Because I believe that nuclear reactors and power plants pose an unacceptable risk to the health, safety, and existence of our planet and every living creature upon it, I urge and will support an immediate shutdown of all nuclear facilities everywhere in the world, and a total ban on the construction of any new nuclear facilities. In pursuit of this goal, I promise to vote against any government leader or elected official who does not also sign 
this pledge.

There are stories all over the web, as the situation escalates. Here’s an excerpt from Al Jazeera.

Japan fears nuclear plant meltdown
Last Modified: 12 Mar 2011 06:48 GMT

Japanese nuclear authorities say there is a high possibility that nuclear fuel rods at a reactor at the Daiichi plant in Fukushima prefecture may be melting or have melted.

The cooling system of the plant was damaged in the massive earthquake that struck norteastern Japan and triggered a tsunami, killing at least 703 people.

Kyodo News agency said on Saturday that radioactive caesium had been detected near the plant, citing the Japanese nuclear safety commission.

A state of emergency has been declared for five nuclear reactors at two different sites in Fukushima, located about 250 kilometres northeast of greater Tokyo.

Steam containing low-level radiation were released to relieve pressure and tens of thousands of residents have been evacuated from surrounding areas.

Radiation 1,000 times above normal was detected in the control room of one plant, although authorities said levels outside the facility’s gates were only eight times above normal, spelling “no immediate health hazard”.

The 8.9 quake and the tsunami cut the supply of off-site power to the plant and diesel generators intended to provide back-up electricity to the cooling system.

“The events that occurred at these plants, which is the loss of both offsite power and onsite power, is one of the rarest events to happen in a nuclear power plant, and all indications are that the Japanese do not have the situation under control,” Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US-based nonprofit organisation, said.

As usual, the authorities are downplaying the possibilities, but they are whistling in the dark. If they get the situation under control, it will be a matter of luck. This is what happens when cocky scientists play with dynamite, thinking they know what they’re doing. Sooner or later, the piper must be paid.

Baby mama drama
Mary O’Connor successfully battled eviction, but can she win the fight for her children?

By Carl Kozlowski 12/16/2010
For much of the past decade, Mary O’Connor’s life has been defined by hardships that were a mix of bad luck and bad decisions. Pasadena Weekly readers may recall a four-part series of articles in 2008 that documented her ultimately successful fight to avoid eviction for possessing eight animals — some pets, some legally recognized service animals — in her rundown Los Angeles studio apartment.

Now O’Connor’s engaged in an even more difficult battle, one with much more at stake. She is fighting for the right to keep and raise her two young children, a 17-month-old son named Eamon, who was taken from her at just 25 days old, and a 3-month-old daughter named Maureen, rather than allowing the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) force her into giving them up to the foster care system or for adoption.

O’Connor hasn’t seen Eamon in more than 4½ months and lives in fear that he may soon forget who she is altogether, as DCFS officials have placed him in an adoptive placement home as preparation for letting a married couple of UCLA graduates adopt him. Meanwhile, O’Connor is hiding from the DCFS and police, keeping Maureen with her in defiance of a court order to hand over the infant or lose all parental rights completely.

If she is found, not only would she lose custody of the infant but also face jail time. What is most perplexing about the DCFS decision-making process is why O’Connor’s parents — her mother is a graduate of the elite University of Chicago and her father served in the military before launching a long career as a policeman — are not being given the option that normally exists in these cases, to adopt their grandchildren themselves.

Mary and Maureen are in a “safe house” for victims of domestic abuse because of the fact that since O’Connor has been sexually assaulted many times — including numerous attacks she endured during an earlier phase of her life when she felt compelled by economic desperation and health issues to work as a prostitute. Yet she is steeling herself for a Dec. 22 court hearing, hoping to broker a deal through her lawyers to bring in Maureen for a medical evaluation she believes will prove that the infant is safe and in good health, thus enabling her to keep the baby and have a stronger case for reclaiming Eamon.

If she loses the right to reunite with Eamon, however, it could trigger a process that would terminate all her parental rights to both children within two months.

“What kind of mother would say ‘I’m not gonna do everything I can to get my son back?’” said O’Connor. “Everything that happened in the past 8 years has been a cliché of poverty and I can spotlight these problems with DCFS when many others don’t have friends in the media they can go to. I am hoping that exposing this won’t just help me, but will help change DCFS policies for the better.”

O’Connor’s ordeal with DCFS — which, along with her own lawyers, refused to comment on privacy grounds — began Aug. 20, 2009 when she approached a church for financial assistance in North Hills and the minister led DCFS officials to the hotel room where she and Eamon were living. While her son was only supposed to be taken temporarily to test his well-being, O’Connor says that time and again, the agency has changed the conditions under which she could regain custody of her son.

According to O’Connor and Pasadena attorney Philip Koebel, who represented her in her successful battle against eviction but is not handling her current case, O’Connor has maintained thorough records of all her interaction with DCFS. The most egregious aspect of the case, however, is the fact that the department has not only kept control of Eamon, but started the adoption process for him.

“This is absolutely a human rights issue,” said Koebel. “This is a first-time mother who’s done nothing wrong having her first-born child taken from her, even though he’s the picture of health. No one needs a fucking law degree to know it’s a human rights violation.

“The department’s own reports indicate the baby was in perfect health and had diapers and formula,” Koebel continued. “They took the baby because Mary is a bit odd. I don’t think being a prostitute automatically means she’s not a good mother. I’m worried, but she’s resourceful and compassionate. She always looks out for others before herself.”

Another person who’s able to speak on behalf of O’Connor is Dierdra Duncan, an assistant to Koebel who has shepherded her throughout much of the process. Duncan noted that O’Connor’s case is one of the most egregious examples of DCFS abuses she has seen in 28 years as a foster mother and 30 years as an advocate for troubled mothers in Los Angeles.

“If the DCFS won’t agree with Mary on Dec. 22, then if they ever catch her with Maureen, they can take her away — even if she’s 17 at the time — and within six months have Maureen in an adoptive home,” Duncan said. “I overheard the prospective adoptive parents for Eamon. They’re already calling him by a different name. I’ve been a foster parent and my job was to give the best possible care while waiting to reunite kids with their parents. What’s happening when they are putting kids in adoptive placement is saying there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell she’ll ever get them back. And to not let the kid grow up with their mother — especially when she’s gotten her act together and is following the rules – is appalling.”

Dec. 22 was today. I just got an e-mail alerting me to this unfolding story. I don’t know the results of that hearing, but will post them when available. Given what I’ve heard about Child Protective Services, I don’t hold out much hope this mother will be allowed to keep her children. That her parents haven’t been given the option to adopt the children says it all. This agency doesn’t have the best interests of the children at heart. Bureaucrats thinking they know best are usually wrong. Power corrupts. CPS has way too much power, and a long history of abusing that power.

This can also be downloaded from Gary Null’s site.

I copied this image from the Atlantic.

Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip

Urgent Update: The USDA has reopened the comment period for their Environmental Assessment of ArborGen’s proposal to plant 260,000 genetically engineered eucalyptus trees across the Southern U.S. Comments are needed by 18 February to oppose this dangerous and destructive plan. Click Here to sign on to the public comment letter. More information below:

Release of Dangerous Genetically Engineered (GE) Eucalyptus Trees Threatens U.S. Forests/ Communities.

ACTION NEEDED BY 18 February! Tell the USDA NO WAY to ArborGen’s Eucalyptus Frankentrees

In an unprecedented move toward commercial large-scale release of GE forest trees in the United States, ArborGen is petitioning the U.S. government for permission to plant an estimated 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees [1] across seven southern U.S. states in so-called “field trials.”[2]

The mass-planting of 260,000 flowering GE eucalyptus trees is a major step toward the unregulated development of large-scale GE eucalyptus plantations in the U.S. ArborGen has also requested permission to develop large-scale commercial plantations of GE cold tolerant eucalyptus across the U.S. South which the USDA has not yet ruled on.

Government approval of GE eucalyptus trees will set a dangerous precedent to allow the release of other experimental GE forest trees, including poplars and pines, that would inevitably and irreversibly contaminate native trees with destructive GE traits, devastating forest ecosystems and wildlife. Once GE trees escape, there is no way to call them back.

The only way to prevent the genetic contamination of forests is to ban the commercial release of GE trees before it is too late.

TAKE ACTION!
Tell the USDA that GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus plantations pose an unprecedented threat to U.S. forests, wildlife and communities. Tell them to reject ArborGen’s request to plant more than a quarter of a million dangerous invasive GE trees across the Southern U.S. Since these field trials are a concrete step toward unregulated commercial growing of dangerous GE eucalyptus, they must be rejected.

Sign on to the STOP GE Trees Campaign’s Comments to the U.S. government

and

Have your organization become a STOP GE Trees Campaign partner and endorse our goal of a global ban on GE trees! For more information about the STOP GE Trees Campaign, click here

Background:
According to ArborGen, eucalyptus is a “fast-growing hardwood tree that is a favorite of the international forest products industry”[3] Globally, forests in tropical and subtropical regions have been decimated for the development of eucalyptus plantations, with devastating results for communities and biodiversity. ArborGen now wants to spread this disaster to new regions with this GE cold-tolerant eucalyptus.

Some of the impacts caused by eucalyptus plantations that now threaten the U.S. include:

* Widespread destruction of native forests: Australian Eucalyptus were introduced to California in the 1850s and these invasive aliens now grow throughout the state; more than 200 species have been introduced into the U.S. The cold-tolerance trait will allow the disaster of eucalyptus plantations to be expanded into regions that are too cold for conventional eucalyptus–including the U.S. South.

* Uncontrollable wildfires: Raging wildfires in Australia this year, made worse by drought, traveled over 60 miles an hour, devastating wildlife and killing 173 people. The1991 Oakland, CA firestorm, exacerbated by eucalyptus, cost $1.5 billion in damages.

* Loss of fresh water: Eucalyptus trees are fast-growing “water-suckers.” They require tremendous amounts of water, threatening to worsen the drought already being experienced in areas of the Southern United States.

* Vast clearcutting of biodiverse forests to grow monoculture plantations of GE Eucalyptus clones;

* Silent forests: Wildlife that cannot use the Eucalyptus for habitat nor food will be lost. Endangered species will be threatened.

* Contamination of soils and groundwater with toxic pesticides used on the plantations, often aerially sprayed;

* Worsening of climate change through the destruction of carbon-rich native forests for carbon-poor plantations.

* Eucalyptus is a known host for the deadly pathogenic fungus Cryptococcus Gattii. Originally a tropical fungus, it was recently found around Pacific Northwest Eucalyptus groves, and can kill both humans and wildlife.

SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OPPOSING GE EUCALYPTUS PLANTATIONS

Download our 10 page report on the dangers of GE trees and wood-based agrofuels

To Read the USDA’s revised Environmental Assessment, click here

NOTES:
[1] These GE eucalyptus, a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla, are engineered to tolerate colder temperatuves, produce less of the structural polymer lignin, and digest some of their own RNA in the hope of reducing fertility (a Terminator-type genetic technology), though this new EA admits that some fertile seeds have been produced by the existing 1 acre field trial of flowering GE eucalyptus. The permits, if granted, would also allow the GE trees to flower. Eucalyptus thrives in tropical to sub-tropical conditions, but ArborGen’s cold-tolerant Eucalyptus would allow growth in the Southern United States, which experience occasional winter freezes. The states targeted for field trials are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. Note: in 2007 ArborGen was given permission to allow 1.1 acres of GE eucalyptus to flower. This was expanded to 7.6 acres with no public input. This means ArborGen could receive permission to expand these 330 acres of field trials after the fact.

[2] The number 260,000 is based on the number of trees ArborGen reported to the USDA, which was recorded in the USDA’s Environmental Assessment.

[3] See www.arborgen.com/eucalyptus2.php

For more details on the dangers of GE trees, view A Silent Forest, the GE trees documentary narrated by Dr. David Suzuki, which is posted on our blog, Climate Connections

GJEP also sent this as an e-mail, asking to please forward widely. This must be an example of what Obama called advanced biofuel technology. What a crock. The environmental movement doesn’t need friends like Obama. When he talks about putting science back in its rightful place, this sort of mad scientist’s wet dream is what he means. If anyone thinks that’s going too far, what about his other pet fantasies, clean coal and safe nuclear power? This nonsense just gives science a bad name. When the name of the game is profit, true science becomes an obstacle to be suppressed or mocked. Those who care about the consequences get derided as Luddites or hysterical wackos. This world has come to a sad state, when what is promoted as scientific progress has nothing to do with sound science or truth, and everything to do with making money. Environmentalists, wake up! This Administration is chock full of greenwashers, not environmentally conscious, not by any stretch of the imagination!

Death by denial
Symposium explores HIV denial, conspiracy theories

People who deny that the HIV virus causes AIDS continue to persist in their beliefs despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, nurtured by the broad reach of the Internet and cherry-picked scientific claims, AIDS authorities said Monday (Oct. 19).

These experts need to look in the mirror. They are as guilty of cherry-picking evidence as any scientist corrupted by money. Where is this overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS? There is plenty of evidence that it doesn’t, but of course, that’s cherry-picked out of consideration, out of sight, out of mind.

Researchers from Harvard, elsewhere in the United States, and South Africa convened at the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts to decry HIV “denialism,” saying that the continued questioning of HIV’s role in AIDS harms those infected with the virus by discouraging both testing and treatment.

Both the testing and treatment are utterly fraudulent, so it isn’t the questioning that harms people afflicted with AIDS.

Laura Bogart, associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital Boston, introduced the event, saying that denialism also includes odd beliefs, such as that drugs for HIV treatment actually cause AIDS. Denialism, she said, is gaining momentum because of the reach that its proponents have on the Internet, and it may have greater traction in communities that already mistrust the government because of past discrimination, revelations of secret medical experiments, and the like.

The symposium examined how denialism affects prevention and treatment, public policy, and human rights.

“Bad ideas have bad consequences,” Bogart said.

She’s got that right. The idea that HIV causes AIDS has terrible consequences. What’s so odd about the contention that HIV drugs cause AIDS? They sure as hell can cause the symptoms of AIDS, including death. Is Bogart trying to say HIV skeptics have greater reach on the web than the AIDS establishment? Who is she trying to kid?

Seth Kalichman, professor of psychology at the University of Connecticut, said denialist beliefs are surprisingly widespread. He said most people’s attitude when hearing of HIV denial is, “Oh, those people are still around?” In the uncertain early years of the AIDS epidemic, Kalichman said, denialists were dissidents from the prevailing but still uncertain scientific views. As the body of evidence about the nature of HIV and AIDS grew, dissent turned into denial, wrapped in conspiracy theories. Now, Kalichman lumps HIV denialists with those who deny the Holocaust and global warming, and who believe 9/11 conspiracy theories. All use similar strategies, he said, including false experts, bad science, and selective use of valid scientific results.

This guy has his nerve. There is plenty of good evidence to demonstrate the flaws in the HIV=AIDS theory, unlike any of his other examples. To lump these groups together is beyond insulting, it borders on slander. There is some reasonable doubt as to the theories explaining global warming and 9/11, but the Holocaust? Can this guy be serious, or is his smug blind faith so all-consuming he can’t see how farfetched his analogy is? The AIDS establishment is absolutely chock full of false experts, bad science, and selective use of valid scientific results. Look in the mirror, Mr. Alleged Scientist. How about Dr. Robert Gallo, for instance, who rewrote the paper that launched the whole HIV=AIDS theory so extensively, his revisions came to conclusions completely unjustified by the actual study done by his assistant, Dr. Popovic? Gary Null has posted a PDF of Gallo’s scribbles and crossouts on the original paper. The first sentence of the first paragraph on page 4 says it all.

Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.

Gallo crossed that sentence out. Gee I wonder why.

Kalichman cited a 2007 report on 696 gay men in five U.S. cities that showed a surprisingly high acceptance of denialist beliefs. Forty-five percent, he said, agreed with the statement “HIV does not cause AIDS,” and 51 percent agreed with the statement “HIV drugs can harm you more than help you,” remarking that it would be troubling if even half those numbers believed such statements.

Kalichman said research shows that the Internet is a critical source of denialist information, and that people who hold denialist beliefs are more likely to have symptoms, less likely to adhere to drug regimens, and less likely to take treatment medication in the first place.

What’s troubling is that anyone believes the AIDS establishment. If Kalichman’s theory about who doubts conventional wisdom is accurate, he shouldn’t worry, as those skeptics will be dying off in a hurry, right? Oddly, it appears that those who avoid recommended treatment are far more likely to survive, since taking those drugs long-term is another case of a cure which never cures anybody, but does a great job of exacerbating the disease.

Denialism may have done its most damage in South Africa during the tenure of President Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki, who endorsed denialist beliefs, delayed the beginning of large-scale AIDS drug treatment, which allowed the pandemic to grow unchecked.

Recent research showed how damaging denialist beliefs can be, concluding that Mbeki’s failure to roll out HIV drugs between 2000 and 2005 resulted in 330,000 unnecessary deaths and the infection of 3,500 infants with HIV.

Interesting how this result is blithely stated as fact. How many unnecessary deaths have been caused by HIV treatments, or by refusing to treat the actual diseases that resulted in deaths blamed on HIV? Thabo Mbeki had great courage to defy the AIDS establishment. Unfortunately sub-Saharan Africa is still afflicted with widespread poverty, malnutrition, infectious water, parasitic infections, tropical diseases, and tuberculosis, all of which can be deadly, particularly for people in poor health to begin with. This can account for most, if not all, of those allegedly unnecessary deaths. Yet the population is increasing in spite of all that, the great AIDS pandemic notwithstanding.

Something’s terribly wrong with this picture. All this money going to fight HIV is wasted, while relatively small sums could alleviate all those actual problems killing impoverished Africans in droves. However, since capitalism as we know it wouldn’t recognize the value of cleaning up the water and treating the actual diseases, the big money goes to researching HIV drugs and vaccines, while producing those drugs makes the manufacturers fortunes. Same old crap masquerading as science, though denouncing the critics as equivalent to Holocaust deniers is really going too far. I’m used to the ironic foolishness of denouncing concerned scientists such as myself as Luddites, or anti-progress, or uninformed environmentalist wackos, but really, how dare he make that comparison. This symposium stopped just short of calling HIV skeptics murderers. No, they’re trying to save the lives of those dying from the bad science passing as HIV treatment! That might sound like I’m calling doctors murderers, but I know they believe they’re trying to save lives, though it seems to me their efforts are consistently backfiring. Does Kalichman really think all the scientists questioning the AIDS establishment are that deluded, or false experts engaged in bad science and cherry-picking data? In the echo chamber of conventional wisdom, he can get away with that staggering leap of illogic. I say again, look in the mirror.

Thu May 14, 2009 at 08:42:44 AM PDT
by nirsnet

These days, clean energy ranks right up there with Mom, apple pie and ice cream as an All-American attribute. You can barely sit through a TV show, listen to the radio, or even read a blog without coming across an ad from someone extolling the virtues of some “clean” energy form or another.
Never mind that some of them—from nuclear power to “clean” coal—bear no resemblance to the cleanest solutions like wind, solar and energy efficiency. Some industries have more money to spend on ads than others….

But clean energy has become All-American for good reason: we need clean energy for the 21st century. I’m a huge clean energy advocate, and I spend my days working to encourage implementation of clean, sustainable energy technologies.

So what could be more virtuous than a federal Clean Energy Bank? On the surface, the idea sounds perfect: the federal government would set up a bank to support the development and implementation of clean energy technologies, especially those that private investors can’t or won’t fund. In fact, it’s so perfect the Senate Energy Committee has already approved the concept as part of its upcoming energy bill, and the House Energy Committee is considering adding a Clean Energy Bank proposal from genuinely clean energy advocate Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) to the Waxman-Markey cap and trade climate bill.

So why is the environmental community lining up to oppose the Clean Energy Bank and considering it must-defeat legislation?

Well, there are a couple of teeny-tiny little problems with the concept as written in both the Senate energy bill and Inslee bill in the House. Kind of like there were teeny-tiny little problems with unregulated derivatives trading, or lack of federal oversight and regulation, or corporate greed, that brought our economy to its knees last October.

It is not at all far-fetched—indeed, it’s completely foreseeable—that, as the Clean Energy Bank legislation is currently written, we could see trillion dollar or more taxpayer bailouts of “clean energy” technologies within the next decade. You didn’t like TARP? Wait until taxpayers have to bail out the likes of Duke Power, UniStar Nuclear, Southern Company and even your local mom and pop solar and wind concerns at levels that would make even Citigroup or General Motors blush—except that there are a lot more “clean energy” companies and projects out there than there are national banks or car manufacturers.

I could be wrong, of course, but it’s my personal wild guess that taxpayers are getting a little tired of bailing out corporate America. And, if you follow my personal wild guess reasoning, the idea that taxpayers might be forced to bail out a trillion dollars, or even a few hundred billion, in “clean energy” failures would probably destroy any hopes of building a genuinely sustainable energy economy or effectively dealing with the climate crisis; not to mention, coming on the heels of what we are still going through as an economy, raising the specter of permanent recession. And, of course, any presidential administration that oversees such an eventuality is not likely to be around to cope with the next such eventuality. These are high stakes, folks, and all from the innocuous, even virtuous-sounding, Clean Energy Bank.

THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS
A thousand mea culpas. This should have been posted and distributed a few weeks ago, before the Senate Energy Committee even started considering Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) proposal to add a Clean Energy Deployment Administration to his energy bill. But we missed it, and so did everyone else, except, perhaps, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Let’s face it: it’s pretty tough for environmentalists to oppose something called a Clean Energy Bank, or even a Clean Energy Development Administration, which is starting to sound a little more bureaucratic. Maybe we just wanted to believe.

But here’s the reality: Sen. Bingaman’s Clean Energy Bank bill would provide more concrete government backing for dirty energy technologies than anything any lobbyist for the nuclear power or coal industries could have dreamed of even a year ago. And here’s the rub: even if the Bank funded only renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, it would still be an economy-wrecker. It is simply unacceptable on any grounds.

And here is why: ‘‘(3) RELATION TO OTHER LAWS.—Section 14 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (215 U.S.C. 661c(b)) shall not apply to a loan or loan guarantee under this section.’’.

What this seeming gobbledygook actually means is that there is NO limit—none whatsoever—to the amount of money that can be directed to “clean energy” technologies by this proposed bank. $10 billion? No problem. $100 Billion? No problem. $1 Trillion? NO PROBLEM!

This was confirmed in discussions yesterday between Senate Energy Committee staff and experts from Union of Concerned Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council. (We have to wonder if Rep. Inslee—a strong clean energy advocate and not exactly a good friend of the nuclear industry—might have missed the implications too; perhaps he hasn’t fully realized that his bank legislation, which was modeled after Bingaman’s, would set up an unlimited slush fund for the nuclear power industry)

The Bingaman Clean Energy Bank bill, as well as Inslee’s bill (which is nearly identical, with one minor improvement), would authorize this new entity—the Clean Energy Development Administration, which would have an administrator and a nine-member Board of Directors, and virtually no other oversight—to issue as much money in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees as it feels like for any projects that might fall under an exceedingly broad “clean energy” definition.

Let’s take a look at what might be funded under this definition: New nuclear reactors, for one, as many as the industry might consider building, at whatever cost the industry thinks necessary. That alone has the entire environmental community up in arms, since no matter what industry propaganda may say, the environmental movement remains adamant that nuclear power is an unacceptable solution to the climate crisis. It’s dirty—even without a catastrophic meltdown, it releases radiation into the air and water at every step of the nuclear fuel chain; it’s dangerous, because there is always the risk of catastrophic meltdown even with new reactors; it creates lethal long-lived radioactive waste we don’t have the slightest idea how to handle for millennia of millennia; it undercuts non-proliferation efforts abroad; and, even if none of the above were the case, it is the most costly method of producing electricity available and using it would divert resources from the cleaner, safer, cheaper, and faster means of addressing the climate crisis we need to implement.

“Clean coal” could also be funded under this definition, including such environmentally dubious (ok, I mean destructive) concepts as coal-to-liquids (a two-in-one pollution punch), as well as unproven carbon sequestration technologies.

But even if this Bank were only oriented toward renewable energy and energy efficiency, we would still have to oppose it. With all respect and love toward our compadres designing and building new solar PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal and other 21st century technologies, even they don’t deserve unlimited taxpayer backing for their projects.

The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office both have already projected a 50% or greater failure rate for loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. And there is no denying that the failure rate for renewable energy projects is going to be above zero, possibly above 20%. While it’s fine for taxpayers to take some risk for new energy technologies, it’s not fine to bet hundreds of billions of our dollars on new energy projects or take risks of 50% or more, especially on such capital intensive projects as new nuclear reactors, which are now projected to cost some $10 billion or more each.

And, for the skeptics out there, let’s face facts: the nuclear power industry is the one most in need of this money. Why? Because there is no private capital available to support construction of new nuclear reactors. It’s that simple—private investors simply won’t take that risk. If Bank of America or Citigroup have been thinking for the past few years that nuclear reactors are too risky but subprime mortgages aren’t, then I have to think a 50% projected failure rate might be too low. Admittedly, these are somewhat hard times for new renewable energy facilities as well, but until last October money was flowing freely to them, and as the recovery begins, private investment will begin flowing to them again. But private money won’t flow to nuclear power under any circumstances without the taxpayers taking the risk.

The reality is that the nuclear industry has already asked for $122 Billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees (most of which would actually be taxpayer-funded as well, through the Federal Financing Bank). And that would cover only about 20 reactors. Getting to the GOP’s dream of 100 new reactors by mid-century (outlined by Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn, in the GOP Saturday radio address a couple weeks ago), would cost at least five times that amount—and that’s before the cost overruns start rolling in. For comparison, a Department of Energy study of 75 existing reactors found an average cost overrun of 207%. If that level holds true for a new generation of reactors, we’d be looking at trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

AND WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Yes, I believe in supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency with taxpayer dollars—but limited taxpayer dollars. The potential for unlimited taxpayer loan guarantees for any technology offers the potential for economy-killing failure, for misdirection of money, for rampant corruption.

Have our Congressmembers learned nothing from the debacle of the banking, mortgage and various other crises? Apparently not.

But hopefully the public has, and together we can stop this nonsense.

Please join us in opposing the absolutely unconscionable Clean Energy Bank proposals now before the Senate and House. Contact nirsnet@nirs.org to get on our e-mail list to be able to take effective action; you can also sign up at www.nirs.org. We’ll keep you up-to-date and give you action ideas and opportunities. Or contact the local or national environmental group you’re already a member of—we’re all in this together. But act fast, these bills are moving quickly, even though no one, including Hill staffers, seems to understand exactly what they do.

Note: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) has offered a different Clean Energy Bank bill, but it explicitly includes nuclear power and “clean” coal as “clean” energy technologies, and thus, while it doesn’t provide for unlimited loan guarantees, is also unacceptable. But you might want to contact Van Hollen and tell him that if he’ll amend his bill to include only genuinely clean energy technologies, it might be a good alternative to the unacceptable bills making their way through Congress now.

Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Me: Now look here, Mr. President, I’ve kept my peace while you assemble your team of hawks,  corporate friendly free traders, and pro-nuclear pro-agrofuel pollution-marketer scientists and environmentalists for hire. You’re not in office yet, and you’re supposed to get a honeymoon. Sorry, you have a scandal to deal with already.

Obama: I was stunned and dismayed by the actions of Governor Blagojevich, but neither I nor any of my staff are implicated in his corrupt dealings.

Me: I meant your speechwriter Jon Favreau, immortalized in a Facebook photo fondling a lifesize cardboard model of a famous woman while a buddy poses as if he’s trying to force beer down her throat, pulling her head back by her hair. I’m sure you know the story. Do you think an apology is enough?

Obama: Senator Clinton accepted the apology. That’s the end of the matter.

Me: So, that’s supposed to be the end of it? Wow, are you naive. Women aren’t about to put this aside just like that. You better believe they are pissed. Clinton has to make light of it. She wants that job. She’s in a bad position, hostile work environment I believe is the legal term?

Obama: Nothing could be further from the truth. Jon was naive and disrespectful, but he has learned from his mistake. He is sorry and will show proper respect to members of the Cabinet in the future.

Me: At least on camera. Do you expect anybody to believe that?

Obama: Why shouldn’t they? The apology was sincere. I believe Jon thought that was an innocent joke, but a lesson learned the hard way will stick.

Me: You are a hopeless optimist. You should fire him. He’s all fine words and you have to provide the substance. Why don’t you write your own speeches?

Obama: As if I have the time or the talent for that. I’m a communicator. That’s one of my talents.

Me: It’s called charisma. You don’t snow me. I think you’re stuck with Mr. Favreau because you think he writes great lines. Lines are only great if the speaker puts real feeling into them. Guys with charisma can put great feeling into lines, but it’s not quite the same as real feeling.

Obama: And they call me a parser!

Me: You’re a politician. You know the difference between acting and speaking your own words with your own feelings.

Obama: You know what happens to people who try that. The media is merciless, sharks pouncing at the first sign of vulnerability.

Me: I think the women in this race can attest to that. Do you think it’s wise to have a shark writing your speeches?

Obama: He’s a young man who didn’t realize the implications of his drunken actions. Senator Clinton has forgiven him. She has been gracious about the entire affair. What’s your problem?

Me: The implications of those actions.

Obama: The matter is closed.

Me: You wish! Fire the guy quick, or you risk women getting really riled up!

Obama: (Snorts) I think I’m a better judge of American women than you. I’ll take my chances. Senator Clinton has accepted the apology. She is satisfied Jon won’t be causing any more trouble making embarrassing spectacles of himself.

Me: You have great faith in this guy. Why? Is it if it’s not broken, don’t fix it? He is broken, so his apology isn’t worth much.

Obama: Jon Favreau is a fine upstanding young man. I’m certain he will grow and learn from this experience.

Me: Hard to argue with blind faith. You don’t need this kind of baggage. Bad enough you gave Larry Summers a high post. He’ll never live down that crack about women not being able to compete in hard sciences because of genetics. This is a great mind? Some people think Sigmund Freud was a great scientist, but his understanding of women was atrocious. He was a great one to pathologize female psychology, since he wanted to stuff it into his own framework. It didn’t fit, just like Summers and Favreau don’t fit in a government I could believe in, though they do seem to fit right in with the rest of your crew. That’s my problem. These are party hacks and scientists for hire. What is this, a kinder gentler version of corporate empire you’re promising?

Obama: I surround myself with the best minds, regardless of political affiliation, so I can hear different sides of each issue to inform my decisions. I reject your insinuations. These are people of the highest integrity. Your suspicions are baseless and cynical. America needs its people to hope for the best, so we can all contribute our best to make America a beacon of hope and liberty for the world again.

Me: All right, enough of you for now! You really ought to fire that speechwriter! I’m sure Obama isn’t listening to silly fools like me, or outraged feminists in the blogosphere. I had to say something, regardless. This is really callous and disrespectful to women. I don’t much like Senator Clinton, but she almost won, could have been VP, and Secretary of State is a top Cabinet post, if not the top. She deserves some respect from a speechwriter for the President. He sure has no business groping a mockup of her, grinning as though he was proud as could be. This was no joke or laughing matter, despite the yuck it up attitude of such luminaries as James Carville (It’s a piece of cardboard, stupid!). This is typical of the blatant abuse of the women running for President and VP in this campaign. Obama ought to put a stop to it here and now. This is his golden opportunity to show respect for women means something in this country, at least for this President. But he’ll pass. Political expediency rules the day. This is the change I need?

ETA: I decided to trackback to one of those outraged feminists who wants to keep this scandal front and center, and whose call to protest inspired this entry.

The family is in desperate need of support and legal assistance. The Natural Solutions Foundation is taking this threat to our collective Health Freedom and our Freedom of Speech very seriously. The Foundation will continue to assist and are building a network of natural physicians, Constitutional lawyers and other experts to be ready to act as “amicus curiae” – Friends of the Court – in similar cases. If you can help us fund or staff our Health Freedom Posse, please reply via email. Remember that your donations key to these battles!

Laurie Jessop requested emphatically that Health Freedom USA remove that appeal, but she was ignored. Orac has that linked on one of his posts attempting to prove Laurie Jessop’s story was just a hoax I made up. She never got a red cent from that appeal, only assurances that since her story was in the public domain, Health Freedom USA could care less how she felt about them using her story to raise money.

This was my original post at the Gary Null forum from Jan. 29 this year.

Dr. Rima Laibow has posted on her web site the video of her talk Nutricide – Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs.

The video begins with this: Let me tell you about Codex Alimentarius. Let me define it for you. Let me help you understand the enemy. And let me assure you, that absolutely nothing that I’m going to tell you is exaggerated, is interpolated, or is imagined. Everything I’m going to tell you is documented, and a great deal of it is documented on my web site.

At 16:18:

Let’s talk about milk. We have recombinant bovine growth hormone, and now we can choose milk with it or milk without it, butter with it, butter without it, right? Not under CODEX. Because under CODEX, every dairy cow on the planet must be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. Furthermore, under CODEX, every animal used for food on the planet, whether it has fins, feet, or feathers, every animal on the planet must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics, must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics and must be treated with exogenous growth hormones. CODEX requires, mandates, that all food be irradiated, unless it’s eaten locally and raw. All food, including organic food, of course.

Those are exact quotes from her video. On the morning of 12/13/2007, I sent the following fax to Natural Solutions Foundation:

Subject: CODEX
I tried to send an e-mail, but your system kept giving me an error, claiming I hadn’t entered a subject! I heard Dr. Rima Laibow say CODEX will require all cows to be injected with rBST, and all food to be irradiated. Did I hear that correctly? Could I get a source for these statements? I went poking around the CODEX site, but couldn’t find anything like that. Is it hiding, or did I just not know where to look? Please respond via e-mail. Thank you.

I got no response. On 12/31/2007, I sent the following through their regular e-mail system, which had been fixed by then:

I heard Dr. Rima Laibow say CODEX will require all cows to be injected with rBST, and all food to be irradiated. Did I hear that correctly? Could I get a source for these statements? I went poking around the CODEX site, but couldn’t find anything like that. Is it hiding, or did I just not know where to look?

This is a second request. I tried to send this request for a source nearly three weeks ago, but your system kept giving me an error, claiming I hadn’t entered a subject! I sent a fax instead, but have received no response. If I do not get a satisfactory response within two weeks, I will assume there is no source and that Dr. Rima Laibow is exaggerating for effect, to frighten people into donating to this organization.

I still have received no response, and I’m out of patience. Can anyone document those statements, or am I to conclude they are exaggerations that cannot be documented? Dr. Laibow and her attorney Ralph Fucetola were prominently featured in Vaccine Nation, at least in the version premiered at the So. Calif. Health Support Group meeting on 12/09/2007. I think it’s detrimental to the credibility of the alternative health movement to have such people posing as authorities making outrageous statements that cannot be backed up about CODEX. Is that the intention? If not, what is the intention?

This was my update.

It has now been six months since I requested documentation of these claims. I did receive some responses shortly after I posted here, but these responses fall far short of what I’d consider documentation.

This was the first response, on Feb. 2:

Hi Alex! Certain foods are already being irradiated in this country, even without Codex and, as you must know, cows in many dairies have been getting the BST shot for years, though some dairies have stopped using it because of the problems it creates. Dr. Rima is in Africa at a Codex meeting and will be returning in a week. All you have to do is use the internet and google information on irradiation of foods, gm foods, foods that are sprayed with virusses, pasteuration of almonds, the list goes on and on! At our site at www.healthfreedomusa.org you can click on the tab along the heading about Codex and learn what is in the planning there! Or you can google Codex and learn a lot on the net. As for us trying to scare people into donations, we operate on a shoestring budget and most of the people on our mailing list are very aware of the power of the FDA/Feds/Pharmaceutical Companies. They are not scared by us– they are aware, educated and concerned about the monster the U.S. government is becoming. If you trust Big Pharma with your health, then by all means, stop using nutrients and enjoy their chemical mixes! But we choose the organic, non-irradiated, non gm foods that have NOT been sprayed with virusses! And we do not like the laws that the Powers that Be try to pass to keep us from having them. And frankly, we volunteers do not have the many hours it would take to see to your personal education. At the last Codex meeting, several small nations argued that GM foods should be labelled. The United States delegation insisted that they NOT be labelled because Americans won’t eat food that they know is GM. In other words, we should not have choices. This particular labelling issue is still up in the air. I am sorry if there are sometimes problems with the site- when we can afford to, we will have it upgraded. But you are wrong about the money. It is the PRO-Codex people who have lots of money- and they get it from the government and your taxes! -Kathy Greene for the Natural Solutions Foundation

I responded:

Thank you for the belated response. I asked for a source, not an education. I already knew most of that. This answer is evasion, not a satisfactory response. Dr. Laibow used the words all and every, not some. She was quite emphatic about it. I’m referring to her video Nutricide – Criminalizing Natural Health, Vitamins, and Herbs, about 16 minutes in. You are insulting my intelligence. I searched for anything to corroborate these claims. I found nothing. I did find on the blog, “All fruit and veggies imported into the US must be irradiated.” That’s not what Dr. Laibow said on the video, unless she means by locally grown, grown in the USA, and that all food is fruit or veggie. I also found something on your site noting that Europe and Canada have banned rBST. How does CODEX intend to get around that?

A week ago, tired of waiting, I transcribed the section of the video to post on the Gary Null Forum asking for corroboration of these claims. Nobody has volunteered any information. These are the exact quotes I posted there:

“Let me tell you about Codex Alimentarius. Let me define it for you. Let me help you understand the enemy. And let me assure you, that absolutely nothing that I’m going to tell you is exaggerated, is interpolated, or is imagined. Everything I’m going to tell you is documented, and a great deal of it is documented on my web site.”

“Let’s talk about milk. We have recombinant bovine growth hormone, and now we can choose milk with it or milk without it, butter with it, butter without it, right? Not under CODEX. Because under CODEX, every dairy cow on the planet must be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone. Furthermore, under CODEX, every animal used for food on the planet, whether it has fins, feet, or feathers, every animal on the planet must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics, must be treated with sub-clinical antibiotics and must be treated with exogenous growth hormones. CODEX requires, mandates, that all food be irradiated, unless it’s eaten locally and raw. All food, including organic food, of course.”

Nothing is exaggerated, and everything is documented? I want a reliable source. It should not take you hours to find me that source, if it exists. If I don’t get one soon, I’ll be blogging about this. Maybe for the benefit of Gary Null’s readers, Dr. Laibow should post her response to my post at his forum.

I note that in my original request, I left out the qualifier for cows, “dairy” (which should have been obvious), and for all food, “unless it’s eaten locally and raw” (which covers a great deal more than imported fruit and veggies).

Alexander Wren
AKA Angry Scientist

Ms. Greene responded on Feb. 9:

Hi Alex! Dr. Rima is still in Africa and will not be back for at least another week. I personally cannot give you the “very precise” info you seem to think is necessary, so I will forward this to her for answer when she can take time away from the Codex fight to make you happy. Since she does not carry files with her when travelling, you may simply have to develop some patience. I was not at all evasive in my answer to you- I do not personally save all the research I read and thus cannot quote it directly to you- Personally, I suggest that you go ahead and trust Big Pharma and the FDA and eat everything that the government tells you is safe– and then remember to take the stick out, so it can pass through! -Kathy

I waited until Feb. 28, then responded:

My patience is wearing thin. Once it gets to be three months since I asked for a source, about two weeks from now, I’ll post these insulting evasive replies from Kathy on Gary Null’s message board as evidence of your bad faith. Then I’ll think about what to write on my blog. Maybe you don’t realize many bloggers consider themselves journalists. Stalling a request for a source is highly suspicious.

Alexander Wren
AKA Angry Scientist

Ralph Fucetola JD responded on March 2:

Dear Mr. Wren,

Dr. Laibow is unavailable to answer your inquiry. She asked me to help you find the information you seek. She has reviewed, by her estimate, over 16,000 pages of Codex information and concluded that the results of those regulations would be to effectively mandate food irradiation and the use of rBST additives.

I just Googled “rBST Codex” and got a number of references from about ten years ago: rBST was the subject of Codex rule making, but the final decision has not been concluded, thus leaving rBST allowable in any amount for the world food trade as may be acceptable to the receiving country.

http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/animal_rBST.htm

“Consumers win rBST delay at Codex

“In a landmark decision by the international food standards agency, Codex, an application to have a standard set for the residue limits of rBST was rejected, following appeals by Consumers International at a Codex meeting in June 1997. The USA had requested an international standard for minimum residue limits for the hormone, which would have effectively given it a trading licence by Codex.”

There is a book on Google Book Search that talks about later developments:

Case Studies in US Trade Negotiations where the footnote on page 308 says that JECFA “concluded that bST residual levels in milk were very low and that bST naturally found in milk is nontoxic. According to JECFA no MRL was necessary when rbST was administered properly.”

According to Food Chemical News $1 No. 21, July 12, 1999, the Codex regs are being held at step 8, which is the step before finalization.

But, of course, US FDA policy is to “harmonize” with such regulations “even when not finalized…” (see Code of Federal Regulations, October 11, 1995 (60 FR 53078) so it is fairly clear that Codex permits rBST products to be sold in countries such as the US.

We are dealing here with the World Food Code, not our Anglo-American common law, so this is a situation where what ever is permitted may very well become deemed obligatory.

Here is a good overview of Codex and food irradiation:

“Within Codex, food irradiation is classified as an additive. Thus, food irradiation falls under the jurisdiction of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC). CCFAC depends on several sources of information in evaluating food additives. In the case of irradiation, CCFAC draws from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committees on Food Additives (JECFA) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (ICGFI). As shown in an October 2002 report by Public Citizen, Bad Taste: The Disturbing Truth About the World Health Organisation’s Endorsement of Food Irradiation,2 the WHO has relied on a very small number of faulty studies in declaring food irradiation safe; this unscientific and shoddy work is the foundation of acceptance of food irradiation across the world. *** Codex has become an instrument of the liberalization of international trade, instead of a method to protect the food supplies of peoples across the world.”

“Codex weakened the international food irradiation rule to allow any food to be irradiated at any dose, regardless of how high. The new Standard contains no maximum radiation dose to which foods can be ‘treated.’ The previous limit was 10 kiloGray, a dose of radiation equivalent to 330 million chest X-rays. At such doses, the chemical composition of foods can be altered; vitamins, proteins and other nutrients can be destroyed; and flavor, odor and texture can be corrupted.”

“Since Codex standards are enforceable through the World Trade Organization, member nations that have food irradiation laws stricter than the new Codex Standard could have their laws challenged and overruled.”

A number of web sites have interpreted the allowance of irradiated foods to be tantamount to requiring such processes. See: http://www.care2.com/news/member/410531040/649659

“If FDA and Codex has its way, all food will be irradiated…”

In my view, that which is permitted under Codex, and to which the US FDA will harmonize, becomes mandatory under the SPS Agreement (Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures) and under WTO dispute resolution.

The process by which “voluntary” standards become WTO mandatory requirements is stated in many places:

“The Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods (CAC/RS 106-1979) was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission at its 13th Session in 1979 and was subsequently revised in 1983 by the 15th Session. This Standard has been submitted to all Member Nations and Associate Members of FAO and WHO for acceptance in accordance with the General Principles of the Codex Alimentarius.”

http://www.caobisco.com/doc_uploads/legislation/STAN106-EN.pdf

I believe it is fair to conclude that the norm for international trade is routine irradiation of foods moving in international trade, and certainly those produced by the largest global food companies, where the economics of the situation dictate treating all food substances alike.

Thus, while I cannot say that 100% of all foods moving in international trade are now irradiated, I believe it appropriate to assert that nearly all of the bulk food supplies upon which the world relies for wholesome nutrition are likely to be irradiated. Of course careful producers of organic foods, herbs and spices will do their best to avoid irradiation, that that hardly amounts to a couple percents of the world food trade.

In a world of non-finalized but domestically binding international standards, routine practices of the food industry are international law in practice and confirm Dr. Laibow’s concerns.

Ralph Fucetola, JD
The Vitamin Lawyer.com Consultancy

http://www.vitaminlawyer.com/

http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/

All Rights Reserved . . .

—— Original Message ——
Received: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:14:59 AM EST
From: “Rima E. Laibow” (dr.laibow@gmail.com)
To: “Ralph Fucetola JD” (ralph.fucetola@usa.net)
Subject: Fwd: Contact: CODEX

Ralph, Dr. Laibow would appreciate it if you could respond to Mr. Wren.
Kathy

Finally an in depth response! I responded:

Thank you for your detailed response. However, I’m not buying your arguments. Here’s why. I wouldn’t be surprised if the FDA finds some excuse like CODEX to mandate rBST, but Dr. Laibow stated, “Because under CODEX, every dairy cow on the planet must be treated with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone.” Our FDA doesn’t govern every dairy cow on the planet. You know as well as I the European Union would never go along with that. They’re pissed off enough as it is with US pressure to accept our genetically modified crops, and they’re not alone. Your argument is at best inconclusive. Dr. Laibow’s concerns may be justifiable, but that’s a far cry from claiming to have documentation that a worldwide requirement is already mandated, waiting for the right moment to spring it on an unwary world.

Regarding food irradiation, the link you cite at care2.com is to a posting from healthfreedomusa.org, hardly an independent source. You speak of “foods moving in international trade.” Dr. Laibow stated: “CODEX requires, mandates, that all food be irradiated, unless it’s eaten locally and raw. All food, including organic food, of course.” That goes a good deal further than “foods moving in international trade.” Besides, how could authorities know whether food will be eaten locally and raw, unless it is consumed at the premises it is sold, or originally produced? Are you implying eaten locally means the food doesn’t cross any international borders? I know most, if not all, imported foods are already required by US Customs to undergo irradiation or fumigation. You’re implying organic food might escape, but that’s not what Dr. Laibow said. At best, Dr. Laibow is jumping to conclusions about what might happen in a worst case scenario. You haven’t cited anything to document her outrageous statements, merely reasons why her concerns might be valid. This is not documentation. I’m a scientist. If you think you can snow me with your legal mumbo-jumbo, think again. So, is this the best you can do to document Dr. Laibow’s claims?

Evidently, that was supposed to be sufficient documentation; I’ve heard nothing since. I leave it to the reader to judge if my assessment is unfair or inaccurate.

This is an example of why the alternative health movement isn’t taken seriously. This woman and her lawyer go around making these eye-popping statements about what that nefarious CODEX is up to, but when asked to back them up, I got this crap. I don’t doubt CODEX is a threat to health freedom, but making these kinds of statements just gives the orthodoxy ammunition to say the alternative health movement is all quackery and doesn’t know what it’s talking about. They can point to Dr. Laibow as an example of someone well respected in the movement, supposedly an expert on CODEX, who makes outrageous unsubstantiated claims trying to scare people, and thus deserves no credibility. She may indeed be an expert on CODEX, but such easily disproven statements make her sound like she’s gone off the deep end. The medical orthodoxy is eager to exploit any weak link in the chain to cast doubt on the credibility of the alternative health movement. Is Dr. Laibow deliberately making that easier? If not, what’s her game? What’s the point of making claims she must know are exaggerated after making such a big point of saying

…absolutely nothing that I’m going to tell you is exaggerated, is interpolated, or is imagined. Everything I’m going to tell you is documented…

Like hell it is. She knows better. She’s doing this for a reason. Is it just to raise money from people naive enough to believe her? Or is her purpose more nefarious? Is she a spy on the alternative health movement, a plant to weaken it from within? The movement has enough trouble with unscrupulous profiteers who are in it for the money, not to help people. The quackbusters paint the entire movement with a broad brush, as if it’s nothing but a bunch of con artists selling snake oil. There are a few, along with some others who do help people, but think their particular remedy is a cure-all, or charge too much. All of this gets blown out of proportion, giving everyone questioning the orthodoxy a bad name. The last thing the movement needs is people making wild charges they can’t back up. The scientific truth isn’t on the side of the orthodoxy, but it can maintain its power as long as it can undermine the credibility of its critics. Critics who undermine their own credibility are doing the orthodoxy a big favor. I must question, whose side are they on?