Uruguay: Birth of a Movement Against Mining and Extractivism

On March 7 one of Uruguay’s strongest myths was broken: trust in state enterprises. That day those who turned on their faucets were met with a foul smell and those who were drinking coffee or maté found a strange taste. The company in charge of the water supply, the State Sanitary Works (OSE), had to confess that there was “an episode” of algae contamination in the Santa Lucia River Basin, which supplies six out of ten Uruguayans.
Despite this, the state company said that the water was potable. 

A statement released days later said: “In relation to the event of the taste and odor perceived several days ago by the population of the metropolitan area, OSE informs that it was entirely due to a substance released by a type of microscopic algae in the Santa Lucia River. This substance, called Geosmin, has no bearing on the health of the population “[1].

The authorities closed ranks and denied emphatically the contamination of water sources, which had always been of high quality. However, much of the population did not believe the State’s arguments, buying bottled water and depleting stocks.


This event wouldn’t have had much significance if it were not for a movement that has grown in recent years against the installation of an Indian owned, open pit, iron mine called Aratirí. The movement has also been protesting the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers that have polluted the soy crop and recently re-forested areas. In fact, environmental consciousness has grown widely due to a debate following the installation of a massive pulp mill on the Uruguay River.


At that time (approximately 2003 – 2008), amid the euphoria of to the rise to power of the Fente Amplio (2004) and an atmosphere of nationalism exacerbated by disputes between environmentalists and the Argentine government, the majority of the population supported the Uruguayan government. Now things have changed. The rural population (only 5% of the total) began to feel the harmful effects of agricultural development and small-scale traditional farmers (including livestock herders) began to mobilize.


A Contaminated Country


It’s difficult to accept that Uruguay’s rivers are polluted. The country was always a natural paradise, with few cars and light industry, with extensive ranches and grain farming. But in the last decade, with agricultural and mineral speculation, things have changed drastically.

The main changes that have been occurring over the last ten years have been concentrated in rural production. 

The price of land has increased six fold ($500 to $3,000 per hectare on average). Thirty-eight percent of agricultural land has been sold, and 41% has been leased [2]. Between 2000 and 2008 Uruguayan owners lost 1.8 million hectares that went to corporations that acquired a similar surface quantity.


There is a strong concentration of land owned by multinational corporations with one million hectares belonging to just 14 groups. Montes del Plata (Chilean-Swedish-Finnish) has 234,000 hectares followed by Forestal Oriental (Finnish) with 200,000 hectares. The U.S. company, Weyerheuser has 140,000 hectares and the Argentine owned El Tejar and Agronegocios de Plata (ADP) have 140,000 and 100,000 hectares respectively, completing the list of the largest foreign investments.


In the 2001-2002 season there were only 29,000 hectares of soybeans planted. In 2012 it exceeded 1 million hectares. Another million hectares of land was forested. This represents an exponential increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers that have been washed by rain into rivers. This has initiated a drama that the people are beginning to feel.


A study of the Santa Lucia River (which provides 60% of the drinking water) conducted by the National Direction of the Environment (DINAMA) resulted in scandal. Internationally accepted phosphorus levels in water are 25 micrograms per liter, but the count detected in the river ranged between 70 and 12,900 micrograms per liter. [3] Scientists and environmentalists have been ringing alarm bells about the pollution, but the state has done little.


Biologist Luis Aubriot of the Sciences Department told reporters that “if there is no reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus” then the water problems will not be solved [4]. Another biologist, Mario Calcagno, recalled that in addition to the pesticides and fertilizers used for soybeans, the Santa Lucia River is polluted by refrigerator effluents, food industries and urban centers, and that native forest on its banks have been disappearing. “It’s a disaster,” he said [5].


Diego Martino, who represented Uruguay at the United Nations Program for the Environment, presented one of the strongest arguments: “In 2010, levels of atrazine were detected in the water. It is one of the components of glyphosate. There is no nationwide study that says what the consequences of very low levels of atrazine could be when consumed over ten years “[6].


In his opinion the main problem is the inability of the State to make and regulate decisions. He gave an example: How long did it take for the DINAMA to change the distance of 50 meters to 500 meters for spraying [pesticides] around a rural school? Years”. It’s not known how many children were made ill by this delay.


One of the main problems are [agricultural] reservoirs, which are used mostly for irrigation and rice cultivation. In a small country like Uruguay there are over a thousand dams that with the summer heat become incubators for algae growth because of the concentration of agrochemicals. Rain the water in the reservoirs overflows into rivers. All the rivers of Uruguay, including the extremely wide Río de la Plata, are green with pollution.


Livestock is also being affected. A rancher from the central part of the country, whose sheep drink in the large Rincón del Bonete dam, suffered the loss of 56 sheep in one year, all intoxicated [7]. The Director of Renewable Resources of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries acknowledged, “Uruguay does not have a diagnosis of the state of its water”. The same official affirms that soy is grown only four meters from lakes, rivers and streams, even though there is legislation that establishes a distance of [at least] eight meters, which is also insufficient. [8]


The director of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Sciences at the Sciences department, Daniel Panario, received in 2012 the National Award for Citizen Excellence. He is the country’s most distinguished and combative scientist that has been denouncing pollution for over 20 years. In his opinion, the best example [of pollution] linked to water is lead.


“In the 1940s in England it was concluded that the poor performance of children in schools was due to lead and immediately all the water pipes were changed. In Uruguay this conclusion was made in the 1970s. We are now in 2013 and they have still yet to finish changing out the lead pipes in Montevideo. They say they have other priorities and that it’s expensive”[9].


In addition to the State, the university is an obstacle in allowing the population in knowing the truth. “One does not have complete freedom to investigate issues of national interest. When one goes to talk they risk having to deal with the authorities. A few days ago the [university] president said that I did not speak representing the university and that I was damaging the [image] of the department”[10].


Here appear two problems: academics prioritize research that can be published in journals, usually in English, to which ordinary people do not have access. On the other hand, universities depend on conventions and funds from various international organizations and private companies that have no interest in making public criticisms of the products they sell.


Universities themselves often boycott researchers like Panario, despite their national and international recognition. He applied twice for the national research fund and was rejected both times. He had to appeal to higher authorities for admission. He now seems happy with the growth of the movement against open-pit mining.


A Different Movement


Iron ore prices were stable for twenty years. In 1985 a dry metric ton was worth $26. In 2004 it had reached $38 and climbed to $140 in 2008. In 2009 the price dropped to $101 per ton, but now it’s rising once again. Iron ore is not just any other metal, as it represents 95 percent of all metals used in the industry.


Aratirí Mining belongs to Zamin Ferrous, an Indian company based in London. It has seven projects in South America, five in Brazil, one in Peru and one in Uruguay, and expects to produce about 50 million tons of iron ore across the continent in 2013. But the company’s potential in the region amounts to 10 billion tons.

In Uruguay they were licensed to mine about 110 thousand hectares in areas devoted to cattle ranching and forestry, where exploratory drilling had been performed to detect areas of greater density of iron ore. The mining project has three parts: the area where the mining will be conducted, about 220 kilometers of pipeline to the Rocha coast and finally a freight terminal. The total investment is estimated to be $2 billion.


In late 2010, when Parliament passed the Mining Code, small-scale rural producers of Valentines and Cerro Chato (180 and 3,000 inhabitants each), the areas where Aratirí installed [it’s project], began to mobilize. In January 2011 neighborhood commissions from the coast, where a port will be installed to export the iron, started a petition against the project.


From there [opposition] activity intensified. First they attended a session of parliament to explain the reasons for opposing the project. Small-scale livestock ranchers would see disruptions in their production because they will either face land expropriations and thus be forced to emigrate or they will be forced to migrate because of air and water pollution. The coastal villagers would suffer a loss to their fisheries and tourism will become scarce.


Later they held dozens of informational events in different places, such as small towns of 50 to 100 people. Finally in May 2011 they convened the first national march in Montevideo with the slogan “No to mining, yes to natural resources”. 

The [mining] company held its own march in Cerro Chato mobilizing merchants and workers. The next day the [small-scale, opposition] producers doubled the number of people mobilized, challenging the multinational [company] that had also began conducting its own informational events that were boycotted by those opposed to mining.


In July 2011 the Confederation of Coastal villages was created with representatives from seven communities of the Rocha Department: La Paloma (pop. 3,500), Aguas Dulces (400), Punta del Diablo (800), Valizas (330), La Pedrera (200), La Esmeralda (57) and Cabo Polonio. These communities oppose the construction of a port in La Paloma designated for the export of wood to be sent to paper factories, and another port designated to export iron.


On October 12 the second national march was held with a confluence of collectives from the north, central region, south and coastal zone, made up of small-scale producers and rural workers. Several celebrities participated in a video against mega-mine projects. Since then each region now focuses on local activities and the Permanent National Assembly in Defense of the Land and Natural Assets was created with about 36 grassroots collectives [11].
In mid-2012 the government confirmed the construction of a deepwater port for the export of iron, wood and other products near La Paloma. In August the movement against mining held its first national assembly in Tacuarembó (North) attended by 300 people from 35 collectives.


In attendance were three unions, indigenous groups, community radios, small-scale producers and rural workers. Members of the coastal towns opted for direct action to prevent the construction of the port near La Paloma. On October 12 the third national march was held in Montevideo with 10 thousand people participating, dozens of gauchos on horseback, tractors, flags of indigenous peoples, environmentalists and unions.


The movement against mining in Uruguay has three unprecedented features.

 The first is that it was born in the rural central region, in villages of about 50 to 3,000 people, and then it appeared in the departmental capitals and later in Montevideo, where the first groups are still being organized. This is a reversal of what has happened throughout the country’s history of social struggles, where almost all have been born in the capital.


Secondly, it’s a grassroots, assembly based, horizontal movement, linked to land and territory. It finds its inspiration from rural populist identities rather than unions and labor of the traditional left. Although these sectors are integrated and participate they do not assume a hegemonic role. The speech and language invoke the independence struggle of 200 years ago led by Jose Artigas, also emphasizing that everything relates to the land.


The third is that the movement has thus far rejected being institutionalized. NGOs have their hands bound. Political parties are kept silent. But was is most interesting is that the movement hasn’t chosen the path of a national referendum, the modality that has been adopted by all the great Uruguayan movements since the restoration of democracy, beginning with human rights.


There are local collectives that gather signatures for departmental referendums, and after extensive discussions the choice to move to a national referendum has been avoided. The experience of over 20 years indicates that this path leads to the dismantling of the movement since it infringes upon the popular will.


This is the first social movement that was born under a progressive government. It directly questions the extractive model and the pollution of water only supports the movement’s arguments especially for gaining public support. As Panario said reflecting on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in New York and the overall climate change debate: “You must have a catastrophe for the people to become aware.”

Still Eat Conventional Meat?

Still Eat Conventional Meat or Poultry? Preservatives, Antimicrobials, Antifungals, and Viral Sprays Saturate Factory Farmed Sources

70 percent of all beef and chicken sold in the United States, Canada, UK and Australia and many other countries contain a growing number of preservatives, meat glues, and antibacterial/antifungal/antiviral sprays. They also are commonly treated with carbon monoxide gas injections to make meat appear more fresh than it actually is.

Synthetic preservatives are added to 70 percent of all factory farmed meat and poultry to prevent spoilage, rancidity and mould growth.

Sodium Benzoate, Sodium Proprionate and Benzoic Acid

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended regulations that once banned the use of sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid in meat and poultry products, the Food and Drug Administration has announced.

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate form benzene, form known carcinogens. If a individual happens to consume any of these toxins after consuming ascorbic acid, a carcinogenic process may initiate.

The three preservatives had been on the list of prohibited antimicrobial substances the FSIS considered to have the potential to conceal damage or inferiority in meat and poultry.

The change follows a petition by Kraft Foods Global Inc., which wants to use the substances to help inhibit the growth of bacteria.

After consideration, the FSIS said it has "determined that sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and benzoic acid, under the conditions proposed in the petitions, are both safe and suitable for use as antimicrobial agents in certain RTE (Ready-to-Eat) meat and poultry products."

Nitrites/Nitrates

Nitrites and nitrates are also added to meat products during processing to inhibit the growth of bacteria and enhance color. Nitrites may be added directly to the meat product, but more frequently nitrates are added. Nitrites are used in pork, beef and poultry products to enhance colour. For example, nitrates are added to ham and bacon, giving them their characteristic pink colour. Some countries even permit the use of nitrites in fish products.

When nitrites combine with certain amino acids, N-nitroso compounds or nitrosamines are formed and these have been shown to be carcinogenic (cancer-causing). Our primary source of exposure to nitrates and nitrites is through the food we consume, however exposure to these compounds can also occur through drinking water.

Sulphites

They are used widely as preservatives in food to maintain food colour and prolong shelf-life. Sulphites can also be used in some pharmaceutical medications as a way of maintaining their potency.

Sulphites can trigger asthma or an anaphylactic-type reactions. Certain individuals, particularly those with asthma, may react to sulphites with allergy-like symptoms. It's one reason most pre-packaged foods are required to have an ingredients listing on the presence of sulphites on the label. The pre-packaged food product label will state “may contain” or “may contain traces of” sulphites and sulphite derivatives.

It is important to always read the ingredients’ lists and remember that sulphite derivatives exist and may be listed as:

E 220, E 221, E 222, E 223, E 224, E 225, E 226, E 227, E 228 (European names)
Potassium bisulphite/metabisulphite
Sodium bisulphite/dithionite/metabisulphite/sulphite
Sulfur dioxide
Sulphiting agents
Sulphurous acid

Meat Glue

Produced as Activa by Japan's Ajinomoto Company, it's scientific name is "transglutaminase" and it belongs to the family of clotting enzymes which are eight in number.

Meat glue is thrombin, a coagulation protein which together with the fibrous protein fibrin can be used to develop a "meat glue" enzyme that can be used for sticking together different pieces of meat. It can be made from blood taken from either cows or pigs.

The European Parliament had voted to ban bovine and porcine thrombin. The House said the meat glue has no proven benefit for consumers and might mislead them instead. One year later, all but one of the European Union nations voted in favor of using Thrombian, or Transglutaminase (TG). They now joining other developed nations such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia who approved the product.

This sort of thing has been a boon to the food industry, which can now treat all sorts of proteins like meat or fish as just another material to be processed, but in the hands of molecular gastronomists it's become a way to manipulate food in a way that would have been previously impossible. It's possible, for example, to make tenderloin rolls wrapped in bacon that hold together perfectly without the need for twine or toothpicks.

Viral Sprays

The FDA also approved a virus-cocktail spray that might prevent listeriosis. The spray, called LMP 102, is a mixture of six different special viruses called bacteriophages -- viruses that infect only bacteria, not people, animals or plants.

Bacteriophages, like all viruses, contain protein. These proteins can cause allergic reactions, just like milk proteins cause milk allergies.
The bacteriophages might also get into battle with the friendly bacteria in the digestive system, making it harder for the body to digest food. But that's a risk the FDA already takes by allowing the use of antibiotics on farms.
The FDA currently allows bacteriophages to be used in pesticides, including those sprayed on crops. But this is the first time that the FDA has regulated the use of bacteriophages as a food additive. Other countries actually use bacteriophages in antibiotic drugs.

The idea here is that these six bacteriophages will infect and kill any listeria bacteria that might linger on meats.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, use of this spray will have to be marked on the food just like any other ingredient on the label.
Consumers might soon see the words "bacteriophage preparation" on cold cuts. As always, although the virus spray is intended to make food safer, it does not come without its own risks.
Carbon Monoxide Treatment

Carbon monoxide (often referred to as CO) is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, one measly oxygen molecule away from the carbon dioxide we all exhale. But that one molecule makes a big difference in that it does very, very bad things to the human body at very, very low concentrations.
CO is toxic because it sticks to hemoglobin, a molecule in blood that usually carries oxygen, even better than oxygen can. When people are exposed to higher levels of CO, the gas takes the place of oxygen in the bloodstream and wreaks havoc. Milder exposures mean headaches, confusion, and tiredness. Higher exposures mean unconsciousness and death, and even those who survive CO poisoning can suffer serious long-term neurological consequences.
Keeping meat at healthy temperatures is very challenging for grocery retailers. The actual surface temperature of displayed fresh meat is often much higher than the thermometer of the display case due to UV radiation from the display case lighting which penetrates the meat packaging and heats the surface just as the sun can cause a sunburn on a cold winter day. Various studies have found that the internal temperature of meat from display cases does exceed 50 degrees Celsius which is more than 10 degrees higher than recommended temperatures.

The meat consequently decomposes very quickly, so the meat industry heavily invested in modified atmospheric packaging which utilizes carbon monoxide gas to extend the shelf life and resist spoilage.

In a carbon monoxide system, with low oxygen, the carbon monoxide will react with the myoglobin and give the meat a bright red colour. The low oxygen mixture artificially limits the growth of spoilage organisms that are commonly caused by increased levels of heat in display cases.

So although carbon monoxide is a gas that can be fatal when inhaled in large quantities, the meat industry insists that it is not harmful to human health when ingested via atmospheric packaging.

This is not true of course since C. perfringens bacteria, the third-most-common cause of food-borne illness, has been proven to grow on what is considered fresh meat right out of the supermarket that is well within the expiry dates on the labels. Marissa Cattoi a lab tech who analyzes meat samples for a health and safety agency says the bacteria are commonly found on fresh grocery meat. "We commonly test for C.perfringens bacteria and about half of the fresh meat products that come in are positive despite them being within the expiry period. 100% of the these cases come from packagers who adopted atmospheric packaging methods such as the use of carbon monoxide gas," she stated.

Most atmospheric packaging will not be labeled. There also many foods that do not have to declare the presence of preservatives, unless the amount of the preservative is naturally occurring in, or added to, the product exceeds a certain concentration.

When Is It OK To Kill?

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

Deer tastes good; you may not know if that snake in your garage is poisonous; and bugs are home invaders.
I mean is it okay to kill a man, a human being, a person? Again, I don’t mean someone trying to kill you, rob your business, rape your wife, harm your children, or break into your house. Killing someone might be perfectly justified in those circumstances if it involves defense against aggression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olympic Peninsula: West Coast Radiation Crisis

Yoichi Shimatsu 5-12-13

The azure glow of Crater Lake was about to be smudged by a band of wispy smoke blowing in eastward on the jet stream. As steely gray turned to black, I switched on my dosimeter, which immediately whined in alarm. The radiation level inside the jetliner cabin hit 2.26 microsieverts, equivalent to twice the dosage at locations just 5 kilometers from the Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant. Although my nerves were thoroughly rattled by the buzzing, the dozing passengers were blissfully unaware of being bombarded by lethal neutrons.   Sky-high radiation reading inside a jetliner cabin while flying over the Oregon-Washington state boundary.   The thin ghost shadow riding through the sky had no semblance to a fat rain cloud. Here, over the Pacific Northwest, was a vast plume of smoke from the incinerators of Greater Tokyo that burn radioactive debris from Fukushima Prefecture. The radiation levels gradually diminished as the jet made its descent to SEA-TAC airport.    My journey to Seattle from Southern California had been prompted by a questionable claim from Washington State officials that the waves of tsunami debris from Japan are not radioactive. This sort of optimism is based on the assumption that any residual isotopes would be washed away in the North Pacific Current during the passage of more than a year over a distance of 7450 km (4630 miles).   Above Crater Lake, Oregon, on arrival of the leading edge of concentrated particulates from Tokyo incinerators burning low-level nuclear waste from Fukushima.   To the contrary, my gut instinct tends to be pessimistic, especially after having conducted several field research expeditions that discovered serious contamination not only in northeast Japan but also on the southernmost peaks of the Japanese archipelago. The spread of radiation, as far I have been able to tell, is unstoppable.    New World’s End    The Olympic Peninsula is unexpectedly large. The three-hour drive out of Seattle wends through a cactus desert in the rain shadow of snow-capped mountains and then plunges into dark moss-hung stands of temperate rainforest. Beyond the great arc of Crescent Lake, reminiscent of Scandinavia or Switzerland, a road sign points to the town of Forks, location for the “Twilight” romantic vampire series.   Shishi Beach, Olympic Peninsula, has been cleared of all debris from the 3.11 tsunami that hit northeast Japan.   At the Last Chance gas station, the breakfast fare caters to the sport fishermen rolling their boats down a ramp onto the Salish Sea, which separates Washington State from British Columbia. My choice is a frozen barbecue burrito reheated in a microwave. Farther along, totem poles in front of a low-hung casino were carved by the Makah tribe known for their seagoing war canoes, which are still used to hunt whales. Unlike the Japanese fleet’s mechanical contraptions and ballistic projectiles, these muscular paddlers hurl old-fashioned harpoons in a fair contest between man and leviathan.    Turning south from Neah Bay, the road peters out at gravel parking lot marked by a wooden sign that reads: “Shishi Beach 1.6 miles”. The early stretch is a pleasant stroll atop wooden planks through a forest as spooky as those in Lord of the Rings. Then the path descends into an endless slog through perma-mud and poison oak well beyond the promised distance. My thought while stumbling along was : “So this is how the natives get their revenge.”   Higher radiation levels from previous year’s seaweed are found along the shore of the Makah tribal lands.     At last, the waves crashing on pristine beaches devoid of foreign flotsam, come into sight. After traveling 10,000 kilometers from the other side of the ocean, I find not a matchstick much less a floating house or boat from Japan. There were more bits of chewing gum wrappers on the trail than on these lonely stretches of sand and bonsai-studded rocks.    Seaweed Tales    Disappointed, to say the least, I switched to a stratagem of measuring radiation in the seaweed that had washed ashore. Within a few minutes, a pattern emerged. Dry bunches of kelp above the dunes imply a serious radioactive event happening about a year earlier with readings of up to 0.28 microsieverts. More recently displaced wet seaweed show half that figure. At the water’s edge, the readings are very low, only about 0.08 microsieverts, near the background radiation across the peninsula.    The Pacific Northwest has abundant rainfall yet lacks the high humidity of Japan. Thus, instead of recycling radiation inland, the isotopes are washed out to sea, rapidly lowering contaminations on land and in the bays.    It is a pity that my science kit does not include any instruments to detect toxic chemicals or microbiological contamination. The steep slopes of Japan’s northeast coast meant that most of the region’s tanks for oil, fertilizer and pesticides, along with refrigerant fluids, were stored along the shore and were swept away by the tsunami.   Barnacles attached to a mussel have bio-accumulated radiation from algae and plankton.   A Strand of Buoys    Calling it a day, filled with hard-earned futility, I headed back toward civilization. On the edge of Neah Bay village, the front yard of a shack identified by the sign “FISH” is festooned with a string of colorful buoys. On closer inspection, the plastic balls are covered with raised Chinese characters, a bit of Japanese phonetic script and the Roman alphabet.    My experience along the Fukushima coast showed that rubber plastic and fishing nets absorb radiation more readily than wood or metal. The dosimeter recorded an identical 0.16 microsieverts on every Japanese float, a level not immediately harmful to the rare passerby. Nonetheless, the figure is a good indicator of contamination on the journey from Fukushima. The Chinese balls are between 0.05 and 0.08 microSv.   Lower radiation levels are present in recently dowsed items like wet kelp or this cast-off woman’s shoe.   Again, small differences disclose a larger story. The made-in-Japan floats, aboard trawlers or hanging to dry with nets in fishing villages, were pulled out to sea by the tsunami and soon became irradiated by contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. In contrast, the Chinese buoys were attached to long fishing nets laid outside Japan’s 200-mile maritime exclusive economic zone. Larger pieces of jetsam, for example, wooden beams, boats and buildings, ripped those long nets to shreds, releasing the Chinese buoys adrift. At that distance from the coast, radiation levels had become greatly diluted.    So here, in these findings, was undeniable proof that the federal and state governments have again failed to inform American citizens of the radiation risk from Fukushima. For all the funding spent on climate research, oceanic studies, fisheries protection and marine biology, not a single official bulletin mentions anything about what a visitor can learn from a string of buoys in front of a salmon smokehouse.   Beachcomber’s collection of fishing-net buoys at a salmon smokehouse run by a Makah resident   The proprietor, a big strapping cheerful Makah fellow, stepped outside to provide answers to the missing debris riddle. “The state has started to put two big containers by the beaches on weekends, and volunteers come to clean up the beaches.”    The state Bureau of Corrections responded to my query by answering that convicts from the two nearby prisons had never been assigned to the beach detail. Therefore, ordinary residents out of the goodness of their hearts did the hard work of removing flotsam, which included radioactive materials. The volunteers had no knowledge of the health risk and were given no advice on wearing protective gloves and eyewear or about decontamination methods.  A state resident who is an avid halibut fisherman told me: “It must be some sort of diversion that the only thing that the biologists have been focusing on is invasive species from Japan. They never say anything about radiation in the food chain.”    Gazing at the ocean from the closest point in the Lower 48 to Japan, the truth is as cold and bitter as the north wind. I shudder to think of what is still to come.   A consistent reading of 0.16 microsieverts is found on the buoys from Japan   Update on the Marine Mammal Kill-off in Southern California: Before heading to the Pacific Northwest, I met a number of Southern California residents whose lives are deeply connected to the ocean.    A California Fish and Wildlife ranger did not flinch when told of my radiation findings in the heart of a dead sea lion beached at San Onofre. He told me the following:   “Made in Japan” is impressed on a small buoy.   The coming feed shortage: “At this time of year (late winter and spring), there’s a northward current from San Diego-Coronado Island up the Catalina Channel. The colder California Current (moving southward) flows around the outside of the Channel islands (Santa Catalina and San Clemente). Over the past year, the water in the Channel has been colder than usual. Soon, a warm current will strongly push north below the surface and there will be a series of powerful upwellings of warm water up the Channel. The sudden temperature change is likely to kill off the sardines, leading to a major feed crisis for marine mammals.”    Marine environment imbalances: “Rising population along the coast and one-sided zoning decisions have upset the delicate balance in the marine environment. Lobbyists from either side, industry or animal protection, have pushed the state legislature toward one extreme or the other, further worsening the environmental balance. The situation does not get better, for instance, when a ban against commercial fishing opens the door to poachers. We’re going from one ill to the next without the overall situation getting any better ”     Pups and juvenile sea lions rest on the rocks of a jetty at Newport Harbor despite the presence of sport fisherman, a sight never seen before.   Aquaculture: “The squid from the coast of Southern California, formerly used for bait, are now being fished as feed for large tuna farms off the coast of Ensenada, Mexico. The expansion of this billion-dollar industry is going to pose a lot of pressure on fish stocks around here.” Shark Attacks: (reply to my question on the absence of teeth marks on the dead sea lion at San Onofre.) “Great White sharks often do not leave any teeth marks. There are many reports of fast-moving sharks hitting a sea lion and ripping off a strip of skin with no other sign of a bite.” A bait-barge worker: “The price of sardines is no different now than in the past. There is no shortage of smaller fish. Everything is as normal.” (His observations runs counter to the theory of a feed shortage in the channel.)    Volunteer at a fish-stocking raft: “We’ve never before seen sea lion pups resting on the jetty of Newport Harbor. This is most unusual.”   A shallow tide pool in the Laguna Beach area has higher radiation levels due to constant evaporation.   Sport fisherman on the jetty: “The pups arrived here about two weeks ago and stayed.” (In mid-April, the marine mammal kill-off extended northward to Malibu and later Santa Barbara, where beaches were littered with pups dead from starvation. Apparently, just after that crisis, some juvenile sea lions fled to the unfamiliar rocks at the harbor mouth. My radiation readings of a dead pup’s intestines indicated it was not contaminated, meaning the mother was probably dead before she could nurse the pup with radioactive milk.}    A sport fisherman conjectures: “The Great White sharks have been getting more aggressive recently, attacking swimmers and sea lions. Orcas are hunting here out of season, feeding on the white sharks. From what I can tell, the radiation in the water is disrupting the sensors in their snouts and enraging them to attack without cause.”    A Point about Beach Safety:    Radiation readings along the Laguna Beach area indicate lower readings than in San Onofre or Santa Catalina, with one exception: Shallow tide pools affected by solar evaporation. Flat tidal pools that are exposed at high tides tend to act like salt ponds, concentrating radioactive isotopes in the seaweed and in crustaceans. One large sea snail registered 0.38 microsieverts, and seaweed clumps were up to about 0.20 microSv.    Sandy beach areas showed much lower levels, and thus are safer for beach goers, so act accordingly when positioning beach blankets.    Author: Yoichi Shimatsu, a Hong Kong-based science journalist, provides health and environment consulting to residents of Fukushima on countermeasures to radiation exposure.

The Vaccine Hoax Is Over, Truth Prevails Through FOIA

Andrew Baker ( FFN),- Freedom of Information Act in the UK filed by a doctor there has revealed 30 years of secret official documents showing that government experts have

1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies
Those are the same vaccines that are mandated to children in the US.



Educated parents can either get their children out of harm’s way or continue living inside one of the largest most evil lies in history, that vaccines – full of heavy metals, viral diseases, mycoplasma, fecal material, DNA fragments from other species, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (a sterilizing agent) – are a miracle of modern medicine.

Freedom of Information Act filed in the US with the CDC by a doctor with an autistic son, seeking information on what the CDC knows about the dangers of vaccines, had by law to be responded to in 20 days. Nearly 7 years later, the doctor went to court and the CDC argued it does not have to turn over documents. A judge ordered the CDC to turn over the documents on September 30th, 2011.

On October 26, 2011, a Denver Post editorial expressed shock that the Obama administration, after promising to be especially transparent, was proposing changes to the Freedom of Information Act that would allow it to go beyond declaring some documents secret and to actually allow government agencies (such as the CDC) to declare some document “non-existent.”

Simultaneous to this on-going massive CDC cover up involving its primary “health” not recommendation but MANDATE for American children, the CDC is in deep trouble over its decades of covering up the damaging effects of fluoride and affecting the lives of all Americans, especially children and the immune compromised.

 Lawsuits are being prepared.  Children are ingesting 3-4 times more fluoride by body weight as adults and “[t]he sheer number of potentially harmed citizens — persons with dental fluorosis, kidney patients tipped into needing dialysis, diabetics, thyroid patients, etc — numbers in the millions.”

The CDC is obviously acting against the health of the American people. But the threat to the lives of the American people posed by the CDC’s behavior does not stop there. It participated in designed pandemic laws that are on the books in every state in the US, which arrange for the government to use military to force unknown, untested vaccines, drugs, chemicals, and “medical” treatments on the entire country if it declares a pandemic emergency.

The CDC’s credibility in declaring such a pandemic emergency is non-existent, again based on Freedom of Information Act. For in 2009, after the CDC had declared the H1N1 “pandemic,” the CDC refused to respond to Freedom of Information Act filed by CBS News and the CDC also attempted to block their investigation.  What the CDC was hiding was its part in one of the largest medical scandals in history, putting out wildly exaggerated data on what it claimed were H1N1 cases, and by doing so, created the false impression of a “pandemic” in the US.

The CDC was also covering up e financial scandal to rival the bailout since the vaccines for the false pandemic cost the US billions. And worse, the CDC put pregnant women first in line for an untested vaccine with a sterilizing agent, polysorbate 80, in it. Thanks to the CDC,  “the number of vaccine-related “fetal demise” reports increased by 2,440 percent in 2009 compared to previous years, which is even more shocking than the miscarriage statistic [700% increase].
The exposure of the vaccine hoax is running neck and neck with the much older hoax of a deadly 1918-19 flu.

 It was aspirin  that killed people in 1918-19, not a pandemic flu. It was the greatest industrial catastrophe in human history with 20-50 million people dying but it was blamed on a flu. The beginning of the drug industry began with that success (and Monsanto was part of it). The flu myth was used by George Bush to threaten the world with “another pandemic flu that could kill millions” – a terror tactic to get pandemic laws on the books in every state and worldwide.

 Then the CDC used hoax of the pandemic hoax to create terror over H1N1 and to push deadly vaccines on the public, killing thousands of unborn children and others.  (CDC will not release the data and continues to push the same vaccine.)

The hoax of the vaccine schedule is over, exposed by FOIAs in the UK. 

The hoax of the CDC’s interest in children’s lives has been exposed by its refusal to respond to a doctor’s FOIAs around its knowledge of vaccine dangers.

The 1918-19 pandemic hoax has been exposed by Dr. Karen Starko’s work on aspirin’s role in killing people.

And despite refusing to respond to FOIAS, the CDC’s scandalous hoax of a 2009 flu pandemic and its part in creating it, was exposed by CBS NEWS. 

And the Obama administration, in attempting to salvage the last vestige of secrecy around what is really happening with vaccines, by declaring agency documents non-existent, has made its claim of transparency, non-existent.

But pandemic laws arranging for unknown vaccines to be forced on the entire country are still in place with HHS creating a vaccine mixture that should never be used on anyone and all liability for vaccines having been removed. Meanwhile, a Canadian study has just proven that the flu vaccine containing the H1N1 vaccine which kills babies in utero, actually increases the risk of serious pandemic flu.

Americans who have been duped into submitting their children to the CDC’s deadly vaccines, have a means to respond now. People from every walk of life and every organization, must

1. take the information from the UK FOIAs exposing 30 years of vaccine lies, the refusal of the CDC to provide any information on what it knows about those lies, and the Obama Administration’s efforts to hide the CDC’s awareness of those lies, and go to their state legislatures, demand the immediate nullification of the CDC vaccine schedule and the pandemic laws.

2. inform every vet. active duty military person, law enforcement people, DHS agents and medical personnel they know, of the vaccine hoax, for their families are deeply threatened, too, but they may not be aware of it or that they have been folded into agency structures by the pharmaceutical industry (indistinguishable from the bankers and oil companies) that would make them agents of death for their country with the declaration of a “pandemic” emergency or “bio-terrorist” attack.

 It is completely clear now that the terrorism/bioterrorism structures are scams so that any actions taken to “protect” this country using those laws would in fact be what threatens the existence of Americans.

It was aspirin that killed millions in 1918-19.  Now it is mandated and unknown, untested vaccines with banned adjuvants in them that threaten the country with millions of deaths.  At the same time, the CDC is holding 500,000 mega-coffins, built to be incinerated, on its property outside Atlanta.  Not to put to fine a point on this, but it’s clear now that the CDC should not be involved in any way with public health.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know that vaccines are not a miracle of modern medicine.  Any medical or government authority which insists vaccines prevent diseases is either ignorant of government documents (and endless studies) revealing the exact opposite or of the CDC’s attempts to hide the truth about vaccines from the public, or means harm to the public.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we know the vaccine schedule is a hoax.

The health danger to American children and adults are vaccines.

Former Pro-GMO Scientist Speaks Out On The Real Dangers of Genetically Engineered Food

By Thierry Vrain

I retired 10 years ago after a long career as a research scientist for Agriculture Canada. When I was on the payroll, I was the designated scientist of my institute to address public groups and reassure them that genetically engineered crops and foods were safe. There is, however, a growing body of scientific research – done mostly in Europe, Russia, and other countries – showing that diets containing engineered corn or soya cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats.

I don’t know if I was passionate about it but I was knowledgeable. I defended the side of technological advance, of science and progress.

In the last 10 years I have changed my position. I started paying attention to the flow of published studies coming from Europe, some from prestigious labs and published in prestigious scientific journals, that questioned the impact and safety of engineered food.
I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat.

There are a number of scientific studies that have been done for Monsanto by universities in the U.S., Canada, and abroad. Most of these studies are concerned with the field performance of the engineered crops, and of course they find GMOs safe for the environment and therefore safe to eat.

Individuals should be encouraged to make their decisions on food safety based on scientific evidence and personal choice, not on emotion or the personal opinions of others.
We should all take these studies seriously and demand that government agencies replicate them rather than rely on studies paid for by the biotech companies.

The Bt corn and soya plants that are now everywhere in our environment are registered as insecticides. But are these insecticidal plants regulated and have their proteins been tested for safety? Not by the federal departments in charge of food safety, not in Canada and not in the U.S.

There are no long-term feeding studies performed in these countries to demonstrate the claims that engineered corn and soya are safe. All we have are scientific studies out of Europe and Russia, showing that rats fed engineered food die prematurely.

These studies show that proteins produced by engineered plants are different than what they should be. Inserting a gene in a genome using this technology can and does result in damaged proteins. The scientific literature is full of studies showing that engineered corn and soya contain toxic or allergenic proteins.

Genetic engineering is 40 years old. It is based on the naive understanding of the genome based on the One Gene – one protein hypothesis of 70 years ago, that each gene codes for a single protein. The Human Genome project completed in 2002 showed that this hypothesis is wrong.

The whole paradigm of the genetic engineering technology is based on a misunderstanding. Every scientist now learns that any gene can give more than one protein and that inserting a gene anywhere in a plant eventually creates rogue proteins. Some of these proteins are obviously allergenic or toxic.

I have drafted a reply to Paul Horgen’s letter to the Comox Valley Environmental Council. It is my wish that it goes viral as to educate as many people as possible rapidly. Any and all social media is fine by me. This can also be used as a briefing note for the councilors of AVICC or anywhere else. Thank you for your help. [Click here for original source with replies from Dr. Paul Horgen]
— Thierry Vrain, Innisfree Farm

I am turning you towards a recent compilation (June 2012) of over 500 government reports and scientific articles published in peer reviewed Journals, some of them with the highest recognition in the world. Like The Lancet in the medical field, or Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, or Biotechnology, or Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, European Journal of Histochemistry, Journal of Proteome Research, etc … This compilation was made by a genetic engineer in London, and an investigative journalist who summarized the gist of the publications for the lay public.

GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops. A report of 120 pages, it can be downloaded for free from Earth Open Source. “GMO Myths and Truths” disputes the claims of the Biotech industry that GM crops yield better and more nutritious food, that they save on the use of pesticides, have no environmental impact whatsoever and are perfectly safe to eat.

 Genetic pollution is so prevalent in North and South America where GM crops are grown that the fields of conventional and organic grower are regularly contaminated with engineered pollen and losing certification. The canola and flax export market from Canada to Europe (a few hundreds of millions of dollars) were recently lost because of genetic pollution. Did I mention superweeds, when RoundUp crops pass their genes on to RoundUp Resistant weeds.

Apparently over 50% of fields in the USA are now infested and the growers have to go back to use other toxic herbicides such as 2-4 D. Many areas of Ontario and Alberta are also infested. The transgenes are also transferred to soil bacteria. A chinese study published last year shows that an ampicillin resistance transgene was transferred from local engineered crops to soil bacteria, that eventually found their way into the rivers. The transgenes are also transferred to humans.

 Volunteers who ate engineered soybeans had undigested DNA in their intestine and their bacterial flora was expressing the soybean transgenes in the form of antibiotic resistance. This is genetic pollution to the extreme, particularly when antibiotic resistance is fast becoming a serious global health risk. I can only assume the American Medical Association will soon recognize its poorly informed judgement.

In 2009 the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods, safety testing and labeling. Their review of the available literature at the time noted that animals show serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.

 Monsanto writes “There is no need to test the safety of GM foods”. So long as the engineered protein is safe, foods from GM crops are substantially equivalent and they cannot pose any health risks.” The US Food and Drug Administration waived all levels of safety testing in 1996 before approving the commercialization of these crops. Nothing more than voluntary research is necessary, and the FDA does not even want to see the results.

 And there is certainly no need to publish any of it. If you remember 1996, the year that the first crops were commercialized, the research scientists of the US FDA all predicted that transgenic crops would have unpredictable hard to detect side effects, allergens, toxins, nutritional effects, new diseases. That was published in 2004 in Biotechnology if you recall seeing it.

I know well that Canada does not perform long term feeding studies as they do in Europe. The only study I am aware of from Canada is from the Sherbrooke Hospital in 2011, when doctors found that 93% of pregnant women and 82% of the fetuses tested had the protein pesticide in their blood.

This is a protein recognized in its many forms as mildly to severely allergenic. There is no information on the role played by rogue proteins created by the process of inserting transgenes in the middle of a genome. But there is a lot of long term feeding studies reporting serious health problems in mice and rats. The results of the first long term feeding studies of lab rats reported last year in Food and Chemical Toxicology show that they developed breast cancer in mid life and showed kidney and liver damage.

The current statistic I read is that North Americans are eating 193 lbs of GMO food on average annually. That includes the children I assume, not that I would use that as a scare tactic. But obviously I wrote at length because I think there is cause for alarm and it is my duty to educate the public.

One argument I hear repeatedly is that nobody has been sick or died after a meal (or a trillion meals since 1996) of GM food. Nobody gets ill from smoking a pack of cigarette either. But it sure adds up, and we did not know that in the 1950s before we started our wave of epidemics of cancer.

 Except this time it is not about a bit of smoke, it’s the whole food system that is of concern. The corporate interest must be subordinated to the public interest, and the policy of substantial equivalence must be scrapped as it is clearly untrue.

Thierry Vrain is a former research scientist for Agriculture Canada. He now promotes awareness of the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Take A Radioactive Bullet For The Team

“You people who live near the Nevada Test Site are in a very real sense participants in the Nation’s atomic test program,” boasted a propaganda pamphlet distributed to those living downwind from the American nuclear test site in Nevada in 1955. In the end this statement turned out to be more ominous than it was celebratory. Their primary means of “participation” in the nation’s program was to be silent about being irradiated and having their land contaminated by fallout radiation from clouds that blew overhead after nuclear weapon tests for years. Of course that doesn’t count paying high taxes for the gift of national security.

All across the globe communities have been devastated by radiation in the name of giving the members of those communities “security.” This is especially true of communities that suffered from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, however, many of the communities that experienced underground testing, such as Pokharan (of which today is the anniversary of the first test there) experienced the venting of radiation from the underground shafts, contaminating areas near to the test sites. This was especially true of the French Bérly nuclear test in Algeria in 1962 in which the tunnel, drilled into a hillside, partially collapsed venting tremendous amounts of radiation that contaminated the surrounding communities.

While communities on every continent besides South America and Antarctica have experienced contamination from nuclear weapon testing, not one person has yet been “protected” by nuclear weapon testing. Arguments are made that vast nuclear arsenals have “deterred” nuclear war, but these arguments rest on assumptions and are as demonstrable as the notion that prayer produces miracles. What is certain is that the communities that have been the sites of nuclear weapon testing have experienced radiological contamination and that this has led to illness, loss of access to land and seas, disruption of traditional diets, traditional lifestyles, and ruptures of culture.

In Australia where aboriginal societies were displaced by British nuclear testing in the 1950-60s, generations of knowledge of the land—where to find water and game—were broken when communities were simply moved off of traditional lands. Survival in areas in which ancestral knowledge did not guide and protect these communities proved extremely difficult. But as (barely) Australians and members of the Commonwealth, their safety was supposedly guaranteed by these tests. In truth there never was a threat to the safety of people living in Australia that was protected by the British testing of nuclear weapons. Rather, it was the testing itself that destroyed communities and left land desolate.

In all nations that have built, tested and maintain nuclear arsenals, those arsenals have taken essential resources away from the maintenance of social welfare. In the United States, arguably the richest country in history during the period of the Cold War, the dominance of public tax monies by the nuclear weapon complex, and the military as a whole, has left the country depleted of social wealth in a few short decades.

During the early Cold War period there were times when 10% of all electricity was being used to build, maintain and deploy nuclear weapons. Did this protect the nation, or did it cost the citizens? I would argue that the pursuit of nuclear weapons by any nation is an attack on the welfare of the citizenry in terms both of the public cost, and in antagonizing the neighbors and enemies of the nation. It is clearly true that possessing nuclear weapons has not kept any nation from becoming embroiled in warfare, and has proved useless once war commences. For those who live close to nuclear weapon testing sites, either domestically or in the colonial reaches of the nuclear power, the tests themselves have been a kind of warfare wagged upon them directly by their own governments.

Like the crown jewels of nobility past, nuclear weapons are a vast commitment of public wealth to the purpose of dazzling observers. Nuclear prima donnas display their expensive, glittering weapons to establish status and dominance. If we are lucky the cost to the citizens who pay for this is only money. But for those who live near to the nuclear testing facilities of the exclusive club of nuclear states, the cost is higher. They pay with their health, their families, their communities, and uncertain futures that accompany contaminated lands and gene pools.