Omega-News Collection 29. May 2004

World Pays Heavy Price for Global Airline Boom

Global Warming - News

Antarctica's "Deep Impact" Threat


National Parks fast falling into disrepair

Indonesian Oil Palm Destroys Rainforests

GM Crops Not the Answer

Activists to Protest Biotechnology Industry Convention




Actions to help build a strong economy, based on sustainable agriculture, while protecting health and environment


NO to the Death Penalty - The appeal to save James

Help Stop Indefinite Detention

Tell the Fish and Wildlife Service that wildlife must come first on Alaska's refuges

'Dead zones' threaten fisheries



Lech Walesa: America "Failed"

On The Threshold Of Failure In Iraq

Wolfowitz Visited Abu Ghraib

Abuses in liberty’s name


Tens of Thousands Urge Bush to Uphold International Law

Ashcroft: al-kay-duh's gonna get you

Rights groups criticize US hostage-taking

US war policy a "grave error"

Patriotism: The new third rail

Bush policies make terrorism a growth industry

Informant: Thomas L. Knapp


Wider Iraqi abuse shown

A continuing education at Abu Ghraib University

New York Times: we were wrong on Iraq

The price of empire

The fall of the vulcans

New photos show Abu Ghraib tactics

Rape at Abu Ghraib

Ashcrofts summer "suspect" list

Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq

Opposition Growing to U.S. Exemption on Global Court

Conspiracy to Commit War Crimes

'The American military violence must stop'

Preventive Warriors

From Information Clearing House

'Dead zones' threaten fisheries

Sci/Tech > Environment
from the May 27, 2004 edition

'Dead zones' threaten fisheries

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
In midsummer, the northern Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River empties into it, may shimmer like any other swath of sea. But a few score feet below, bottom-dwelling fish and other creatures struggle just to breathe.

This area - one of the world's biggest coastal "dead zones" - is rapidly being joined by a growing number of "hypoxic," or oxygen-depleted areas around the world. At least 146 such zones have been documented through 2000 - from the northern Adriatic Sea to the Gulf of Thailand to the Yellow Sea, according to a United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report released in March. And their number has been doubling every decade since 1960, it adds. At risk: coastal fisheries near the most populous regions.

A handful of efforts are under way that could mitigate the effects. But because of lag times involved, the problem is likely to get worse before it gets better.

"I'm convinced this is going to be the biggest environmental issue in the aquatic marine realm in the 21st century," says Robert Diaz, a marine biologist and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, who coauthored the study undergirding the UNEP report. "It won't take too much for these annual lower-oxygen events to expand throughout the year and actually eliminate fisheries."

Dead zones often grow where populations grow. But the real driver is the spread of nitrogen, many observers say, caused by runoff of nitrogen-based fertilizers, sewage outflows, and nitrogen deposits from burning fossil fuels. Some waters remain oxygen-depleted year-around. In other waters, the problem appears periodically...

read further under:

Informant: NHNE

Die Gipfelstürmer des BKA

Mailpanne lässt Staatsschützer auffliegen.

weiter unter:

Indonesian Oil Palm Destroys Rainforests


Indonesian Oil Palm Destroys Rainforests, Intimidates Communities Protest Deutsche Bank's Funding of PT London Sumatra

By Forests.org, http://forests.org/

May 29, 2004

TAKE ACTION @ http://forests.org/action/indonesia/

Indonesia loses at least two million hectares of rainforest every year, much due to monoculture oil palm plantations. Oil palm is a vegetable oil produced on vast estate plantations in South East Asia and exported to Western markets. Oil palm plantation creation frequently destroys ancient primary rainforests, wipes out 80-100% of local biodiversity, leads to pollution of land and water from pesticides, and displaces local communities. Land is often stolen from forest dependent local peoples.

In Sumatra the huge oil palm company "PT London Sumatra" is currently intimidating a local community which is peacefully fighting for the return of their forest lands. The oil palm company has dug a massive ditch, 6 metres deep and 4 wide, around the village to cut off the protesting villagers. And now the company has sent in militias to violently silence the villagers. PT London Sumatra is largely bankrolled by the German Deutsche Bank. Email Deutsche Bank - encouraging them to pressure London Sumatra to stop its intimidation, and demand the Bank not fund further expansion of oil palm plantations into primary rainforests. Human rights abuses are at the core of the rainforests crisis. Together we must make a stand and end such barbaric and ecocidal practices - please send this email now!

TAKE ACTION @ http://forests.org/action/indonesia/


May 27, 2004


For some time now, I have been searching for answers to a deeply perplexing question: Why is the United States promoting the spread of atomic bombs worldwide?

By "atomic bombs" I mean the kind that turned Hiroshima and Nagasaki into a fiery hell in 1945 -- A-bombs made from plutonium (Nagasaki) or "enriched" uranium (Hiroshima).

In this series, I will briefly examine the facts, then consider some of the possible reasons why the U.S. might favor the proliferation of atomic weapons worldwide.

In at least four different ways, the U.S. is refusing to limit -- and in some cases is actively promoting -- the spread of atomic bombs around the globe.[1]

(1) The U.S. is helping foreign nations acquire nuclear power plants, which everyone acknowledges have provided the basis for A-bomb programs in India, Pakistan, South Africa, North Korea and, during the 1980s, in Iraq.[2] In the hands of a willing nation, nuclear power equals nuclear weapons.

(2) The U.S. is dragging its feet in achieving its stated goal of preventing theft of nuclear weapons within the former Soviet Union.[1]

(3) The U.S. is failing to retrieve 35,000 pounds of weapons-grade uranium that the U.S. loaned or gave to 43 countries during the past 50 years. A crude but effective A-bomb requires 110 pounds (50 kg) of enriched uranium.[3]

(4) President Bush has ordered a fundamental shift in U.S. nuclear weapons policies, initiating what the New York Times calls "the second nuclear age."

These new policies entail (a) creation of a new class of smaller nuclear weapons, (b) guiding small A-bombs to their targets from outer space, (c) reducing the time it takes to launch a nuclear strike, and (d) a new policy of pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear states.

"It is precisely these kinds of provocative new weapons capabilities -- at a time when the administration seeks to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction elsewhere -- that worries even hawkish Republicans," says James Sterngold of the San Francisco Chronicle.[4]

Let's examine each of these four developments in more detail:

I. Nuclear power = nuclear weapons

The U.S. is urging -- and subsidizing -- foreign nations to build new nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while acknowledging that every nuclear power plant certainly provides the stepping stones to A-bombs.

For example, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited China in April, 2004, he was promoting the sale of Westinghouse nuclear power plants to the Chinese.[5] Current U.S. policy restricts the export of nuclear technology to China but the Bush administration is expected to lift those restrictions in September. The immediate beneficiaries will be Westinghouse and General Electric.[6] China has already announced plans to build 32 nuclear power plants, and to export the technology to other countries. For example, China has said it intends to help Pakistan build two large nuclear power plants capable of producing plutonium.[5]

Within the U.S. itself, in recent months two corporate consortiums have proposed building new nuclear power plants.[7]

President Bush is an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power.

But nuclear power plants always carry an unspoken danger. For nations that want to build A-bombs, nuclear power provides the basis for all that's needed in the way of technology, opportunity and know-how.

No one disputes this view -- the "nuclear club" has been able to expand only because the spread of nuclear power plants has been encouraged and subsidized. Why does the U.S. continue down this path?

As the New York Times wrote recently, "'If you look at every nation that's recently gone nuclear,' said Mr. [Paul] Leventhal of the Nuclear Control Institute, 'they've done it through the civilian nuclear fuel cycle: Iraq, North Korea, India, Pakistan, South Africa. And now we're worried about Iran.' The moral, he added, is that atoms for peace can be 'a shortcut to atoms for war.'"[8]

The Times goes on, "Today, with what seems like relative ease, scientists can divert an ostensibly peaceful program to make not only electricity but also highly pure uranium or plutonium, both excellent bomb fuels."[8]

And: "Experts now talk frankly about a subject that was once taboo: 'virtual' weapon states - Japan, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Taiwan and a dozen other countries that have mastered the basics of nuclear power and could, if they wanted, quickly cross the line to make nuclear arms, probably in a matter or months."[8] Experts call crossing that line "breakout."

Other nations thought to have the know-how (though not necessarily the inclination) to cross the breakout line include Egypt, Syria, Nigeria, and South Korea.

The U.S. is on record as vigorously opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, U.S. actions to prevent proliferation are half-hearted and contradictory at best.[1,9]

For example, when U.S. allies break all the rules and export A-bomb technology, the U.S. looks the other way. Earlier this year, the world was rocked by news that Pakistan's chief nuclear engineer, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had sold a "complete package" of A-bomb technology to Libya, to North Korea, and probably to Iran. The "complete package" included enriched uranium, centrifuges for making more enriched uranium, and one or more designs for A-bombs.[10] Dr. Khan even maintained a telephone support hotline for his A-bomb customers. It was a good business -- Dr. Khan reportedly received more than $100 million from Libya alone.[11]

When Dr. Khan's international smuggling network was discovered, the President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf, forced Dr. Khan to retire as head of Khan Research Laboratories, then turned around and gave him an official pardon, lavished him with praise and gave him the title "special adviser" to the president.[10] According to the New York Times, "...some former and current American officials say there was considerable evidence that General Musharraf was turning a blind eye to Dr. Khan's activities, which they say may have involved parts of the Pakistani military."[12]

The Bush administration did nothing. "Although Mr. Bush has vowed to pursue and prosecute those who spread nuclear weapons technology, the administration did not criticize Mr. Musharraf when he decided to pardon Mr. Khan, who ran what now appears to be one of the largest nuclear proliferation networks in the past half-century."[10]

Did Dr. Khan provide bomb-grade uranium and nuclear know-how to Al Qaeda? "It's mystifying that the administration hasn't leaned on Pakistan to make Dr. Khan available for interrogation to ensure that his network is entirely closed," writes New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof. "Several experts on Pakistan told me they believe that the [U.S.] administration has been so restrained because its top priority isn't combating nuclear proliferation -- it's getting President Pervez Musharraf's help in arresting Osama bin Laden before the November election," Kristof writes.[13]

Pakistan was not the only U.S. ally involved in selling A-bombs to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Dubai in the United Arab Emirates served as the "key transfer point" for all the technology Dr. Khan was selling. Just as the Cayman Islands are known for laundering drug money, Dubai is known for laundering black-market products like A-bomb parts.[14]

When President Bush learned of Dubai's role in Pakistan's atomic shopping mall, he again did nothing. As the scandal was breaking in March, 2004, the Times reported that Lockheed Martin was proceeding with the sale of 80 F-16 fighters to Dubai -- apparently a reward to a trusted and valued ally.[14]

Even when wealthy, technically-savvy governments play strictly by the rules, the civilian nuclear fuel cycle has proven impossible to control. For example, the Japanese acknowledged earlier this year that they have lost 435 pounds of plutonium -- enough to make about 25 nuclear bombs as big as the one that wiped out Nagasaki in 1945. They know they produced it but they have no idea where it went.[15]

So long as the U.S. continues to promote nuclear power for itself and its allies, the fiery hell on earth draws ever closer and more vivid.

I used to think this problem of "nuclear weapons proliferation" was the "Achilles heel" of nuclear power -- the uncontrollable problem that would finally convince the world to stuff the nuclear power genie back into the bottle and never let it out again.

I am now wondering whether I had it exactly backwards: perhaps nuclear weaponry is the main appeal of nuclear power -- both to those who are buying it AND to those who are selling it. (More on this in Part 3.)

II. Turning a Blind Eye to Loose Soviet A-Bombs

The U.S. has continually failed to secure nuclear weapons left over from the cold war in countries of the former Soviet Union. As the New York Times reported in March 2004, "The bipartisan [U.S.] program to secure weapons of mass destruction is starved for funds -- but Mr. Bush is proposing a $41 million cut in 'cooperative threat reduction' with Russia."[13]

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15 or 20 years," Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, told the New York Times recently, "first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear weapon."[13]

There are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons in the countries of the former Soviet Union -- 7,000 of them strategic weapons plus an estimated 8,000 tactical weapons.[3] Strategic weapons are the big ones capable of incinerating whole cities. They are covered by disarmament treaties and so have been pretty well inventoried. They are also physically large and protected with several layers of elaborate codes and anti-detonation devices. It would be extremely difficult to steal one and set it off.

But tactical nuclear weapons are a different story. "The most troublesome gap in the generally reassuring assessment of Russian weapons security is those tactical nuclear warheads -- smaller, short-range weapons like torpedoes, depth charges, artillery shells, mines. Although their smaller size and greater number makes them ideal candidates for theft, they have gotten far less attention simply because, unlike all of our long-range weapons, they happen not to be the subject of any formal treaty," says the New York Times.[3]

The commonly-used estimate of 8,000 tactical nukes is "an educated guess," says the Times. Other estimates range from a low of 4,000 to a high of 32,000 tactical A-bombs. Even the Russians don't seem to have a reliable inventory.[3]

"The other worrying thing about tactical nukes is that their anti-use devices are believed to be less sophisticated, because the weapons were designed to be employed in the battlefield. Some of the older systems are thought to have no permissive action links at all, so that setting one off would be about as complicated as hot-wiring a car," says the Times.[3]

But stealing a nuclear weapon may not be the easiest way for a terrorist group to join the nuclear club.

Bill Keller, who wrote the eye-opening article, "Nuclear Nightmares" for the New York Times magazine two years ago, says, "The closest thing I heard to consensus among those who study nuclear terror was this: building a nuclear bomb is easier than you think, probably easier than stealing one."[3]

III. Sluggish Response to Weapons-Grade Uranium

So the third way that the U.S. is promoting the spread of atomic bombs is by failing to retrieve the weapons-grade enriched uranium that the U.S. sent abroad during the past 50 years.

Here is the opening paragraph from a New York Times story March, 7, 2004: "As the United States presses Iran and other countries to shut down their nuclear weapons development programs, government auditors have disclosed that the United States is making little effort to recover large quantities of weapons-grade uranium -- enough to make roughly 1,000 nuclear bombs -- that the government dispersed to 43 countries over the last several decades," including Iran and Pakistan.[16]

Why would President Bush fiddle around in the face of a threat as serious and obvious as this one?

--Peter Montague
[To be continued.]

[1] This newsletter was written before the New York Times
editorialized as follows on May 28, 2004:
"While the Bush administration has been distracted by the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it has neglected the far more urgent threat to American security from dangerous nuclear materials that must be safeguarded before they can fall into the hands of terrorists. That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from a new report that documents the slow pace of protecting potential nuclear bomb material at loosely guarded sites around the world.

"The report -- prepared by researchers at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard -- does not directly blame the invasion of Iraq for undermining that effort. It simply notes that less nuclear material was secured in the two years immediately after the 9/11 attacks than in the two years before....

"The most plausible explanation is that the administration has focused so intensely on Iraq, which posed no nuclear threat, that it had little energy left for the real dangers. Indeed, the Harvard researchers said that if a tenth of the effort and resources devoted to Iraq in the last year was devoted to securing nuclear material wherever it might be, the job could be accomplished quickly."

[2] In early June, 1981, Israel bombed a nuclear power plant under construction in Iraq, asserting that Iraq intended it for making A-bombs. See Steven R. Weisman, "Reagan Asserts Israel Had Cause To Mistrust Iraq: Senate Panel Not Convinced," New York Times June 17, 1981. pg. A1.

[3] Bill Keller, "Nuclear Nightmares," New York Times May 26, 2002.

[4] James Sterngold, "A new era of nuclear weapons: Bush's buildup begins with little debate in Congress," San Francisco Chronicle Dec. 7, 2003.

[5] H. Josef Hebert, "Cheney to shop Westinghouse nuke technology to China," Salt Lake City (Utah) Tribune April 10, 2004.

[6] Reuters, "Asian countries in race for nuclear power," Economic Times [of India] April 11, 2004.

[7] "A 2nd Consortium Wants a Reactor," New York Times April 1, 2004.

[8] William J. Broad, "Nuclear Weapons in Iran: Plowshare or Sword," New York Times (Science Section) May 25, 2004.

[9] "Editorial: Half a Proliferation Program," New York Times Feb. 16, 2004.

[10] David E. Sanger, "U.S. Widens Its View of Pakistan Link to Korean Arms," New York Times Mar. 14, 2004.

[11] David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, "Pakistani's Nuclear Earnings: $100 Million," New York Times Mar. 16, 2004.

[12] David Rohde and Talat Hussain, "Delicate Dance for Musharraf In Nuclear case," New York Times Feb. 8, 2004.

[13] Nicholas D. Kristof, "A Nuclear 9/11," New York Times Mar. 10, 2004.

[14] Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz, "OpEd: Nukes 'R' Us," New York Times Mar. 4, 2004.

[15] Bayan Rahman, "Japan Loses 206 kg of Plutonium," New York Times Jan. 28, 2003.

[16] Joel Brinkley and William J. Broad, "U.S. Lags in Recovering Fuel Suitable for Nuclear Arms," New York Times Mar. 7, 2004.

Der „Freiburger Appell“

„Funkanlagen auf Krankenhäusern unverantwortlich“

Antrag der ödp: Kreisausschuss soll für Verschwinden der Antennen sorgen -Landrätin Bruni Mayer sieht keinen Handlungsbedarf

Pfarrkirchen. Die ödp heizt die immer wieder aufkommenden Diskussionen um die Mobilfunkanlagen neu an. Ihre Kreisräte wollen die Antennen von den Dächern der Krankenhäuser verbannen.

Die Verträge mit den Betreibern der Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf den kreiseigenen Krankenhäusern in Eggenfelden und Pfarrkirchen sollen so schnell wie möglich gekündigt werden. Das fordern die Kreisräte der ödp in einem Antrag zur nächsten Sitzung des Kreisausschusses.

Nach Informationen der ödp gibt es derzeit insgesamt sechs Verträge mit den Firmen Vodafone, T-Online und E-plus, die alle Mobilfunkeinrichtungen auf den Krankenhäusern in Eggenfelden beziehungsweise Pfarrkirchen installiert haben. Die ersten Verträge könnten nach Auskunft der Geschäftsführung der Kreiskrankenhäuser gGmbH nun gekündigt werden.

In der Begründung zu ihrem Antrag verweist die ödp auf Aussagen der Interdisziplinären Gesellschaft für Umweltmedizin (IGUMED). In einem so genannten „Freiburger Appell“ vom Oktober 2002, der von zahlreichen Ärzten unterzeichnet worden sei, würden die Mediziner nach Angaben der ödp darauf hinweisen, dass sie „immer häufiger einen deutlichen zeitlichen und räumlichen Zusammenhang“ zwischen dem Auftreten bestimmter Erkrankungen und dem Beginn einer Funkbelastung auch durch die Installation einer Mobilfunkanlage im näheren Umkreis der Patienten sähen. ödp-Kreisvorsitzender Sepp Rettenbeck: „Diese Ärzte machen die 1992 eingeführte und inzwischen flächendeckende Mobilfunktechnologie und die seit 1995 käuflichen Schnurlostelefone nach DECT-Standard mitverantwortlich für einen dramatischen Anstieg schwerer und chronischer Erkrankungen. Schwangere, Kinder, Heranwachsende, alte und kranke Menschen sind nach Ansicht dieser Ärzte besonders gefährdet.“

Zudem seien die oftmals als psychosomatisch fehl gedeuteten Störungen wie Kopfschmerzen, Migräne, chronische Erschöpfung, Nerven- und Weichteilschmerzen auch auf Mobilfunkanlagen und Handys zurückzuführen. Bereits im Jahre 2000 hätte eine internationale Expertenkonferenz in Salzburg unter anderem auch auf Schädigungen des Erbgutes und eine Störung des Immunsystems hingewiesen.

Vor diesem Hintergrund „stellen Mobilfunkanlagen auf und in der Nähe von Krankenhäusern ein unverantwortbares Risiko dar“, meint Sepp Rettenbeck. Zudem würden Mobilfunkanlagen dem Selbstverständnis der Kreiskrankenhaus Rottal-Inn gGmbH widersprechen, weil in einer Broschüre des Kreiskrankenhauses mit dem Satz „Wir verstehen uns als Dienstleistungsunternehmen für Ihre Gesundheit“ geworben werde. „Angesichts möglicher schädlicher Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit führen Mobilfunkanlagen auf unseren Krankenhäusern dieses Selbstverständnis ad absurdum“, kommentieren die ödp-Kreisräte Josef Lirsch, Sepp Rettenbeck und Konrad Schützeneder diesen Sachverhalt.

Darüber hinaus würden sich sowohl in Eggenfelden als auch in Pfarrkirchen in unmittelbarer Nähe der Krankenhäuser Wohngebiete befinden, in Pfarrkirchen zusätzlich noch das Schulzentrum. „Aus Gesichtspunkten der Gesundheitsvorsorge – und die dürften in diesem Zusammenhang unzweifelhaft das entscheidende Kriterium sein – stellen die Mobilfunkanlagen an den Krankenhäusern in Eggenfelden und Pfarrkirchen äußerst ungünstige Standorte dar“, fasst Sepp Rettenbeck die Argumentation der ödp zusammen.

Anders bewertet dies Landrätin Bruni Mayer, Vorsitzende im Aufsichtsrat der Krankenhäuser. Für jede Aussage finde sich irgendein Experte. Tatsache sei, dass es bezüglich der Wirkung der Antennenstrahlung zwei Meinungen gäbe. „Im Prinzip kann jeder oder keiner Recht haben.“ Sie sei Besprechungen zu dieser Problematik im Umweltministerium dabei gewesen. Dabei sei ihr erklärt worden, dass die Krankenhäuser selbst wegen der Art der Ausbreitung von keiner Strahlung betroffen wären. „Wenn es anders wäre, gäbe es bestimmt Leute, die das tausendprozentig beweisen könnten und der Trittin (Bundesumweltminister Jürgen Trittin, d. Red.) hätte längst was dagegen unternommen.

„Wenn ich das Gefühl hätte, die Landkreisbevölkerung könnte dadurch Schaden nehmen, würde ich sofort einschreiten“, versichert Bruni Mayer. Sie werde das Thema zwar im Auge behalten, aber Handlungsbedarf könne sie derzeit nicht erkennen.


Nachricht von der BI Bad Dürkheim

Omega siehe auch:

Freiburger Appell

EU/USA: Flugdaten/Abkommen unterzeichnet

Heute wurde das Flugdaten-Abkommen auch offiziell unterzeichnet. Wir gratulieren den Kommissaren Bolkestein und Patten zu dem Pallawatsch, den sie da angerichtet haben und wünschen angenehmen Ruhestand durch rasches Fortschreiten der Senilität.

Nun ist der EUGh gefordert und bald schon wird sich weisen, ob die EU-Richtlinie zum Datenschutz noch jene Bytes wert ist, in denen sie als File gespeichert ist.

Wo Europas Passagierdaten landen
Umstrittenes Abkommen heute unterzeichnet

Insgesamt 53 staatliche US-Datenbankverbünde suchen Terroristen,
Kriminelle und illegale Einwanderer | Neue Dataminingsysteme im Ministerium für Heimatschutz | Bericht des US-Rechnungshofs von heute

Heute wurde das Abkommen zwischen der EU und den USA zur Flugdaten-Übermittlung von Transatlantik-Passagieren auch offiziell unterzeichnet.

Ein ebenfalls heute in den USA veröffentlichter Rechnungshofbericht lässt absehen, was mit den persönlichen Daten europäischer Flugpassagiere geschehen wird.

Die Untersuchung des General Accounting Office ergab, dass in den verschiedensten US-Regierungstellen mehr als 120 groß angelegte Datamining-Programme, die persönliche Daten von in- und ausländischen Bürgern enthalten, in Gange sind.

Etwa die Hälfte davon soll der Verbesserung von Services bzw. technischen Abläufen dienen, insgesamt 53 Datenbankverbünde beschäftigen sich mit der Analyse großer Datenmengen sowohl aus privaten wie staatlichen Datenquellen vornehmlich aus den USA, aber auch solchen ausländischer Provenienz.

Das vorrangige Ziel ist dabei jeweils Terroristen und Kriminelle aller Art herauszufiltern bzw. die Aufenthaltsdauer von ausländischen Staatsbürgern zu kontrollieren.

Mehr davon


Quelle: quintessenz-list Digest, Vol 14, Issue 17

Gutachten Professor Semm

Auszug aus einer Nachricht von Gerd Ernst Zesar

Omega: Gutachten Professor Semm>>>
Biologische Wirkungen von modulierten hochfrequenten
elektromagnetischen Feldern zu finden unter:

Sehr geehrter Herr Zesar,

Das veröffentlichte Gutachten von Professor Semm finde ich sehr interessant, wenn auch reichlich knapp und keineswegs umfassend. Es ist leicht ein solches Werk zu zerpflücken oder zu kritisieren, und Kritik muss es auch stand halten können wenn es gegen landläufige "Weisheiten" für irgend etwas taugen soll. Ich bitte daher meine folgende Kritik als Konstruktiv zu werten. Konstruktiv um Schwachpunkte oder Versäumnisse zu offenbaren, und Korrekturen zu ermöglichen bzw. anzuregen.

Ich selbst bin Techniker, auch D.Sc. und habe zwar seit Jahre ein gesteigertes Interesse, aber dennoch völlig laienhaftes Verständnis der Biologie. Die seltene Paarung eben dieser Interessen brachte mir Patente ein, aber auch reichlich Ärger. Beispielsweise wenn dadurch Zusammenhänge offenbar werden, die andere hoch studierte Zeitgenossen wegen eines leider allzuoft aquierierten "Scheuklappenblicks" nicht erkennen mögen und standhaft leugnen, ähnlich wie stampfende Kleinkinder.

Herr Prof. Semm ist offenbar von der biologischen Seite an das Problem getreten. Ich bewundere seinen Mut. Wissenschaftler die sowohl Biologie oder Neurologie einerseits, als auch Physik oder Elektronik oder zumindest technische Modulationstherorie andererseits beherrschen sind äussert selten. Entsprechend selten sind solche fachübergreifende Arbeiten, sieht man von den wenigen erst Jahrzehnte später bekanntgewordenen militärischen Untersuchungen ab. Diese allerdings bestätigen die Wirkung elektromagnetischer Felder als "penetrates and puts all organ systems at risk.. produce stimulation similar to electrical stimulation with mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distotion or disorientation. For dealing with ... antipersonell techniques in tactical warfare".

Im Gutachten erscheint die Wahl und Verwendung technischer Begriffe und die "Statements" zu technische Dinge etwas Laienhaft:

Der Abstrakt nennt: "Die ... Schwelle für EM-Beeienflussung .. liegt bei 200nW/cm."

Etwa in der Mitte des Papiers." Die neuronalen Reaktionen ... 0.00004 mW/cm².

Bereits 1962 in den Untersuchungen von Frey wurde festgestellt, dass die Wahrnehmungsgrenze/Reizschwelle nicht nur von der Modulation, sondern auch von der Spitzenleistung (momentanwert) des Aussenders abhängt, aber eben nicht von dessen Effektivleistung. Die Effektivleistung ist die Momentanleistung des auftretenden Pulses oder Trägers mal Zeit inklusive aller eventueller Sendepausen zwischen den Pulsen bzw innerhalb des Meßzeitraums . Ein Beispiel aus der Praxis: Die Taktzeiten Senden/Pause von 1:8 oder 1:16 beim "Handy" lassen die Effektivleistung eben um diesen Faktor minderbewertet werden. Die Maßeinheit "Energie pro Fläche" ist somit völlig untauglich für jegliche athermische Effekte. Lediglich für thermische Effekte ist ein solches Maß zu gebrauchen. Leider werden allgemein üblichen Grenzwerte auf dieser völlig veralteten Art gemessen, als ob es nur thermische Auswirkungen gäbe.

Da der Mensch (und Tier) für gepulste EM (athermisch!) besonders empfindlich ist, sind Grenzwertangaben in Spitzenleistung (Peak Power) erforderlich. Diese würden auch wegen des anderen Meßverfahrens zwingend zu erheblichst reduzierten Maximalwerten führen müssen.

Ich möchte dies hier nicht weiter ausführen. Die beiden letzten der folgenden Literaturhinweise sind besonders interessant. Dem Gutachten entnehme ich dass sie Herrn Professor Semm möglicherweise unbekannt sind:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~john.dawes2/frey.htm http://homepages.tesco.net/~john.dawes2/frey2.htm

Ganz besonders wichtig für Mensch und Tier sind die magnetischen Wechselfelder unterhalb etwa 100Hz. Hierzu schreibt Prof Semm von der "niederfrequenten Modulation der Handy". Diese Punkt ist jedoch zu wichtig um nur im Nebensatz erwähnt zu werden. Auch die Hintergründe werden arg vernachlässigt.

Dass der Mensch im Stammhirn ein magnetischer Rezeptor für Wechselfelder besitzt mit besonderer Empfindlich für Frequenzen unter 100Hz, ist wohl bekannt. Unerheblich dafür ist, ob die Aussendung tatsächlich ein Wechselfeld unterhalb 100Hz ist, oder ob es ein wesentlich höherfrequentes ist, welches mit 100Hz gepulst oder amplitudenmoduliert wird. Weniger bekannt ist der Rezeptor für statische (Gleich-) Magnetfelder. Fest steht, dass zwei seperate Untersuchungen in USA im Abstand von acht Jahre eine um 20% erhöhte Krebshäufigkeitsrate bei Kinder feststellte, welche sich längere Zeit im 60Hz (Stromnetz) Wechselfeld von 3 milliGauss aufhielten.

Prof. Semm schreibt "Bei HF-Feldern muss zwischen Daueraussendungen und gepulster bzw amplitudenmodulierter Abstrahlung unterschieden werden". Dies ist zunächst korrekt. In der Zusammenfassung steht jedoch " Technische Wechselfelder sind... Dies ist zum Beispiel der Fall bei ... sowie bei Fernseh und Rundfunksendern und bei Radar". Dies ist eindeutig objektiv und technisch falsch! Fernseh- und Rundfunksender über Antenne sind eben FM-moduliert, und somit als ungepulste Dauersendung ansusehen. Radar ist gepulst, UMTS und Mobiltelefone auch. Übrigens ist DVB-S und das neue DVB-T ebenso als ungepulste Dauersendung wegen der besonderen Modulationsart zu sehen.

Etwas weiter beschreibt Prof Semm Kateraktbildungen durch thermische elektromagnetische Effekte. In der Zusammenfassung steht jedoch " Nicht thermische Wirkung: Hier lassen sich...keine thermischen Wirkungen beobachten" Es sollte wohl "nicht-thermische" oder "athermische" heissen, aber dass wäre ebenso falsch! Seit 1948 ist in der Fachliteratur beschrieben, dass Kateraktbildung eben doch durch nichtthermische Effekte von EM-Felder hervorgerufen werden können, also bei einer unglaublich viel geringeren Bestrahlungsintensität. Siehe dazu:
Richardson, S. W., et al. Archives of Physical Medicine 29 (1948): p. 765

Es gibt ein besonders interessantes Buch zum Thema. Die darin befindlichen Literaturhinweise sind eine Fundgrube. Autor ist ein mittlerweile pensionierter Forscher und Mediziner, der sich lebenslang mit der Materie auseinander setzte. Seine Untersuchungsergebnisse wurden veröffentlicht in "Cross Currents" ISBN: 0-87477-536-1. Omega: Der Autor ist von Dr. med. Robert O. Becker

Ich denke Herr Professor Semm hätte sehr viel "Munition" daraus schöpfen können. Insbesondere zu athermische Effekte, und eben diese sind für Mensch und Tier von großer Bedeutung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Helmut Kriege

Omega: Literaturhinweise

Salzinger, K.: "Biological Effects of Power-Line Fields". Albany NY.: New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, 1987.

Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E. American Journal of Epidemiology 109 (1979) p.273, First Report of relationship between exposure to 60Hz magnetic fieldes and childhood cancer.

Wolpaw, J.: "Biological Effects of Power-Line Fields". Albany NY.: New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, 1987.

Mikrowellen als Waffe:

Tyler, Paul E.: "The Electromagnetic Spectrum in Low-Intensity Conflict". In "low intensity Conflict and Modern Technology", edited by Lt. Col. David J. Dean, USAF Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base Alabama: Air University Press 1986.


"Walter Reed's Microwave Research Department: Ist History and Mission [Part 1 of 2]." In Biomagnetics Society Newsletter, Jan-Feb 1989.


Microwave Technology And Its Use Against Humanity

Antarctica's "Deep Impact" Threat

by Andy Caffrey

In the Spring issue of the Earth Island Journal we reported that British scientists feared the "critically unstable" Larsen B ice shelf "could break apart in as little as two years, triggering unpredictable weather events around the world."

On April 17, US government scientists reported that a 75-square-mile chunk of the Larsen ice shelf had broken loose and blamed the break-up on global warming. "This may be the beginning of the end for the Larsen ice shelf," said US National Snow and Ice Data Center research associate Ted Scambos.

On April 22, a report in Nature confirmed that the years 1990, 1995 and 1997 included the warmest days in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 500 years.

Meanwhile the mile-thick sheet of ice covering 85 percent of Greenland is vanishing at the rate of 2.5 centimeters a year and the Bering Glacier, the world's largest temperate glacier, has been retreating at a rate of 1 kilometer per year since 1990. Over the past 30 years, Western Arctic temperatures have risen 1 degree C.

Antarctica is covered by 90 percent of the world's ice. About 13.5 percent of that lies over West Antarctica, which is separated from the east by the Transantarctic Mountains. The Antarctic Peninsula extends from West Antarctica toward Tierra del Fuego. It is here that the greatest recorded warming on the planet has occurred in the last half century. In the last few decades, this region has warmed by 4.5 degrees F.

Every winter, Antarctica's four-foot thick sea ice expands to cover more open water. An area twice the size of the continental US becomes white with winter ice. This pushes the region's winter temperatures lower, as ice reflects more of the sun's energy back into space than do dark seas.

The ice on Eastern Antarctica is estimated to be between 11 and 17 million years old. In the west, it's mostly less than 600,000 years old. While the eastern ice sits in a bowl of mountains, most of West Antarctica's ice is anchored hundreds or thousands of feet below sea level: It is anchored on a mixture of glacier-pulverized rock and water which has the consistency of toothpaste.

In 1992, scientists discovered active volcanoes hidden under the ice of West Antarctica. According to their research (which was not published until 1993), one active volcano is four miles across and rests inside a 14-mile-wide caldera. Above these volcanoes, giant ice streams flow toward the ocean hundreds of times faster than the surrounding ice. The volume and width of these streams are several times that of the Amazon. If these streams were unleashed, they could collapse the surrounding ice sheet, possibly leading to its complete obliteration.

In the early 1960s, scientists began to ask what would happen if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to melt. They estimated that there would be a global 20- foot sea-level rise in an amazingly short period of time - 20 years or so. (After all, we are talking about nearly 10 percent of the world's ice.

Antarctica has a few giant ice shelves and several smaller ones that gird most of the continent (an ice sheet becomes an ice shelf when it expands into the ocean). The Larsen ice shelf runs up the east side of the peninsula while two other large ice shelves cover two enormous bays, the Ross and Ronne-Filchner. More than half of Antarctica's ice drainages pour into these two West Antarctic bays.

The bottom line: If Ronne or Ross begin to disintegrate, as Larsen is doing right now, then the plug for all of these ice streams will be removed (ice shelves surround 95 percent of Antarctica, retarding the outward motion of the ice streams), and the ice which sits above the continent (as opposed to that anchored below sea level) will move into the ocean, raising sea level.

No one knows how the bulk of West Antarctica's ice shelves are anchored. Are they anchored underneath by the islands they overrun, or are they anchored laterally to the Transantarctic Mountains? If the latter, a sea level increase from other global warming factors could lift the West Antarctica ice sheet enough to snap the "moorings" to the Transantarctic Mountains. One half of the world's population lives within areas that would be flooded by a 20-foot sea-level rise.

The August 1995 Scientific American reported that scientists in the Bahamas had discovered that the last Ice Age began 120,000 years ago with something called the "Madhouse Century." At that time, sea level was the same as it is now, CO2 levels were similar and global climate was just a little colder. Something happened to trigger a catastrophic 20-foot sea-level increase - immediately followed by a 50- foot decrease! - all in just 100 years. Then the Ice Age was off and running for 100,000 years.

If sea levels only 120,000 years ago were about the same as they are now, then the global ratio of ice-to-water was probably similar to what it is today. Which means that 12 percent of the world's ice suddenly melted, or broke up and melted. If the ice distribution was similar to today (90 percent over Antarctica; 10 percent over the rest of the planet), there is one persuasive and chilling explanation for the advent of a Madhouse Century: West Antarctica broke up.

If West Antarctica's ice is primarily anchored laterally, this could point to a possible trigger of most ice ages. CO2 appears to increase naturally during the 10,000 year interglacials. This could cause the oceans to expand until the mooring of West Antarctica breaks, triggering a Madhouse Century.

Because the continental ice flows would be thousands of feet thick, they would not melt away in the summer and would continue to reflect approximately 4 percent of the solar energy that hits the planet. This 4 percent reduction of solar heat would be enough to trigger a new ice age.

During the last ice age, sea levels fell more than 350 feet from current levels over a period of tens of thousands of years. This is largely because ice age cooling caused evaporated ocean water to freeze into continental glacier ice.

In the August 1995 Scientific American, Christina Stock reported how "for a geologic nanosecond - a century, in other words - some 120,000 years ago, the earth underwent climatic havoc." New findings show that sea level records, imprinted in limestone of the Bahama Islands, rose 20 feet above that of today and then plunged to at least 30 feet below modern levels. These erratic 100 years came at the close of the last interglacial era, a time when the climate was somewhat similar to ours.

"Maybe there is a threshold for warming that, once exceeded, starts to throw climate into a series of barrel rolls," speculates Paul J. Hearty, a geologist in Nassau. "If we continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, are we going to warm the earth and trigger erratic sea level events like those that happened 120,000 years ago?"

Hearty calls this bizarre transition from an interglacial greenhouse to an ice age an example of the kind of "pulses of catastrophic change that dramatically reshape landscapes."

Hearty and his colleague A. Conrad Neumann of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill postulate that sea level was rising slowly as a result of normal interglacial greenhouse warming when something pushed the polar ice field beyond a critical point and ice surged into the ocean - an idea proposed in 1980 by J. T. Hollin of the University of Colorado at Boulder. When the seas receded, presumably due to rapid ice formation at the poles, sand from lagoons in the Bahamas blew over forests and entombed now-fossilized palm trees in dunes. Hearty and Neumann reason that the water must have withdrawn suddenly, followed by raging storms.

Researchers agree that sea level rise has quickened during the past century, along with atmospheric warming, and that coastal erosion and flooding are a reality. Ancient and modern data suggest that half of the planet's population - those people living in coastal areas - may be the first to feel the impacts of the next Madhouse Century.

Andy Caffrey is the director of Climate Action NOW!, PO Box 324, Redway, CA 95560, (707) 923-2114.

Informant: EF! Media Center

To Tell the Truth - Manipulating the American public

by Paul Krugman

Some news organizations, including The New York Times, are currently engaged in self-criticism over the run-up to the Iraq war. They are asking, as they should, why poorly documented claims of a dire threat received prominent, uncritical coverage, while contrary evidence was either ignored or played down...

Published on Friday, May 28, 2004 by the New York Times

Read further under:


Informant: Chris

OCA actions to help build a strong economy, based on sustainable agriculture, while protecting health and environment

For a list of actions you can take right now to help build a strong economy, based on sustainable agriculture, while protecting your health and the environment! Click here:



A recent study involving brain scans has found that when people smell foods like pizza, fried chicken, ice cream, cake, and other junk foods, specific areas of the brain react similarly to that of a cocaine addict. Dr. Gene-Jack Wang of the Brookhaven National Laboratory said that this reaction, coupled with constant junk food advertising, is fueling the obesity epidemic. The FDA is considering mandating placement of warning labels on certain junk foods.



The Ontario College of Family Physicians has released an international study, conducted over a 13 year period, saying that there is no evidence that certain pesticides are safer than others---rather, pesticides misconstrued as "safe" may simply have delayed effects on health.. Meanwhile, the Pesticide Action Network has compiled data from the Centers for Disease Control that shows that 100% of blood and urine samples, collected from 9,000 random people, showed residues of pesticides.




Stung by a nationwide backlash by Organic Consumers Association members and the entire organic community, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced May 26 that it would rescind controversial policies issued last month that would have undermined organic standards and violated federal law requiring public input. In April, the USDA announced that it would no longer monitor organic labels on non-food products, and added that pesticides, animal drugs, growth hormones, antibiotics, and tainted fishmeal would be allowed on organic farms. In response to this frontal assault on organic integrity, the OCA immediately sent out an Action Alert and launched a media campaign to pressure the USDA into reversing its controversial directives. Thanks to all of you in our network, within two days, over 5,000 petition signatures were gathered and a landslide of faxes, emails and phone calls hit the USDA and National Organic Program offices. Amplifying OCA efforts, other public interest groups such as the Consumers Union and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture joined the fray, while the Organic Trade Association rallied industry support. Meanwhile a class action lawsuit against the USDA was being prepared by Dr. Bronners (an organic soap and hemp bar company), the OCA, and others. The USDA ultimately capitulated on May 26, when it became clear that America's 30 million organic consumers were not going to accept the agency's dictatorial practices.

Unfortunately, consumers are still being locked out of many important policy discussions at the USDA, and of course Congress is still subsidizing--with our tax dollars--genetically engineered crops, factory farms, and chemical-intensive agriculture to the tune of $20-30 billion a year, while giving crumbs (less than $5 million annually) to organic programs for research, promotion, and monitoring. But the OCA, with your support, will continue to safeguard organic standards and move organic agriculture from a $15 billion dollar industry to becoming the dominant force in America's $800 billion food and fiber market.


Activists to Protest Biotechnology Industry Convention

Activists plan to shut down BIO 2004, the Biotechnology Industry Organization's international conference and promotional show taking place in San Francisco June 6 - 9, with a massive demonstration on June 8.

The action, in concert with demonstrations at the G-7 conference in Savannah, Georgia taking place at the same time, will cap a week of activities, street theater and teach-ins that aim to shed light on the social costs of agricultural biotechnology and present ecologically sound alternatives.

According to the website of Reclaim the Commons, the umbrella group organizing the demonstrations, the biotechnology industry exemplifies how global corporations erode democracy, threaten human health and the environment while they concentrate the control of food and natural resources.

The activities begin with a series of teach-ins beginning Thursday evening, May 3. Speakers will include Vandana Shiva, Starhawk, Anuradha Mittal, Dr. Ignacio Chapella, Andrew Kimbrell and Brian Tokar. The demonstration will be on Tuesday, June 8 at the Moscone Center in downtown San Francisco


Informant: Food First

Tens of Thousands Urge Bush to Uphold International Law

The documented torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib underscores the need for President Bush to rededicate the United States to the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that came about following World War II.

In three days, 10,000s of concerned citizens signed the HONOR THE LEGACY petition, including Grammy-award winning singer/songwriter Kris Kristofferson.

The petition has received national attention on CNN and radio stations across the country. (See below for more about the campaign.)

This Memorial Day, take a minute to HONOR THE LEGACY of American values, leadership and sacrifice that became international law.

IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SIGNED, please do so today.

Sign the Petition Now!

Printable Petition Now Available

Share copies of the "Honor the Legacy" petition with your friends and family over the Memorial Day weekend. Defending international law is everybody's job!

Honor the Legacy Petition (PDF)

About the Campaign

This week, Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) and a coalition of veterans, religious leaders and human rights organizations launched the HONOR THE LEGACY campaign. The coalition includes: Amnesty International USA, Oxfam America, the National Council of Churches (NCC), Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) and Veterans for Common Sense.

The campaign began Tuesday with the launch of the HONOR THE LEGACY petition that calls on President Bush to rededicate the United States to international law.

On Saturday, May 29th, the President has a historic opportunity to do so when he takes part in the dedication of the National World War II Memorial.

Should that not occur, the petition will continue remain open for signatures until July 4th.


User Status

Du bist nicht angemeldet.




Mai 2004

Aktuelle Beiträge

Wenn das Telefon krank...
http://groups.google.com/g roup/mobilfunk_newsletter/ t/6f73cb93cafc5207   htt p://omega.twoday.net/searc h?q=elektromagnetische+Str ahlen http://omega.twoday. net/search?q=Strahlenschut z https://omega.twoday.net/ search?q=elektrosensibel h ttp://omega.twoday.net/sea rch?q=Funkloch https://omeg a.twoday.net/search?q=Alzh eimer http://freepage.twod ay.net/search?q=Alzheimer https://omega.twoday.net/se arch?q=Joachim+Mutter
Starmail - 8. Apr, 08:39
Familie Lange aus Bonn...
http://twitter.com/WILABon n/status/97313783480574361 6
Starmail - 15. Mär, 14:10
Dänische Studie findet...
https://omega.twoday.net/st ories/3035537/ -------- HLV...
Starmail - 12. Mär, 22:48
Schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen ...
Bitte schenken Sie uns Beachtung: Interessengemeinschaft...
Starmail - 12. Mär, 22:01
Effects of cellular phone...
http://www.buergerwelle.de /pdf/effects_of_cellular_p hone_emissions_on_sperm_mo tility_in_rats.htm [...
Starmail - 27. Nov, 11:08


Online seit 7351 Tagen
Zuletzt aktualisiert: 8. Apr, 08:39