Communiversity

THE COMPASSES OF BIRDS

By Bethany Lindsay



12/31/91
CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558
Scientists debate new evidence for electromagnetic earthquake predictors

STANFORD -- As a deepening voice signals a boy's adolescence, audible rumblings, shakings and ventings may warn us of geological change in the earth, according to scientists and engineers.
Enticed with tantalizing but inconclusive evidence, researchers have searched since 1982 for a signal to predict earthquakes. They have monitored extra-low frequency (ELF) and very-low frequency (VLF) radio waves from satellites and from the ground.
New findings suggest researchers may find what they seek at even lower frequencies, said Antony Fraser-Smith, an electrical engineer at Stanford University's Space, Telecommunications and Radioscience (STAR) Laboratory.
In 1989, in the days before the Loma Prieta earthquake, Fraser-Smith detected huge radio signals in the ultra-low frequency (ULF) range, 0.01 to 10 hertz, with an instrument placed 7 kilometers from the epicenter.
Scientists from five countries subsequently presented data at the recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco that support a connection between ULF radio signals and earthquakes above magnitude 5.0.
Previously, Soviet, French and Japanese scientists had reported that ELF and VLF radio waves - detected by satellites - signaled the coming of mid-sized earthquakes. However, when former Stanford undergraduate Tom Henderson and his STAR Laboratory colleagues repeated the Soviet and French studies using data from a U.S. satellite and submitting the data to a rigorous statistical analysis, they found no difference in VLF and ELF emissions on days with earthquakes compared to days without temblors. Thus, they could not confirm the Soviet and French results.
"ELF/VLF is not yet a reliable frequency range for earthquake prediction," Henderson concluded during a presentation of the Stanford researchers' findings at the AGU meeting. ELF radio waves range from 10 to 3,000 hertz, VLF from 3,000 to 30,000 hertz.
"ULF radio signals can penetrate 10 to 20 miles of earth without too much trouble," Fraser-Smith said. "ELF and VLF get absorbed."
The first indication that ULF radio waves could be a much better predictor came as many scientific discoveries do - by accident.
"Our findings were complete luck," Fraser-Smith said. "We weren't studying earthquakes at all."
As part of a Navy-sponsored study to determine how natural noises interfere with satellite communications, Fraser- Smith and graduate student Arman Bernardi had been recording ULF radio waves for two years from Corralitos, a site in the Santa Cruz Mountains remote from ULF noise generated by the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. With a 6-foot antenna mounted on the ground, they monitored ULF radio waves produced primarily by solar wind as it distorts the earth's electromagnetic field, creating "background noise" that disrupts communications.
Twelve days before the Loma Prieta earthquake Fraser- Smith's detector recorded a large signal. The signal remained high until three hours before the earthquake, when it shot up even further.
"The signal was off scale, 20 to 30 times bigger than what we usually measure," Fraser-Smith said. "We nearly shut down the Corralitos system because we thought something was wrong with it."
Then the earthquake hit, disabling the system for eight hours.
Until the Loma Prieta earthquake, ULF radio measurements had not been used to monitor earthquakes. Since then, however, Soviet researchers have analyzed chart recordings of ULF signals made in the republic of Georgia during the December 1988 Spitak-Armenia earthquake (magnitude 6.9 to 7.0) that claimed more than 30,000 lives. They found changes similar to those observed by the Stanford group. Because the chart recordings were not complete (one recorder ran out of ink), and because they give less information than the Stanford computer-based measurements, Fraser-Smith said the results are encouraging but need further replication before scientists can be sure that ULF signals precede earthquakes.
But now the data are flowing in like hot lava. Scientists from Greece, China, France, Japan and the United States all presented findings at the recent AGU meeting that support the possibility that ULF signals may precede earthquakes.
No one knows what causes the signals. Stanford electrical engineering graduate student Alexandr Draganov has suggested that ground water carries an electrical current as it pushes through faults and cracks in the earth. Panayiotis Varotsos of Athens University believes rock on one side of a fault conducts electricity differently than rock on the other. When land masses with different conductivities slide past each other, Varotsos said, friction releases electricity.
Most scientists are cautious in their conclusions, knowing that publicity-seekers who erroneously predict earthquakes damage the credibility of seismologists.
Even legitimate scientists generate skepticism. Varotsos raised a few eyebrows during the AGU's earthquake prediction session when he said earthquakes may be detected with ULF waves only in "sensitive regions."
"Earthquake prediction has always been a questionable endeavor," said Stanford's Mark Fenoglio, a graduate student in geophysics who co-presided over the session. "People start to lose faith in what we (geologists) can do."
Geologists are concerned that the public will ignore legitimate earthquake warnings after someone cries wolf. An example is the New Madrid region of the Midwest, where major quakes occurred in the early 1800s. Geologists have been urging quake-resistant building codes for the area; they expect another major quake there, but so far cannot predict when it will occur. In December 1990, a non-scientific prediction of a massive quake turned up wrong, creating public exasperation and, some say, a postponement of building code reform.
"There's not a whole lot of evidence for precursor signals," said Fenoglio, whose studies of aftershocks to the Loma Prieta earthquake showed no correlation between ULF signals and aftershocks ranging from magnitude 3.0 to 5.0.
His results neither confirm nor refute the existence of precursor signals. An earthquake signal may be so loud it drowns out any aftershock signals, he suggested. Or an earthquake may have to reach a certain magnitude before detectors pick up a signal, he said.
Even Fraser-Smith is reserved.
"I'm not in the earthquake prediction business yet," he said, emphasizing the need for more studies to verify Loma Prieta's one-time finding. A finding based on only one or two occurrences runs the risk of being a fluke, he warned.
With support from the U.S. Geological Survey, he has set up two ULF detectors at Parkfield, Calif., where an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 or greater has occurred on average every 22 years for the past century. Dubbed "The Watched Pot" by geologists, Parkfield is overdue for a temblor that could put ULF detectors to the test.
"This field offers some hope but is very indefinite," said Seya Uyeda, a Texas A & M scientist who presided over the session with Fenoglio.
Uyeda has monitored electromagnetic waves in Japan, where his detectors have picked up ULF signals from electric trains, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. He has found higher levels of ULF activity during the day, suggesting that human activity produces background noise that may make precursor signals harder to detect.
However, one hour before a November 1987 earthquake in Japan, Uyeda's ULF detector went off scale, he said. Like Fraser- Smith, he awaits further quakes to test his hypothesis.
"The question remains if any of these signals are real," said Uyeda. "We don't know yet."

-

This is an archived release.
This release is not available in any other form. Images mentioned in this release are not available online.
Stanford News Service has an extensive library of images, some of which may be available to you online. Direct your request by EMail to images@news-service.stanford.edu.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/91/911231Arc1006.html (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/91/911231Arc1006.html)

Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War

By Rosalie Bertell

The Women's Press, ukkk, 2000.

Review by Moyra Bremner. First published in Caduceus Magazine, issue 51, spring 2001

ALL THINGS ARE CONNECTED

Rosalie Bertell's new book, "Planet Earth the Latest weapon of War", reveals the unbelievable truth in the new generation of super-weapons.
Important books are rare - very rare. "Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War" is one such rarity. Like Rachel Carson's Silent Spring it deserves to be read by everyone who cares a jot about their future. For it reveals that, behind carefully spin doctored names like 'the Star Wars project', the military is now testing radically new weapons which so profoundly imperil the earth, and all life on it, that to deploy them in the name of security is like suggesting that becoming a suicide-bomber increases life expectancy.

----- As a distinguished American scientist, world expert on radiation, and winner of major international awards for science, Dr Bertell is no scaremonger. Yet her cool, incisive, fact-packed, prose not only reveals weapons worthy of science fiction, but shows that testing them may be costing thounited snakesnds of innocent civilian lives - in peacetime.

----- She exposes how the military have, for decades, been secretly conducting experiments, including high-level nuclear explosions, which may disrupt the vital layers of the atmosphere which protect us from the sun's lethal radiation. She says these experiments are often conducted without even discussing with non-military experts the hazards of damaging these life-preserving earth-veils. And she believes that such experiments may already have accelerated global warming and contributed to earthquakes and freak weather conditions.

----- The story unfolds gently. She tells us that, for four years, a Russian thermonuclear bomb a thounited snakesnd times more powerful than Hiroshima bomb circled above our heads. And that a single rocket launched by the US military merely carried enough plutonium to cause lung cancer in 20 million people - had it exploded like some of its non-loaded predecessors.
Radiation belt

----- In July 1962 NASA announced that high altitude nuclear tests had created a new radiation belt 750 miles deep, girdling the earth. This damage and pollution was compounded by 'me too' experiments by the USSR. Dr Bertell says it was 10 years before American scientists realised that it would be hundreds of years before the vital earth-shielding Van Allen belts of the earth's atmosphere would recover from such onslaughts.

----- However, the repercussions may not be limited to the atmosphere itself. She says that, after one nuclear experiment, which created new electromagnetic belts in the atmosphere, the caribou mysteriously failed to migrate for the first time in 3000 years. A warning perhaps of how the migration of animals, fish and birds may be affected by disturbances to electromagnetic fields - and of the potential impact on man. For, without the caribou, many Inuit people starved to death. Moreover, the nuclear radiation was not confined to the upper atmosphere: caribou and people who survived were dangerously contaminated with caesium 137, and cancer, lung disease and infant mortality soared.

----- Despite opposition from the International Union of Astronomers, the US military even put 350,000,000 copper needles into orbit. An experiment which Dr Bertell says some scientist believed may have upset the balance of the planetary magnetic field, causing the massive 8.5 Alaskan earthquake and losing Chile part of its coast. Yet she shows that such experiments are small beer compared with what is being done today - and is to come.
 


HAARP - Ionosphere modification

----- For example, she describes HAARP (America's High-frequency Active Auroral Research Programme) a multimillion pound 'civilian' installation, hidden away in Alaska, ostensibly intended to 'alter the performance of communications and surveillance systems'. Seemingly innocent enough, until she explains that this grid of 180 transmission towers is funded by the military and is part of the 'Star Wars' defence network. HAARP, and its linked brother projects are, she says, known to the military as 'ionosphere modification facilities'. For, according to the proposal for its installation, HAARP is intended to trigger and control natural processes in the ionosphere in ways 'that could be potentially exploited for department of Defence Purposes'. In other words the ionosphere, which shelters the earth, will be used as the barrel of the gun.

-----Dr Bertell suggests that so great is the power of such transmitters that even living near them could be dangerous. She quotes a US federal Environmental Impact statement which says that HAARP can 'raise the internal body temperature of nearby people ...(and) detonate aerial munitions, scramble aircraft communications and flight controls'. Even slight increases in body temperature can alter functioning of brain and body and, as she points out, even a small rise in electromagnetic radiation may cause an increase in cataracts and leukaemia and alter brain and body chemistry, blood pressure and heart rates. But such direct harm is the mere tip of the iceberg.

----- In one type of experiment these transmission towers will, Dr Bertell reveals, combine to emit a giant beam, of such power that, 'in a burst lasting more than a few minutes - it will slice through the ionosphere like a microwave knife' producing a long incision in this vital layer of the atmosphere. However, the main aim of HAARP is, she explains, to heat sections of the ionosphere until they bulge to form a curved 'lens' which will 'reflect' HAARP's massive energy beams back to earth to destroy selected targets - presumably without leaving even a trace of what caused the devastation.

----- The layers of our atmosphere are so little understood that no one can possibly know the impact of cutting the ionosphere open, or of making it bulge like a lens. Moreover, she points out that scientists have warned that the energy from HAARP may combine with a natural wave frequency with results which are 'quite disproportionate to the level of input' - including disrupting the harmony between 'earth life forms....and....earth's life support systems'.

----- The rings round Saturn are thought to have been caused by a compaAmwle interaction between energy waves. So, the possibility that HAARP, and its confreres, might trigger catastrophic changes to this planet cannot be ruled out. As Dr Bertell explains, everything is connected, 'everything in our universe is in dynamic equilibrium and this interference (from HAARP) may destabilise a system that has established and maintained its own cycle for millions of years' - protecting life on earth.
ELF pulsed into the earth

----- Nor is that all. Dr Bertell says that both HAARP and installations in Russia - on which America has, remarkably, collaborated - can also create pulsed, extremely low frequency (ELF) waves which have been directed deep into the earth itself, potentially disrupting delicately poised tectonic plates of the earth's crust, such as those of California's San Andreas fault. Given the little understood interplay between tectonic plates, volcano's and the earth's molten core, to call this playing with fire would be an absurd understatement.

----- Nor, it seems are these the only military installations threatening earth's viability. Dr Bertell tells us that HAARP is just one of a growing chain of astonishingly powerful, and potentially interactive, military installations, using varied types of electromagnetic fields or wavelengths, each with a different ability to affect the earth or its atmosphere. For example, an installation in Alaska will have a magnetic field more than 60,000 times greater than the earth itself.

----- To anyone who knows the impact of magnetic fields on the human body the potential risks of such an installation are obvious. Equally, as Dr Bertell points out, the earth's magnetic field is both produced by electric currents in the earth's liquid core and interacts with the Van Allen belts of the earth's atmosphere in ways not yet understood.

----- With typical restraint, she chooses not to guesstimate the effect that a magnetic field 60,000 times greater than the earth's will have on the earth's core or the atmosphere. Yet she believes that military tests may already have disturbed earth equilibrium. In addition to showing how earlier military tests have massively contributed to ozone depletion and global warming Dr Bertell suggests that some freak weather conditions and 'natural' disasters may have been directly caused by testing installations such as HAARP.
Links to earthquakes and freak weather

----- For example, in 1977 a freak storm which devastated a small town in Wisconsin and destroyed 350 hectares of forest, followed hot on the heels of a government ELF wave experiment. While The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist reported that an ELF wave transmitter lay right in the middle of another storm which brought down 150 - 200 times more rain than normal. These links are more than purely circumstantial, for she says that weather modification is on the US air force agenda, and in 1992 the Russians told the Wall Street Journal they could already achieve it. And the Wisconsin storm offers what looks very much like direct evidence.

----- The question is, does anyone have the wisdom to control weather wisely, and unselfishly? And do they even begin to understand the potential for unexpected side-affects from all these experiments. As she points out, it is since the inception of Star Wars experiments that El Nino has changed its cycle and become far more severe with devastating effects.

----- Equally, a Soviet experiment with the ionosphere directly preceded an earthquake in China which killed 650,000 people. While in America ELF - type waves were detected immediately before a San Francisco earthquake in 1989, and unnatural and unexplained low frequency waves were detected before earthquakes in Japan and California in 1989, and before an earthquake in Los Angeles in 1994. We can only wonder whether such ELF waves preceded the recent earthquakes in El Salvador and India this year, and whether the carnage has been caused by 'security experiments' by one of the 'great powers'.

----- What is certain, as Dr Bertell shows, is that, globally, the number of earthquakes a year has more than doubled since the inception of military experiments which affect the earth and its atmosphere. Even this could, of course, be mere coincidence but another fact suggests something unusual is going on. Inexplicably, an earthquake in Bolivia in 1994 originated 600km below the earth's surface - 24 times deeper than normal.

----- However, even if no such disasters can be laid at the door of the world's military, weapons which interfere with the atmosphere violate the 1976 Environment Modification Convention. Yet, she tells us that in January 1991, despite America having signed that convention, the White House waived the requirement for actions by the Pentagon to be assessed for environmental impact. However, America and Russia are not alone in possessing such weapons. Her revelations of 30 years of military innovations show that Britain, Germany and NATO have all been involved in military developments which show a cavalier disregard for life on earth.

----- Dr Bertell is perhaps one of the few people in the world who could write this book. As leader of medical commissions to both Bhopal and Chernobyl she is skilled in unearthing facts from beneath mountains of dis-information - accurately scooping the world's media, on the truth about depleted uranium weapons, by more than a year. As a nun dedicated to serving in the world she does not shrink from the unpopularity accorded a messenger. And her standing as a scientist, personal integrity, and evidence of meticulous research, challenge any yearning to disbelieve her.

----- A long-standing opponent of nuclear weapons, she sees today's military research as a 'cancer of the body politic' consuming human, financial, and natural resources which are desperately needed elsewhere. 'I would liken society's dependence on the military to a family in which one partner is addicted to something and claims a large proportion of money for feeding the addiction'. As she points out, the billions annexed by defence projects create the very deprivation which eventually fosters war. Moreover, she says military research sequesters many top scientists, 'This "brain drain" from the civilian economy may be depriving us of those who could resolve the most serious survival problems now facing the biosphere'.

----- This is not a comfortable, or easy, book and needs to be chewed slowly, in small helpings. Yet it is well worth chewing and her overall message is one of hope. She says we need to redefine the militaristic word 'security' to mean 'the protection and responsible stewardship of the Earth' - and redirect former military expenditure towards conflict resolution, social justice and sustainable living. A change which, she believes, can be achieved through active citizenship, global co-operation, information exchange between caring people and organisations, and the kind of peaceful pressure which, in 1996, led to the International Court of Justice declaring the use of nuclear weapons unlawful.

----- She concludes:

----- 'I hope this book has given readers some inspiration as to how the might become involved in helping this peaceful planet evolve to its full potential. Despite years of abuse, it is still an amazing and beautiful creation. It deserves our best efforts. Enjoy it, love it, and save it'.

----- There she is wrong. It is not the planet which may die: it is us. It is ourselves we must love enough to cherish the miraculous web of life which radiates from the earth's core to the farthest limits of our universe.

* * * * *

Bertell Reveals Many New Weapons of Mass Destruction

by Larry Ross, February 28, 2005

The book is: "Planet Earth the Latest Weapons of War" by Rosalie Bertell, a distinguished and world-famous scientist. She is a winner of major international awards for science. As a Catholic Nun she has dedicated her life to her continuous work for humanity.

What she reveals is unbelievably stunning – almost stupefying. Even I did not want to believe it at first, and I've been fighting against a global nuclear doomsday for over 50 years. But her credentials are impressive and impeccable.

She reveals how "the military is testing radically new weapons which imperil the earth and all life on it. Such as HAARP, which heats sections of the ionosphere until they bulge to form a curved 'lens' which will 'reflect' HAARP's massive energy beams back to earth to destroy selected targets. She thinks 'HAARP may destabilize a system that has established its own cycle for millions of years' – protecting life on earth.

Or ELF, which 'creates pulsed, extremely low frequency waves which have been directed deep into the earth itself, potentially disrupting delicately poised tectonic plates of the earths crust' Off the Coast of Indonesia, tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean shifted to cause the Boxing Day Tsunami, killing over 250,000 people in 2004.

Dr Bertell tells us that HAARP and ELF are some of 'growing chain of astonishingly powerful, and potentially interactive, military installations, using varied types of electromagnetic fields or wavelengths, each with a different ability to affect the earth or its atmosphere'.

Did the Pentagon test HAARP on tectonic plates off Indonesia, thereby causing the Boxing Day Tsunami? I don't know, but I think there should be a scientific investigation of the causes, with a HARRP test as one of the possibilities. If the Pentagon has nothing to hide, they should welcome such an opportunity.

A few facts: A danger is: 'A HAARP installation in Alaska will have a magnetic field more than 60,000 times greater than the earth itself'. A potential result of tests is: ...'Globally, the number of earthquakes a year has more than doubled since the inception of military experiments which affect the earth or its atmosphere'

Conclusion; the amount of sheer power available to the Bush Administration, from their superpower nuclear arsenal, their other WMD, and now HAARP, ELF and other devices, is mind-boggling. Adding up all the risks, from nuclear weapons and their potential united snakesge, to the new weapons, it is likely that due to "accident, miscalculation, act of madness, or faulty policy decision" a terminal global disaster will occur.

Everything has been put in place, including thounited snakesnds of nuclear missiles on alert status, for a terminal disaster to occur. There are huge resources in terms of people, money, machines and corporate organizations – the biggest ever –devoted to increasing the preparations to unleash what can quickly become a global disaster.

The most important factor of all is the human factor. The Bush Administration is the most militaristic and dangerous in history – unleashing wars, such as that on Iraq, based on lies as justification, and creating pre-emptive war doctrines that sanction the use of nuclear weapons. They are hostile to advice, even from conservative sources, and proclaim the 'truth' as they decide it to be. They claim a vision of an American Empire dominating the world, and a vision of a God-proclaimed nuclear Armageddon in case things go wrong. They think the gamble is worth it.

What we see in America today is an insane system. It is a military/industrial juggernaut, in the grip of mad hubristic doctrines, run by a power-crazed psychopathic but a superficially sane Administration. They are dedicated, function effectively and sanely to accomplish their objectives. They are willing to take any risk, and then deny there is any risk.

They have committed many crimes so far. But like past war criminals, will always claim such crimes are not crimes, but justified steps to achieve their objectives. They are unlikely to turn back or learn any lessons. They define the truth as they decide it to be. They greatly increase both the danger of a nuclear catastrophe, and the system which makes it increasingly likely.

http://www.bariumblues.com/bertell_reveals_many_new_weapons.htm (http://www.bariumblues.com/bertell_reveals_many_new_weapons.htm)

ROSALIE BERTELL: MAKE VISIBLE WHAT'S HAPPENING

World-renowned epidemiologist Rosalie Bertell spoke May 2 and May 3, 2005 at the UN at the Depleted Uranium Workshop.

TRANSCRIPT:

Still recovering from a heart operation, Sr. Rosalie remains on a busy schedule. She arrived in New York City from the Mother House of the Sisters of the Grey Nuns near Philadelphia, then spoke at the UN depleted uranium workshop. As arranged, we catch up with Sr. Rosalie the next morning, in her hotel room. We haven't got much time. We set up as fast as we can, pushing lamps and tables around, trying to find the best light. A Japanese NGO team is coming to pick Dr. Bertell up for her afternoon UN presentation in just an hour. TRANSCRIPT Snowshoefilms: What did you say at the depleted uranium workshop yesterday at the UN? Sister Rosalie Bertell: I have been, for a long time, trying to figure out why there's such a tremendous difference between the scientists who study radiation in hospitals and laboratories, and those who look at what happens on the battlefield or in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you actually see how sick the people are. On the other hand, in lab tests and hospitals you see the same dose of radiation being given and you don't see this broad range of health effect. So there has to be something very different about the experience in the hospital and the lab from what happens in the real world. I focused in on two major differences. One is that the hospital and lab are clean, whereas the others take place in a world that is a complex mixture of materials and it's dirty, basically. You know, it's full of all kinds of debris. So that's one difference, but the other difference I think we haven't focused on before, and that is the temperature of the fires. I looked up the temperature of a TNT explosion which is about 575 degrees centigrade. Now if you move to something like the twin tower jet plane explosion, they claim that that is 2000 degrees centigrade. Whether it's 2000 or not, you can see that it's a lot hotter than TNT, or even things like the incinerators for hazardous waste. They don't even begin to come up to that. They're around a thounited snakesnd degrees centigrade. Now uranium when it's in a fine powder is spontaneously pyrophoric. It bursts into what they call metal fume which is a gas. Now this metal fume is between three thounited snakesnd and six thounited snakesnd degrees centigrade which is, you know – three thounited snakesnd to six thounited snakesnd degrees compared to 600 is what you're looking at... These kind of DU fires and atomic explosions are so much hotter than anything we have prior to this in terms of explosions and fires. You know, they're like a different order of magnitude. Now if you look up the melting level of the different metals like steel and iron and silicon, aluminum – all of the things that would be found in a tank that was hit. Or a building that was hit, those materials melt in the 1,000 to 2,000 degree centigrade. So what you have here is a heat 3,000 to 6,000 degrees and all of the metals and materials that come in contact with this metal fume are going to vaporize. They're going to melt and vaporize. So when you stop to think of what happens after the fire and after these go into the atmosphere, they start to cool and as they cool, you get a phenomenon that – for one thing, they're ceramic, they're now something like when you put pottery in a kiln, it becomes ceramic. When it's a ceramic, it holds water. It doesn't dissolve in water or body fluids. So you've now created millions of small particles and because of the heat you get chemical combinations you've never had before. These metals can melt and then combine into new unknown chemicals as they form and they're not soluble in human body fluids. We call it non-biodegradable pieces and they're extremely small. Now they've been often comparing depleted uranium with uranium in a mine, but uranium in a mine is dust. It's never been fired to be a ceramic. And also, the size of the dust particle in a mine is about 5 microns. What you're dealing with with this aerosol are nano-sized particles which are a thounited snakesndth of a micron. They're extremely small. Anything smaller than 2.5 microns can go into the deep lung. It can pass the lung-blood barrier and travel around the body in the blood. It can also pass the blood-brain barrier and go up into the brain area and affect the brain cells. It can also pass the placenta, so it can affect an embryo or a fetus. DEPLETED URANIUM EXPLOSION DEBRIS Now it's debris. It's pieces of metal. It's pieces of unknown chemicals. It's pieces of radioactive chemicals. When we look at an exposure to a radioactive particle, we look at two things: One is, how far are you from the particle.... So distance will reduce the dose. The farther you are away, the lower the dose will be. When you look at something that has been breathed into your body, it's the maximum dose because it's the contact dose. You can't move away from it. So you've got the maximum dose the particle can give – is being given to the tissues and the lung and the heart and the liver and the kidneys and wherever it lands in the body. The second thing that you look at when you're trying to determine dose is: how long you're exposed. So the duration of time is important. As you know, if you have been sitting in the sun, there's a difference between 15 minutes and three hours, and you can feel the difference. Well, it's the same with radiation. So if this particle stays in the body for long time, then it will give a proportionately higher dose. In the uranium situation, that of uranium dust, most of it or much of it is out of the body of the miner over a weekend. So on Monday, they're down at a low level of body contamination. What we are dealing with in the DU case is that it's not soluble in body fluids therefore you can't get rid of it by sweating or urine as you would if it were soluble. And you also have particles so small that body's filters can't catch it. So, theoretically a nano particle can stay in your body for the rest of your life. So that it's a totally different situation from the uranium miners. People probably have some idea of the medical experience with a hip replacement, a prosthesis where after a while the metals deteriorate and it can cause problems, muscle pain, a lot of difficulties. That's a metal particle which is in the body which shouldn't be there. You get the same thing with the silicon breast if it breaks. You also get it with dental fillings when part of it slivers off and you swallow it or it gets into the blood stream. These are not unknown things, but we have never put together this amount of debris that is put into the human body together with the radiation exposure, and I think it accounts for the tremendous sickness that the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have had for 60 years now and that has been ignored by the researchers who have only paid attention to what was caused by the first flash of the bomb. They never even measured fallout or contamination of food and water or any of the ordinary things you would, you would think. So that the atomic bomb studies are studies only of external radiation given in a flash, and then gone. They have nothing to do with all of the problems people have suffered now for 60 years because of internal radiation, and because of these particles of various metals and various chemicals that occurred because of the intense heat of the explosion and then became aerosolized and you could breath them. Now the other important thing about these aerosols is that many of them are light enough to remain in the air forever. By the Brownian movement of the air molecules, they can be buoyed up. So you might use a lot of depleted uranium in Iraq, but you can expect it to spread across national boundaries and maybe around the world. I don't know how far. But it can move on the wind. This is a recycling planet. It's built to recycle. So what you're getting here is generalized contamination of very large areas by an invisible and undetectable metal fume. This is a direct violation of the Hague Peace the Geneva Agreements on how to conduct a war which very clearly spell out that any use of gaseous, poisonous fumes is not permitted. So it's illegal. It's irrational. It's making our earth planet unlivable. And it's causing tremendous long suffering for people who are innocent, who have nothing to do with the war, and it will last for many years after the war is over. I think it's more insidious than land mines and it's the same idea. So it will continue. Future generations will still have to put up with it. Uranium has more than 4 billion years half-life, so you're dealing with a hazard that will be around for centuries. 1100 TONS OF 'DEPLETED' URANIUM ON IRAQ Snowshoefilms: Do you have a sense of the volume of DU used on Iraq? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: The range of DU that was used in the First Gulf War the military claims was 300 tons, and estimates of independent observers go up to 800 tons, so somewhere in there. Now you can imagine if you start with a ton of DU. How many aerosol particles of nano-size would be one trillionth of a gram, and it's two thounited snakesnd grams to make a ton. So you can produce trillions of very small particles. Now when you have a larger particle of uranium, some of the alpha emissions, some of the transformations are captured in the particle and so large particles don't give off as much radiation as if you had it broken into a hundred points of light or a hundred very small particles that are each emitting radiation. So your radiation is also affected by the fracturing of the larger particles into smaller particles. It can also distribute differently through the body and can cause problems in any organ. It's difficult to know how much DU was used in the current war but the estimates are it was anywhere from eight to 10 times what they used in the First Gulf War , so it's more, not less. I don't think we can give an accurate amount because the military is too secretive. They used it in Bosnia and Kosovo in Yugoslavia; they also used it in Afghanistan. So we won't know the toll that this has taken on the people until there's more openness, and until the military starts admitting what they're doing. Snowshoefilms: What sort of understanding of DU is there by the American troops.... Rosalie Bertell: Most of the troops are 18 to 20, 18 to 24...They don't know what DU is. They have no idea. Nor are they given complete training. Someone who is a radiation protection officer in the military probably has at least some training in radioactive material, but if you talk to the people who are sent out to clean up – pick up pieces of shrapnel or clean out a tank or whatever, after it has been hit by DU, they don't know what they are doing. One thing was different about the First Gulf War and that is an ammunition dump of the US military blew up. It was at Camp Doha which is in northern Kuwait on the border of Iraq. This whole ammunition dump exploded for about six hours. Really active, and wasn't put out for days. Now that would have raised up a tremendous amount of debris and aerosols of DU, so I would think in terms of the military, they had higher exposures in the First Gulf War than the ongoing war, even though more is being used in the second. Snowshoefilms: A colleague epidemiologist of yours, Dr. Jawad al-Ali of Basra had hoped to speak at the UN disarmament conference but couldn't make it. Do you have a sense of what he would have said? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: Basra took a beating in both wars. They didn't bomb northern Iraq in the First Gulf War, but in both wars they had battles and action near Basra, so he has been taking care of children that are severely deformed. Very.... Monster babies. Children with cancer and due to the sanctions, the children were not even allowed to have medicine. If they got anti-cancer drugs, they got not antibiotics. The anticancer drugs lowers your immune system, so they have to take them with antibiotics to prevent infection. So it was a very frustrating experience for a medical doctor who knew what to do but couldn't take care of his patients and had never dealt with so many deformed babies. INDIFFERENCE TO MASS KILLING Snowshoefilms: When you spoke in Buffalo in 2003, you talked about a neo-malthusianism that was permeating our consciousness. Have you looked into.... For example, 10,000 people, apparently, were killed in Fallujah.... There seems to be a kind of indifference to this mass killing, the backdrop for which is the neo-malthusian conviction that there are too many people in the world and violence is an evitable consequence... Sr. Rosalie: I would describe it as the limits of natural resources in the world. So right now, globally, the world community is consuming between 133 and 140 percent of what the world can replenish in a year. So we are over-consuming in terms of natural resources which is the basis of life. We've had crashes before, financial crashes, but we haven't had a crash of the life support system. So what we are facing here is a growing diminishment of what the earth can provide at the same time as we have an increasing number of people. So it is a crisis. It's a real one. Some of us, when we look at that, we look at all the life sectors: transportation, health, education, hospitals and so on and we say the thing we could best do without is military in the world, and they're very high consumers of natural resources. So if we stopped all the military functions, we would immediately go below that hundred percent, and we would have enough for everybody. WHY DON'T AMERICANS KNOW...WHY DON'T THEY GO OUT AND FIND OUT? Snowshoefilms: The mass media dictates the group think.... Sr. Rosalie: America is more and more standing alone. Part of that is because of the control of the media. We have a constant fluff on the news. I listen to the news this morning and it was on Michael Jackson and the bride that ran away in Georgia. And there are serious things going on in the world. Serious decisions being made in Congress. There are deliberations at the UN that are not covered at all on our media. And people are just taking in this fluff as if this was the whole world. I remember the Soviet Union had very tight control, but the people knew it. And they say to me, why don't the Americans know it.... Why don't they go out and find out what's going on.... We knew we were being lied to. I don't understand. And I think it's because we are too well off, we are complacent. And we don't care what anybody else is doing. We are also kept too busy. We now have everybody working; some people in three jobs. You've got husband and wife both working. It's a rat race, truly. So people don't have time to politically organize, or even to inform themselves. THE OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS NOT CREDIBLE Snowshoefilms: Have you looked at the official story on 9-11.... Sr. Rosalie: I have not maybe in as much detail as it deserves, but enough to make me very suspicious of it. The 9-11 attack was certainly spectacular and horrible. The World Trade Center had a very unusual end. In the first place, jet fuel fire does not go to 2000 centigrade. That's the number they're floating. That means it couldn't have melted the steel. So something else happened to bring those buildings down. And Building 7 came down without being... without having a jet plane... It doesn't make sense. And I think the Pentagon is even more problematic. It was hit on deliberately, apparently, on the side that was being reconstructed and where there weren't people. It was a hole not big enough to be caused by a 757. And when you look at the pictures, which seem to be disappearing, but there's no... You don't see the tail of the plane. So there's no plane in sight. They've never found parts of the plane. If you've ever been to Washington, and you've seen the Pentagon, it's got a very busy street right near by and according to the story, the 757 came low enough over the street to hit this three story building, and so it would have caused devastation on the road. So the story is not credible. It's not credible. Snowshoefilms: Acceptance of the official story of 9-11, that Osama and al Qaida were responsible, is crucial for the Bush war on terrorism. How do you account for progressives acceptance of this official story, while refusing to consider the evidence.... Sr. Rosalie: Well, first of all it was a very shocking event. And in the aftermath of that shocking event, there was a deliberate whipping up of the crowd. It was very hard to speak out at that point. I think people are trying to deal with the aftermath and they're not going back to the initial point. I remember talking to a taxi driver who was really for going off on his white charger and getting al Qaida. It was a very gut-level response: we are going to go get them. And he said something about the fact it was on the TV all the time and people were irate and they were telling all these sad stories, and he said, Well, you have to keep people charged, ready to fight, and I said, Why.... If you have a court system, you try to calm people down to deal with it rationally, instead of this kind of..... everybody's so angry that they're going to go out and get al Qaida without submitting it to any kind of examination and rational, reasonable decision-making. I was rather amazed that al Qaida was the first thing out of their mouth before they even knew what happened. To me that was very much like the lynching of the local Black person in the South. They said right away it was al Qaida. So I think people got caught in the intensity of the moment. And they really haven't taken a good look at the evidence. It's very important that we take a look at the starting point of this war on terror. PLANET EARTH: THE LATEST WEAPON OF WAR Snowshoefilms: The Indonesian earthquake was the 2nd largest earthquake in history. [Dec. 26, 2004, 9.1-9.3 on the Richter scale, resulting in the death of nearly 200,000 people.] Have you looked at the anomalies? Sr. Rosalie: There was an incredibly big tsunami in the Indian Ocean that was devastating for not only Sumatra, Indonesia, Thailand, India, Malaysia, and even the east coast of Kmt. It was caused by an earthquake, a shift under the Indian ocean. Now we know the technology is out there and many nations can induce earthquakes. In fact, there's been an effort for probably 30 to 40 years to control all natural processes since they would give you a tremendous advantage in war. The US tried to do some weather modification, for example, during the war in Viet Nam. They called it Project Sky Fury and they were trying to control lightning and monsoon rains. So the earthquake technology is out there. It's united snakesble. Probably the US, Russia, Japan, China, maybe India – so there's quite a few countries that would have this ability. The earthquake was not the usual, and there's even a dispute over where the center was located. Australia claims it was about 350 miles south of where the United States says it was, so there's not even agreement on the location of the epicenter. There was no preliminary warning that there would be an earthquake. Usually there are earth tremors that are picked up by the local earthquake centers. They can pick up these tremors and they know it's building up to an earthquake. But there wasn't any preliminary; there were no identified aftershocks. There were tremors after, but there was none large enough to be identified as an aftershock. The people, in fact, when they felt some of these tremors, they prepared for a second wave – which never came. A NATURAL EARTHQUAKE'S AFTERSHOCK IS IDENTIFIABLE If you know anything about artificial earthquakes, such as we had with the nuclear weapons testing in Nevada, you know that the earthquake, say, is nine or eight on the Richter scale, if the aftershock is two orders of magnitude down, it's probably an artificial earthquake. If it goes from nine to eight, it's probably a natural earthquake because the artificial ones seem to give an artificial push to the plate because it doesn't come from a rhythmic pulsing of the earth, then the aftershock falls to a much lower level -- because it's artificial, I think, basically. So there was no aftershock and there was no preliminary. So we know earthquakes can be formed artificially. There's the dispute over where the center is. And of course there was a lot going on with communications. Diego Garcia was warned and the people weren't warned. Things like that happened. I also found out that a ship run by SAIC incorporated, which is a kind of governmental arm; 80 percent of their work from the government. They're not traded publicly. They're a company owned by the people who work in it. They were sounding for oil and gas under the Indian Ocean right near the epicenter at the time it occurred. So that was another joker put into the situation. The day after the large earthquake and tsunami, a galactic gamma ray hit the earth's atmosphere. It was the largest one ever recorded. It was quite extraordinary. Now it came after the earthquake, however these gamma rays are also connected with a gravity wave which comes ahead of the gamma ray, so if there was a large gravity wave along with this cosmic ray, it could have cause the earthquake. That is right now the favored scientific explanation, but nobody really has all the dots connected and can really lay out what happened. It certainly, clearly was abnormal and they're looking for what caused it. Snowshoefilms: Would you elaborate on how artificial earthquakes are caused.... Sr. Rosalie: The artificial creation of an earthquake could be done several ways, but probably the one that would be most likely used with a facility like HAARP: high (frequency) active auroral research project which the government has set up in Gakona, Alaska which is somewhere between Anchorage and Fairbanks. It's an ionospheric heater. It's a grid of -- I think there are 48 now –transmission towers but they've put in a six by eight grid, so there's all these parallel transmission towers. They expect to have 150 when it's finished. But they do have 48 now, and it is operative. It sends a synchronized wave up to the ionosphere, and what happens is, some of it reflects back to the earth. Now this is a flexible, mobile array and they can change the angle so the returning rays go in different directions. So they can aim it. The returning waves are low and extra low frequency. They're the long wave radio waves. And these are rhythmic, and they can go through the center of the earth and if there's an instability somewhere, they can jar it with a rhythmic wave and cause an earthquake. They're being used now for several purposes. One is, they're calling it deep earth tomography. It's like a mapping of the inside of the earth. They located the core of the earth; they've found you have a solid mantle and inside there's a molten metal core and then inside of that is another solid core. So they're studying what's going on internally in the earth itself. They're looking for underground bunkers and underground oil and gas supplies, that sort of thing. So much of their (HAARP) funding from Congress is coming for deep earth tomography. But it can also be used to be a direct wave weapon and cause earthquakes. They could even cause an earthquake accidentally because they were looking for something else. The fact is that Russia's got these ionospheric heaters also. There's some in the Antarctic. There's one up in Tromso, Norway. So there are different ionospheric heaters around the earth, so we just can't say HAARP did it, because other people also have this technology. Snowshoefilms: Have you looked at the anomalies in the Iranian earthquake in Bam, southern Iran? [December 26, 2003, over 40,000 killed, the ancient city of Bam destroyed.] Sr. Rosalie: I've not heard anything about that. I really don't know what happened in Iran, but again, it was huge. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is accidental because of their manipulation of the weather and the jet stream and the.... There are five large vapor rivers up in the northern hemisphere and five in the southern.... They're trying to move these things around and control weather. So I wouldn't be surprised if these are side effects of manipulation of the earth system. Snowshoefilms: A series of earthquakes were set off in Turkey during the bombing of Iraq... Sr. Rosalie: They were deliberately using bunker busters in Iraq. A bunker buster goes deep into the earth and explodes, which affects fault lines, so in Iraq you had bunker busters and you had a big earthquake right across the border in Turkey, northern Iraq, then right across the line in Turkey you had a major earthquake from, I think, the bunker busters. In Afghanistan, you had bunker busters when they were trying to find Osama bin Laden in the caves. If you remember, there was a very large earthquake in northern Afghanistan. What they're trying to do now, and what they're asking for implementation of money from Congress, is to make nuclear bunker busters which will be even more powerful. They're doing this because their bunker busters didn't get Sadaam Hussein when he was in his cement bunker underground. So their bunker busters weren't strong enough. So they basically want to make them bigger. They don't pay any attention to the peripheral damage these things cause. You know, we can do enough damage to our world that it doesn't survive. It doesn't seem to enter their head that the earth is alive. It's alive. It takes in energy from the sun. It produces all this life. You know, we affect its basic operation. It's survival. Snowshoefilms: To what degree has the Bush administration's overriding the UN further crippled the UN? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: I think if you look at the UN as it was created, not as you would like it to be – it was created with no finances, no army, no way to enforce its regulations; and it was given a mandate to take care of the world and bring peace, but if you look at the powers of the state, the powers of the UN are zilch. I mean, they aren't there. They don't have it. The UN serves at the pleasure of the states and the major power holder in the UN is the Security Council. And so you have the five nuclear nations with the veto. And so you really can't expect the UN to do anything with no mandate and no power. Snowshoefilms: Isn't it true that many of the NGOs are funded by the World Bank? Doesn't that by and large keep them focused within parameters acceptable to the World Bank? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: Given the situation of the United Nations, I think they did the right thing to reach out to people of the world. They are respected throughout the world. I used to go to the Soviet Union before glasnost. The people there could do anything if the UN supported it, or it came from the World Health Organization. They never had any trouble. Any program you could get sponsorship for, they (the host country) would implement right away. So it was like a ticket to every country in the world except the United States. The US has never had any respect for the UN. It created it, and it created it to be helpless, and then it criticizes it for being helpless...The UN has benefited and is the most world-friendly organization to the NGOs. The NGOs kind of came out of the woodwork and formed – to help the UN. And they have worked all over the world and they've made a good reputation for themselves for scientific accuracy, for spreading the word, for supporting the UN and UN conferences on water, the environment, children, women – all kinds of social issues. The UN has brought world attention to major problems. So instead of watching the Michael Jackson trial, you have a whole year on the oceans. Focusing people, getting the educational communities involved. This is the genius of the UN, and it's also the genius of the non-governmental organizations which have picked up the ball and run with it, and this is all done below the level of government, because the governments are blockers. The governments are the ones that are causing the trouble. So I think it's a rather remarkable growth and strength here. It certainly needs reform, but it needs reform mostly to cut down the power of the individual nation states that throw curve balls at the UN and then criticize them for not catching them. I do think the United States seriously undermined respect for international law by aggressive war and by deliberate violations of the treaty against the use of gases and harmful substances of war. They showed disregard for the anti-missile treaty, disregard for an aggressive war which they undertook for no reason we know now, and also for using obnoxious metal fumes (exploded DU) as a weapon of war. They have no need to do this. They have more firepower than any nation in the world. So they have no need to poison everybody. Snowshoefilms: There have been several high-level DU cover-up commissions.... * Rosalie Bertell: I think it's significant that the United States has set up an oversight committee to look at the health of the veterans who were exposed – who had the Gulf War Syndrome. And their original mandate was to find out if this trouble was psychological. And they made up a panel of five or six people. They were all neuropathologists or neuropsychologists. I think there was one neuropharmacist and one CEO of Enviroseek Incorporated and this was the panel that the government set up so obviously they were looking for psychological or neurological problems because that's what the expertise was. And they have come out as of September 2004 with a definitive statement that there was no evidence that the veterans were suffering from psychological problems or from battle fatigue. In fact they found that, in terms of other wars, there was less battle fatigue and psychological problems in the Gulf War veterans than there was in any other war. So you can't just keep saying this is people's imagination and they're upset and whatever you want to call it. It's real. They are suffering. They are sick. And it is undiagnosed, probably because they have all this debris in their body and that's just not in their medical books. Snowshoefilms: Faith is a highly prized feature or quality of being a Christian. Have you considered the possibility that Christians might be especially vulnerable – gullible, even – or susceptible to believing the dominant authority figure who represents himself as a Christian -- as George W. Bush does to millions of Christians? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: Christianity and faith is a question of who, of what person, of who do you put your faith in. I've always taken that to mean, in Jesus Christ. Not in George Bush. That is a foreign idea to me, that it makes you gullible to all authority figures. Because the church also teaches that responsibility for our actions lies in our own conscience. And so you're supposed to listen to what an authority figure says, but you're supposed to make up your own mind in the light of what Christ has said, or what your experience of what makes you feel like you did the right thing, and what you feel like when you do the wrong thing. To get in touch with your own spirit, and try to make good decisions. We usually know after we've made a decision whether it was good or bad. So, if you can get in touch with the way you feel, or the state you're in when you make a good decision, and when you have to make a decision you get yourself into that state. Otherwise, don't make it. You know, don't do things in a hurry, don't do things because somebody tells you to do them, that sort of thing. But that comes out of Christianity too, so I think that if many people will interpret it that you have to do what everybody tells you to do, that's irrational. It's not Christianity. Christianity says 'my law is written in your heart.' That's not that everybody can tell you what to do. You have to do what you think is right. And you have to be willing to stand up to it if the situation is such that you're being forced. THE KILLING DONE BY THE UNITED STATES SINCE GEORGE BUSH HAS BEEN IN CHARGE IS INCREDIBLE Snowshoefilms: And yet a large percentage of fundamentalist (literalist) Christians accept Bush as fulfilling prophecy... Sr. Rosalie Bertell: This, like 'waiting for the rapture to come' is a cop-out on life. Life is good, but it takes some tough decisions to live it, and I think it's a cop-out if you're waiting for something to happen that's going to solve all your problems. You know, we have to live here right now, not posit something that's going to happen in the future, so we don't have to live, and we don't have to make decisions. There's an odd phenomenon going on in the American political scene, and that is we have a president who claims to be against abortion, yet during his regime, the abortion rate went up in the United States in the first time in years. It's been going down regularly. And it went up. But this didn't seem to impress people, because he says good things, you don't look at his record. The killing done by the United States since George Bush has been in charge is incredible. And those people who've died, probably a hundred thounited snakesnd in Iraq, are never even mentioned. They're.... You know, it's just 'life' and we had to kill these people because we had to get Sadaam Hussein because of 9-11 which he had nothing to do with. So it's an irrational trust. And I noticed recently that the fundamentalists are trying to enter into the judgment over the Supreme Court and the other federal judges, and they're calling it a faith issue. But when President Bush talked to the public, he tried to distance himself from that opinion because that goes down a really bad road of church and state involvement in picking our judges. There's a difference between a moral judgment and a legal judgment. I know I was taught that there was a big distinction between how you were morally judged and what happened in a civil court. I think this fundamentalism is probably going so far that it's killing itself. Snowshoefilms: Are you familiar with the writing of Julian Jaynes? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: No. Snowshoefilms: The question is relevant to our next question, which is the role of our handling cognitive dissonance so as to maintain a rational course. Jaynes, very briefly, outlines a recognition of what he calls the 'vestigial bicameral mind' in his book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Consciousness, as he explains and defines it, is only a recent phenomenon [some 3,500 years]. The 'vestigial' mind is a kind of mental counterpart to our vestigial tails. Basically, it's reflected in what behaviorists call cognitive dissonance. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance? Sr. Rosalie Bertell: Vaguely.... Snowshoefilms: Basically it's the behaviorist's description of living with the decisions or choices we make. As you said earlier, "we usually know after we've made a decision whether it was good or bad." After having made decisions, we tend to block critique of those decisions and seek affirmation that we've made the correct decision [avoiding dissonance and seeking consonance, respectively]. The pain associated with cognitive dissonance is a fear of being isolated from the group.... Sr. Rosalie Bertell: I think it's also normal to think that if you're different and the whole group thinks something else, maybe you're wrong. I probably look at it a little differently. I think there are people who make a decision and once they make the decision, then they're not willing to change it. And that can be good on occasion. There can be people who make good decisions, and they stick with it for the rest of their life. This is what holds marriages together, for example. So there are people who can make a commitment, and keep it. But there are times in your life when you really have to break a commitment. But they're very serious. They have to be very compelling reasons. And I think to stay open, you have to look at reality. Reality is a very good check. It's a very good check on what you're doing. And the reality can be the things your body is telling you. Because sometimes your body tells you things when your mind doesn't. So you need to be in touch with reality. That's always the check on your theory. The mind can go crazy and you have to keep testing that. USING PEOPLE AS ROBOTS And I think it's true that the more we fragment our complicated tasks – and that's what the military does, that's what the CIA does, and that's what the FBI does. You have a complex goal like 'controlling terrorists in the United States,' say. And that complex goal is then cut up into little fragments and people are given a part, and you don't know the whole. So you're told to do that part and do it to the best of your ability. Well, that can be a disaster. You're not privy to the knowledge of the whole because it's dangerous to release that to a large number of people. So it isn't really a holistic effort. It isn't really using the human mind to accomplish a goal. It's using people as robots, telling them what to do. This comes out of World War II. They found this was helpful.... I worked at Bell Aircraft right after the war. And they were right under the nose of the Russians who were in an office right within the building. They were creating the first guided missiles. And I worked on them. But we were only given a part of the puzzle. We'd be given just a small part to solve. I used to take the 'pips,' the printout of the electrical changes when they shot a missile, to tell what the missile was doing during the flight. So they'd get this printout at the end. But it was all little electrical pulses and you had to turn it back into information so you could tell what the missile had done. But we didn't see anything, then, except how to take those sheets of paper with all the electrical marks on them, and how to turn them into information. We had no idea of anything else in the process. WE HAVE REALLY CREATED A HORROR And so our government system, our