair mechanisms.....” (7)

(Note I have underscored the relevant words here.)

Note: DNA synthesis is essential for healthy embryonic / foetal / child’s growth.

With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to protect this industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive the public’.

It read:

“.....if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial output.....exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more.....” (8)

NB: Industrial output is of course...profit. A very relaxed exposure standard also makes it very difficult to take the industry to court.

This (and two other documents with ref. 8) then continues to list many physiological and neurological dangers from low-level: below thermal, microwave irradiation inc: blood disorders, heart problems, psychiatric symptoms and ‘menstrual disorders’.

*Wi-fi is of course, below thermal low-level microwave irradiation.*

In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline, whereby, the only safety limit is just six-minutes of warming. Which means: if you do not feel too warm in six minutes, wi-fi is deemed to be safe.

No consideration at all has been given to the published ‘below thermal’ cellular interaction as listed by several countries including the United States; which were (and are) known to cause: cancer, severe neuropathological symptoms, foetal defects and literally hundreds of illnesses related to cellular disorders.

Countries following ICNIRP continue to argue that their six minute warming effect is all that is required regarding microwave irradiation.

Should the Reader be wondering whether I am ‘as mad as a box of frogs’ and thinking ‘no government would ever harm its citizens for money, especially pregnant women’; I invite the Reader to investigate Government decisions behind: smoking, asbestos, BSE (mad-cow disease), lead in petrol, experiments on 20,000 UK serving military personnel serving in the 1960’s, thalidomide and of course Agent Orange sprayed over the food crops in Vietnam. To this day, many global birth defects stem from these Government / Government Scientific / Military decisions: with industrial advisors.

If further evidence is required, I invite the Reader to read documents released under the Freedom of Information Act; namely, Operations: Pandora, MK Ultra, MK Chaos, Cointelpro, MK Delta, MK Naomi, MK Search, Bluebird, Artichoke, Chatter, Sleeping Beauty and Grill Flame.

Here, secret experiments carried out by the Military / Government scientists upon unsuspecting civilians, namely: students, servicemen, psychiatric patients, poor, children over the age of 4 years, pregnant women, Muslims, Catholics, prisoners, handicapped, deaf, blind, homosexuals, single women, elderly, school children, ‘marginal groups’ and dissidents; served to increase their knowledge and understanding of; what is commonly known as...Stealth Warfare.

Progress on the study of illnesses caused by low-level microwave irradiation continues to this day. One current study on cancer and neurological harm continues until 2018 and involves women who could be pregnant. (9)

Progress Reports are also fed back to Governmental Scientists:

“.....students will understand the nature of RF...bioeffects research, including human / animal studies.....students will become familiar with current state of knowledge on potential health effects RF, such as cancer, memory loss, and birth defects.” (10)

NB: RF has become a generic term (Radio Frequency) to avoid using the term ‘microwave’. It poses less ‘safety queries’ as the word ‘radio’ itself, which used to refer to ‘long wave radio’ was domestically non threatening.

Intentional Ignorance

Governmental Intransigence forces a moratorium upon the risks of exposure to future generations. Both the Communications Industry and Governmental studies have proved that protein synthesis (the using of chemical structures to ‘build’ the roughly 4050 foetal and 4500 adults designated biological / neurological structures) can be influenced by low-level microwave irradiation. This moratorium seems to spread to organizations either relying on Governmental funding, or for whatever reason; acquiescence. However, not all research departments suppress the truth.

A brilliant paper published by Dundee University confirms that low-level microwave irradiation, unable to cause any heating (thermal) effect, can affect cellular signalling processes. (11)

The Main Risks to Children

These biological processes described as being ‘influenced’ by low-level microwave irradiation may not just damage foetal growth; relying on the same biological processes are:

Blood Brain Barrier ­ requires 18 months to form and protects the brain from toxins. It is known to be effected.

Myelin Sheath ­ requires 22 years to build its 122 layers. It is responsible for all thinking, organ and muscle processes.

Brain ­ requires 20 years to develop (I can assure you, cell phones do not help in its development).

Immune System ­ requires 18 years to develop. Bone marrow and Bone Density are known to be affected by low-level microwaves as are the immune systems’ white blood cells.

Bones ­ requires 28 years to develop ­ as mentioned the moisture content of children makes both the ‘soft bones’ and marrow particularly attractive to microwave irradiation. Bone marrow produces blood cells.

Clearly, our decision makers are overlooking a child illness pandemic hitherto unknown in our 40,000 generations of civilization; which can involve over a half of the World’s exposed mothers / children.

The Very Sad Truth

I have been very honoured to address approximately 40 Royals, Governments, Leaders of Governments, Leaders of Peoples and Government Officials over the years.

My address (text) to one King concerning the numbers of ill children was placed on the internet. (12)

I referenced over 200 cancer / leukaemia clusters in schools (up to the time of data collection) from low level microwave transmitters in schools. There were many different types of cancers, leukaemias, miscarriages and breast cancers of staff. These continue, mostly only recorded locally, to this day.

When this was discussed in the English Parliament (as one of the EU Countries involved), a Minister dismissed it and lied to the House of Commons. My request to prove this lie was denied.

Possibly, the most respected children’s charity in the World: UNICEF, joined forces with the World’s leading authority on the effects of harm from low-level microwave irradiation:

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: in their research document ‘Health Effect on Children and Teenagers’ found;

85% increase in Central Nervous System Disorders

36% increase in epilepsy

11% increase in mental retardation

82% increase in blood immune disorders and Risk to Foetus. (13)

NB. The Reader may think that the cell phone irradiation is different from wi-fi as it has more power. In fact wi-fi can be more harmful because of its lower power! Low power can enter the body and cause harm. All electromagnetic waves are accumulative. If they are below the body’s threshold to cause activation of the necessary proteins required to defend and repair tissues, the damage accumulates very slowly and is undetectable like a cancer. Think of sunbathing on a cloudy day, you can still burn your skin.

The Good Guys

I have a list of nine countries (some of whom I am working with) who are actively, either taking wi-fi out of schools or in the legal argument-stage of this process. I decline to publically name these countries as my actions may interfere with their legal negotiations.

The Parliamentary Assembly (Assemblee Parlimentaire) Council of Europe Document 12608, published on 6.5.2011 in section 8.3.2. states:

‘.....ban all mobile phones, DECTphones or Wi-Fi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools.....’

For legal reasons this had to be changed to a ‘wired system is preferred’. However, the meaning is clear.

In a translated document, Professor Yuri Grigoriev of the Russian Committee for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection wrote on 19.6.2012

‘.....recommend the use of wired networks and not networks using the wireless broadband access systems, including wi-fi, in schools and educational establishments.’

A document dated 25.3.2013 (updated from 19.3.2013) by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District with the following recommendation:

‘.....do not add to the burden of public health by installing blanket wireless internet connections in Los Angeles Schools.’

Just prior to this in December 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (representing 60,000 Paediatricians) wrote to Congress requesting more protection from low-level microwave irradiation for children and pregnant women: with regard to wi-fi in schools, they write:

‘.....this is an unprecedented exposure with unknown outcome on the health and reproductive potential of a generation.’ (14)

In 2002, 36,000 Physicians and Scientists etc. signed the ‘Freiburg Appeal’. Ten years hence, it has been re-launched. It specifically warns against the use of Wi-fi and the irradiation of children, adolescents and pregnant women. ‘Freiburg’ is an International Doctors’ Appeal.

The Reader will appreciate that collectively there are approximately 100,000 of the World’s most knowledgeable professionals expostulating this same warning.

As an aside, should the Reader be wondering why I have not mentioned school-boys and whether they can be affected in a similar way to girls: the answer is ‘yes’.

DNA sperm fragmentation from wi-fi levels of irradiation, have been published. (15) It would require many more pages to comment upon this phenomenon and there is already a plethora of data both available and published.

Pulsing / Modulations

During the ‘Cold War’ conflict, whilst I was collating effects from microwave pulses / modulations caused by brain entrainment, resonance (both cyclotronic and circadian), rectification (at boundaries within the body) generated by electrically induced phase transition; it came to my attention that a list needed to be published for all microwave communication systems. (16)

In this Open Letter, I list 1 to 40 Hz (pulses / modulations per second) and their corresponding neurological / physiological response.

In his most explanatorily descriptive paper, Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy writes.....

‘.....For example, Grigoriev et. Al. (2010) showed that 30 days exposure to unmodulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation triggered a small but significant increase in anti-brain antibodies in the blood of rats.....which could then result in an auto immune attack on the brain and / or nervous system. An example of an auto immune disease of the brain is Graves disease in which the pituitary gland (at the base of the brain) is affected.’ (17)

NB. 2450 M Hz is the wi-fi frequency.

If you add the pulse / modulation frequency to the above; fatigue, depression, psychiatric problems (such as anger), loss of appetite and problems with movement can also be induced.

The Bad Guys

With gargantuan profits to be made, it is of no surprise that the English Parliamentary system choose to follow ICNIRP and their well established ‘Active Denial’ policy.

I became familiar with our ‘corruption’ when during the late 60’s ­ 70’s, I was commissioned to investigate (under a programme initiated by Sir William Melvin (1911)) corruption within the hierarchy of the London Metropolitan Police and the non-elected Members of the English Parliament. Should the Reader be dismissive of such actions, I suggest looking at any of our Sunday newspapers over the past 45 years, including now.

When a Reverend lady wrote to a Minister, Nick Gibb MP, concerning Wi-fi in schools, his standard reply (which I have seen many times) stated:

“.....advice given.....by UK Health Protection Agency..... ‘There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and no reason why schools and others should not use Wi-fi equipment.” (18)

This letter is designed to deceive (and it is very successful). Look to the words ‘no consistent evidence’. Let me explain please.

If I were to carry out an experiment on every single person who went through the doors of your main airport on any busy day and told them that they must drink one pint of beer and smoke ten cigarettes a day forever; some would react immediately, especially children. Others would react over days, weeks, months and years (many years in some cases). Then there would be those who would thoroughly enjoy the experiment and probably never be ill. That does not mean that alcohol and cigarettes are safe. It shows that people are not homogenous (all alike / identical). In other words, the conclusion of my experiment would be that there is: ‘no consistent evidence’.

Other Ministerial letters usually say: “most of our research” or “most of our scientists” ­ both of which are equally meaningless.

What they never say is: Wi-fi is safe.

It will come as no surprise to the Reader to learn that I have been refused permission to have a face-to-face meeting with my MP, Mr Mel Stride. Hence my Member of Parliament has successfully brought the ‘shutters down’ on any access I may have had to Government. This act by Mr Stride became a ‘feature’ in our West Country newspaper by leading Journalist Paul James. (19)

During my last attempt to contact my MP, his Secretary, Dominic just hung-up the telephone on me.

Years ago, when I started to ‘advise caution’ re microwaving children / pregnant women; the Academic Registrar of my own University (Exeter) forbade me from ever communicating with it, ever again. A similar message came from Dr. Jamie Harle of the Open University (Medical Physics), who said: “Your work is too political.”

Clearly in England, some universities and some parliamentary persons are more afraid of governmental ‘reprisals’ than telling the truth. Regardless of the consequences.

Two Womens’ Stories

The Real Price of Intentional Ignorance and Greed. Those Consequences.

Ten telephone calls a day would not be unusual for me. I even receive calls Christmas Day / Easter Sunday. Two calls which summarize those from women are illustrated below. Both are actual conversations.

1. “.....my daughter had just died. I am holding her hand. She has just had her 11^th birthday and she was number 11 to die since the transmitter for Wi-fi was put near her and others’ desk.....”
2. “.....my child is one of several with cancer / birth genetic problems. These only started after the transmitter was turned on. My worries are two-fold and take every second of my life. Will my child ever marry or find a partner and be happy? What will happen when I die? I know I will die worrying. Regardless of who is to blame, it is me, the Mother who carries guilt and responsibility.....” (20)

I Ask for Readers’ Help, Please.

Imagine 57.7% of all of the schoolgirls with Wi-fi in their classrooms: all day ­ all year ­ all through their school career, in every country using it, in the World!

In just two generations we could have more dead / sick infants than resulted from both World Wars. And, these are not my figures, they come from Government advisors / research.

Advanced requests for this ‘Paper’ have been received from Royalty, Governmental Officers (outside of the UK) and people I will describe as ‘interesting’.

As shutters fall blocking every direction I try to turn, I ask: “Can the Reader succeed in preventing this ‘Pandemic’ where I will fail?”

I have two requests:

1. Would a Royal or Leading Governmental Official please ask the British Prime Minister, face to face, why he told my MP, Mr Stride, that he is ‘too busy’ to see me for just one hour to discuss this issue.
2. If every Reader sends just two copies of this Paper to people who may be able make a decision (preferably influential women); with mathematical progression ­ the original 100 advanced requests will soon land on a desk of somebody who can make a difference.

International Challenge

When I am invited to speak in countries, I invariably end up on the radio / TV news / documentary channels. Thence, I issue a challenge:

I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question:

“What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?”

To date, not a single scientist will appear and face me.

I mention this because it is a question the Reader can ask any decision maker, school Principal / Governor etc.

Should any person provide the answer, the next statement is:

“Fine ­ we will send it to a Leading Scientific Journal for independent Peer Review.” (With your research). (21)

The Solution

Education need not suffer if Wi-fi is withdrawn world-wide. We have telephone lines ­ fibre-optic cable.

The argument against these options is the cost. Compared to the future medical costs (forgetting the human cost), phone / fibre-cable shows to be a very cheap option.

Thank you.

Barrie Trower

3 Flowers Meadow

Liverton

Devon TQ12 6UP

United Kingdom

In UK - 01626 821014

World ­ 00 44 1626 821014

September 1^st 2013

(This Paper is copyright free)

Epilogue

Please note ­ I have always worked free of charge and will represent any person in the world without cost. PLEASE SEE ADDENDUM

Addendum ­ Recent Publications

Professors’ / Doctors’ Panagopoulos, Johnasson and Carlo describe in their (June 2013 Published) Paper ­ how man-made electromagnetic waves (as used in the communications industry) can cause interference, hence induced oscillations, from these polarized waves. This in turn, can induce biological alterations and render the SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) obsolete.

They write:

• Man-made electromagnetic waves...they are polarized...
• ....can produce interference effect...This induced oscillation will be most intense on the free particles which carry a net electric charge...a part of its energy...is transferred to the charged / polar molecules of the medium...within biological tissue there will be additional energy absorption by the water dipoles...proteins, lipids or nucleic acids, which will also be forced to oscillate by the applied field.
• ...man-made EMF’s can produce severe biological alterations such as DNA damage without heating the biological tissue...may lead to cancer, neurodegenerative deceases, reproductive declines or even heritable mutations...conductivity varies for different tissues and different field frequencies..The relative permittivity of an adult brain is calculated to be around 40 while the corresponding value for a young child’s brain is between 60 and 80 resulting in almost double the radiation absorption and SAR...
• ...SAR offers no information at all with respect to frequency, waveform or modulation... (Ref (22))

Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos, Dep. of Biology, University of Athens also writes in his 2013 paper: Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well Being:

• Disturbances in the communication between individual body clocks can desynchronize the circadian system, which in turn may lead to unwellness, chronic fatigue, decreased performance, obesity, neuropsychiatric disorders, and the development of different diseases...
• ...endogenous electrical balance in living organisms cannot occur in the presence of unnatural ­ man-made ­ electromagnetic pollution..... GSM mobile phone radiation is found to cause DNA damage on insect reproductive cells (gametes) and adversely affect reproduction for intensities down to 1 microwatt per centimetre squared after only a few minutes exposure..... (Ref (23))

References

1.			Professor John R. Goldsmith	Possible Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation Environmental Health Perspectives Sup. 6 Dec. 1997 P. 1580
2.	Microwave News	Children’s Brains are Different May 3rd. 2010 P.3
3.	Andrea Klein & Barrie Trower	Wireless Laptops and Their Transmitters Using Microwaves in Schools P.3 (Undated)
4.	NMRI	AD750271 Research Report MF12. 524.015-004B 4-10-1971 Bethesda, Maryland, USA
5.	WHO	Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation International Symposium, Warsaw, Poland (1973) With US Dept of Health, Food and Drug Administration Document 05-609-04
6.	Microwave Mind Control	Mind Control and the UK Chapter 4. Tim Rifat P.83 2001
7.	Hennies ­ Neitzke - Voight	Mobile Telecommunications and Health Review of Current Scientific Research T-Mobile Hannnover April 2007 Section 7
8.	US Defence Intelligence Agency	DST ­ 18105-076-76 March 1976 NB: DST-18105-074-76 and ST-CS-01-169-72 also refer to this phenomena
9.	Barrie Trower	Most Confidential Report on the TETRA (Airwave) Communication System Strictly for the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) June 2009
10.	P. Phillips, L.Brown, B. Thornton	US Electromagnetic Weapons and Human Rights Course No. 11 Page 40 Sonoma State University As a study of the History of US Intelligence Community Human Rights Violations and Continuing Research in Electromagnetic Weapons Project Censored: Media Freedom Foundation
11.	J. Simon C. Arthur	MAPK Aclivation by Radio Waves MRC Protein Phosphoryiation Unit School of Life Sciences University of Dundee DD4 5EH UK Published by Journal of Biochemistry (405) e5 e6 2007
12.	Barrie Trower	www.magdahavas.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barrie Trower SA.pdf
13.		Electromagnetic Fields from Mobile Phones: Health Effects on Children and Teenagers Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection April 2011
14.		Private letters (available on internet) as titled and dated in text
15.	C. Avendano, A. Mata, C.A Sanchez Sarmienta, G. Doncel	Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm Fragmentation Nascentis Medicina Reproductiva, Cordoba, Argentina Dept of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia (2012)
16.	Barrie Trower	The Communications Industry is in the Position Where it is Sprialling out of any Person’s Ability to Control it An Open Letter (undated)
17.	Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy	The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields ­ Problems and Solutions March 2012 P.14
18.	Stuart Gallimore, Director of Children’s Services	Personal Letter. Nick Gibb MP House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA 30 August 2011
19.	Paul James	Physicist: I’m Stopped From Seeing my MP Mid Devon Advertiser 3.5.13 P. 13
20.		Personal Conversations I am with holding their private telephone numbers for privacy
21.		Nature Publications ­ Nature or Scientific American 75, Varick Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10013-1917, USA
22.	Dimitris J. Panagopoulos, Olle Johansson & George L. Carlo	Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate as a Domestic Quantity for Electromagnetic Fields Bioeffects 4.6.2013 Pages ­ i) 1 ii) 2 iii) 4 iv) 6 PLOS ONE June 2013 Vol 8 Issue 6 e62663
23.	Dimitris J. Panagopoulos University of Athens	Electromagnetic Interaction Between Environmental Fields and Living Systems Determines Health and Well-Being Electromagnetic Fields: Principles ­ Biophysical Effects ISBN 978-1-62417-063-8 Editors M.H Kwang and S.O Yoon 2013 Nova Sciences Publishers, Inc Pages ­ i) 20 ii) 35

Navy Spurns California’s Request to Reduce Injury to Marine Mammals off Coast

LOS ANGELES - August 19 - The U.S. Navy has indicated that it intends to disregard the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) recommendations to mitigate the harmful effects of Navy sonar and offshore training exercises on the state’s marine mammals. In a letter dated July 31, 2013, the Navy responded to the CCC’s March objection, which concluded that the Navy’s planned training and testing activities in Southern California would not be consistent with California coastal law.

The Navy’s plans would allow a radical increase in sonar training and underwater detonations off Southern California, beginning in January 2014. While the Navy says it is open to negotiation, it refuses in its letter to abide by any of the state’s recommended mitigation measures, such as avoiding training in globally important foraging habitat for the endangered blue whale. The Navy’s review comes in the wake of several new studies showing that its Southern California activities are harming marine mammal species, such as blue whales and beaked whales, far more than was previously known.

Following is a statement from Natural Resources Defense Council’s marine mammal project director, Michael Jasny:

“The Navy’s plan to dramatically increase its sonar training and underwater detonations off the Southern California coast shouldn’t come at the expense of the state’s marine life. Its proposal blatantly disregards new science showing that current training levels could already be devastating California’s beaked whale populations and preventing endangered blue whales from recovering from near-extinction.

The Coastal Commission has offered reasonable measures that take into account the Navy’s need for flexibility while affording greater protection to vulnerable species. The Navy’s refusal to adopt any of these measures puts California’s marine life in jeopardy.”

Background:

Beginning next January, the Navy plans to dramatically increase sonar training and underwater detonations off of Southern California over the next five years. The Navy estimates that it would kill 130 marine mammals outright, permanently deafen another 1,600, and significantly disrupt feeding, calving and other vital behaviors more than 8.8 million times in the process. 

Compared with its previous exercises in the region, these numbers represent a 1,300 percent increase.

Each year, the Navy would run more than 10,000 hours of the same high-intensity military sonar that has killed and injured whales around the globe. In addition, the Navy would detonate more than 50,000 underwater explosives off the Southern California coast.

Hundreds of these explosives would pack enough charge to sink a warship, which is exactly what they’re used for.

For some species, like the magnificent gray whales that migrate up and down our coast, the incidence of harm is several times the size of their entire populations. The most vulnerable marine mammals are the beaked whales, a family of species that are considered acutely sensitive to Navy sonar, with documented injury and death.

 A government study published earlier this year found that beaked whale populations have indeed declined substantially in the California Current over the past 20 years, and suggests that the Navy’s range may have become a population sink, making it difficult for them to breed or bring their calves to maturity. Another Southern California study found that the Navy’s frequent sonar training poses significant risks to the recovery of endangered blue whales, whose numbers have not rebounded in the Pacific since commercial whaling was banned more than 25 years ago.

###

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

Is It OK To Kill?

Is it okay to kill? I don’t mean a bug in your house, a snake in your garage, or a deer in the woods. 

Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? 

Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.

Specifically, is it okay to kill someone who has not threatened or committed violence or aggression against you, your family, your friends, your neighborhood, anyone you know, or any American you don’t know?
No? Then –

• What if he is not an American?
• What if he lives thousands of miles away from America?
• What if he adheres to a religion that is different from that of most Americans?
• What if he is a darker color than most Americans?
• What if he speaks a language that most Americans don’t understand?
• What if he has habits that seem peculiar to most Americans?
• What if he holds to a political ideology that doesn’t resemble America’s?
• What if he smells different than most Americans?

Does someone having one or more of these characteristics alone mean it is okay to kill him?
Another no? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says he is a terrorist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an insurgent?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a communist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is an extremist?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a potential threat?
• What if the U.S. government says he hates our freedoms?
• What if the U.S. government says he is the enemy?
• What if the U.S. government says he is a bad guy?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
No again? Then –

• What if the U.S. government says it is a matter of national security?
• What if the U.S. government says it is in the national interest?
• What if the U.S. government says it is of strategic concern?
• What if the U.S. government says it has secret information that makes it necessary?
• What if the U.S. government says it is part of the president’s grand strategic vision?
• What if the U.S. government says it is essential to maintaining hegemony?
• What if the U.S. government says it is just a part of fighting terrorism?
• What if the U.S. government says it is important to foreign policy objectives?

Does the U.S. government merely saying any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Still no? Then –

• What if the U.S. military gives you a nice uniform?
• What if the U.S. military gives you a gun and ammunition?
• What if the U.S. military pays for your college education?
• What if the U.S. military provides you with free medical and dental care?
• What if the U.S. military offers you citizenship in exchange for service?
• What if the U.S. military gives you an enlistment bonus?
• What if the U.S. military gives you generous combat pay?
• What if the U.S. military assists you with repaying your student loans?
• What if the U.S. military offers you liberal retirement benefits?

Does the U.S. military doing any of these things make it okay to kill him?
Of course not? Then –

• Why are some so quick to make apologies for U.S. military personnel who kill for the state in unjust wars?
• Why are some so quick to excuse U.S. military personnel who kill while not defending the United States?
• Why are some so quick to justify U.S. military personnel who kill people thousands of miles away that are no threat to the United States?
• Why are some so quick to defend U.S. military personnel who kill people that resent and resist being invaded, bombed, occupied, or "liberated"?
• Why are some so quick to blame the government, the politicians, and the defense contractors and exempt the U.S. military personnel who do the actual killing?

For years now I have heard the excuses. But what are these apologists, excusers, justifiers, defenders, and exempters really saying?

• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t find a job.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you can’t make it in college.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are economically disadvantaged.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if your father was in the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are patriotic.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are ignorant.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are poor.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are uneducated.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you have no resources available.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are doing the right thing.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were raised to never question the military.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you were never taught otherwise.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you are just obeying orders.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are avenging 9/11.
• It is okay to kill for the U.S. government in an unjust war if you think you are defending our freedoms.

I have been given every one of these excuses at least ten times. The first part of the excuse is generally omitted, but why should it be? Is not this exactly what people are saying?

None of this means that the despicable creatures in the U.S. government who send American boys to war, and the equally loathsome creatures outside of the U.S. government who cheer them on, are not to be condemned as well. But those aren’t the people that are applauded in airports, called heroes, and thanked for their service.

But why is it that these excuses only seem to be valid for American soldiers? Why is it that soldiers from other countries aren’t lauded as heroes for killing Americans if they offer up one of the excuses that are commonly used to justify killings carried out by American soldiers? 

Some agree with everything I have said thus far, but think that if soldiers are draftees then it changes everything. I know this is the case because they write and tell me. I have written about the culpability of drafted soldiers in my article "Murder Is Still Murder." But again, why is it that it is only drafted American soldiers who can kill with impunity? I don’t think that apologists for draftees realize what they are saying. To excuse the actions of soldiers because they were drafted is to say that the state can somehow sanctify murder. 

Although the U.S. military is looking for a few good men to unjustly kill for the state, it is not okay to kill, even if the military advertises itself as a global force for good.

May 15, 2013

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The Revolution that Wasn't, Rethinking the Good War, and The Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. His latest book is The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom. Visit his website.