Greek EPAM Party Calls for Lifting Sanctions Against Russia, Dialogue
Sputnik – 05.06.2024
Greece’s non-parliamentary United People’s Front party (EPAM), which is running in the elections in the European Parliament, supports Russia and calls for lifting sanctions against the country along with ceasing arms transfers to Ukraine, Liudmila Bogila, the party’s candidate for the elections, told Sputnik.
Bogila was born in the Lugansk region of the USSR. She is a professional doctor and the head of the Center for scientific and social initiatives.
“Only EPAM demands the lifting of sanctions against Russia and, moreover, supports Russia. EPAM has consistently taken a clear position in relations with Russia since the beginning of the [Ukrainian] crisis several years ago — it opposes the adoption of sanctions and is in favor of dialogue, for the preservation of friendly relations with Russia both in economy and in politics. And we want to convey this position to the voters,” Bogila said.
The Ukrainian crisis began 10 years ago, but has worsened and gotten to a new, dangerous level, the candidate added.
“Our party’s election program directly says that today, when Europe, under US directions, is drawn into a war with Russia, the politicians of our country are preparing to sacrifice us to foreign interests. We are fighting to end the war in Ukraine and the lifting of sanctions against Russia, the only result of which is impoverishment of the people and enrichment of the elites,” Bogila said.
The interests of the United States, not Russia’s intentions, spurred the conflict, the candidate said.
“People must understand, what is happening in Ukraine today is not the result of Russia’s alleged invasive sentiment. It is the outcome of the invasive sentiments of the US and its satellites and Russia’s forced actions,” Bogila said, adding that most of the people she communicates with support this position.
Western countries and their allies rolled out a comprehensive sanctions campaign against Russia after it launched a military operation in Ukraine in February 2022. The EU, in particular, has already adopted 13 sanctions packages targeting Russia’s economy, energy and banking services, among other areas. Moscow says that Western sanctions against Russia have failed.
Experts warn of consequences of American universities divesting from Israeli companies
MEMO | June 3, 2024
Israeli economic and legal experts have warned that if the administrations of prestigious American universities meet the demands of the students who demonstrated and set up encampments on campuses in protest against the Israeli war on Gaza, this will have consequences on the Israeli economy, and on the high-tech field, in particular, according to quotes by The Globes newspaper on today, Monday.
Prestigious universities, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins and the University of Minnesota, pledged, during negotiations with the protesting students, to take into account and discuss the students’ demands regarding investments in Israel. A number of universities responded to these demands, although Israeli experts said that implementing this is not easy, according to the newspaper.
Prominent American universities have large investment funds, each containing billions of dollars in employee and retiree funds, in addition to funds accumulated over the years in a manner similar to private capital funds.
Some of this money is invested in shares of foreign companies, and about 20 per cent of it is invested in alternative investments, which include investments in real estate and goods, as well as in private capital funds and venture capital funds, many of which invest in Israel.
Harvard University announced that it does not rule out a discussion on divestment from Israel, “as in the past it divested from fossil fuels and South Africa” according to what some of the university’s leaders wrote in an article published by the New York Times.
Johns Hopkins University said that it will “examine the main questions of the protestors regarding divestment”, while the University of Washington decided to meet with representatives of the protest “on divestment demands”.
Rutgers, Minnesota and Wisconsin universities issued similar decisions, as well Toronto Metropolitan (TMU) and McMaster in Canada. Occidental College in Los Angeles and Brown University, Rhode Island decided to vote on the issue of divesting from Israel.
The newspaper reported that Harvard University invested $200 million directly in Israeli companies in 2020.
Protesting students at the University of Minnesota said that the University invested $2.4 million in Israeli tech companies and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
The newspaper quoted economic expert, Zeev Holtzman, as saying, “since universities not only represent major investment institutions but also aspire to be a moral compass, the decision against Israel would cause severe harm.”
The newspaper believes that the main difficulty that would pose a challenge to divestment is that long-term investments include commitments that cannot be breached. The newspaper mentioned legislation being passed in the US against boycotting Israel.
According to the former Deputy Attorney General of the Israeli government, Roy Schondorf, “Universities that decide to withdraw investments may face sanctions and be considered as violating their duties of loyalty.”
NATO member declares intent to join BRICS
RT | June 4, 2024
Türkiye will seek to join the BRICS group of nations and intends to bring up the issue at an upcoming meeting of the economic bloc’s foreign-ministers in Russia, Ankara’s chief diplomat Hakan Fidan announced on Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters while on a three-day visit to China, Fidan stated that Türkiye has long been waiting to become a member of the European Union, but has for years faced opposition from some of that bloc’s members. In this context, Ankara is now considering BRICS as an alternative platform for integration, the minister explained.
”We cannot ignore the fact that BRICS, as an important cooperation platform, offers some other countries a good alternative,” Fidan said, noting that while the group still has “a long way to go,” Ankara sees the “potential in BRICS.”
During an event at the Center for China and Globalization (CCG) in Beijing, Fidan said he was looking forward to attending the meeting of group’s foreign ministers, which will include representatives from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The event is set to take place next week in the Russian city of Nizhny Novgorod.
Moscow has welcomed Ankara’s interest in joining BRICS. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has stated that the topic of Türkiye’s membership in the group will be featured on the agenda of next week’s summit, which this year is being chaired by Russia.
Peskov noted, however, that the economic bloc may not be able to fully satisfy the interests of all the numerous countries that have expressed a desire to join BRICS. Nevertheless, he stated that “such an active interest” is welcomed and that the group will do everything within its power to maintain contact with all interested nations.
Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also noted that the doors of BRICS are open to the representatives of the most “diverse economic and political systems and macro-regions.”
The only condition to join the group is a commitment to work on the basis of the key principle of the sovereign equality of states – something Russia’s Western colleagues appear to be struggling with, Lavrov commented.
The “Energy Transition” Won’t Happen
By Mark P. Mills | City Journal | May 23, 2024
Foundational innovation in cloud technology and artificial intelligence will require more energy than ever before—shattering any illusion that we will restrict supplies.
The laptop class has rediscovered a basic truth: foundational innovation, once adoption proceeds at scale, is followed by an epic increase in energy consumption. It’s an iron law of our universe.
To illustrate that law, consider three recent examples, all vectors leading to the “shocking” discovery of radical increases in expected electricity demand, now occupying headlines today. First, there’s the electric car, which, if there were one in every garage, as enthusiasts hope, would roughly double residential neighborhood electricity demands. Next, there’s the idea of repatriating manufacturing, especially for semiconductors. This is arguably a “foundational innovation,” since policymakers are suddenly showing concern over the decades-long exit of such industries from the U.S. Restoring American manufacturing to, say, the global market share of just two decades ago would see industrial electricity demand soar by 50 percent.
And now the scions of software are discovering that both virtual reality and artificial intelligence, which emerge from the ineluctable mathematics of machine-learning algorithms, are anchored in the hard reality that everything uses energy. This is especially true for the blazing-fast and power-hungry chips that make AI possible. Nvidia, the leader of the AI-chip revolution and a Wall Street darling, has over the past three years alone shipped some 5 million high-power AI chips. To put this in perspective, every such AI chip uses roughly as much electricity each year as do three electric vehicles. And while the market appetite for electric vehicles is sagging and ultimately limited, the appetite for AI chips is explosive and essentially unlimited.
Consider a recent headline in the Wall Street Journal: “Big Tech’s Latest Obsession Is Finding Enough Energy”—because the “AI boom is fueling an insatiable appetite for electricity.” And, as Reuters reports, “U.S. electric utilities predict a tidal wave of new demand . . . . Nine of the top 10 U.S. electric utilities said data centers were a main source of customer growth.” Today’s forecasts see near-term growth in demand for electric power three times as great as in recent years. Rediscovery of the iron law of growth inspired an urgent Senate hearing on May 21 entitled “Opportunities, Risks, and Challenges Associated with Growth in Demand for Electric Power in the United States.” (Full disclosure; a hearing at which I testified.)
Data centers, the information “powerplants” at the center of the cloud revolution, are flagged as the primary culprit for this exploding power demand. These warehouse-scale buildings are chock-full of all manner of computer chips, including conventional processors, memory chips, and communications chips. And now datacenters are pouring AI chips into the mix as fast as manufacturing plants can build them. As one researcher notes, adding AI to Google “search” boosts the energy use per search tenfold. And that’s only the first, perhaps the least, significant of the many possible applications for AI.
As one senior operative at Friends of the Earth recently put it: “We can see AI fracturing the information ecosystem just as we need it to pull it back together.” The fracturing is not about AI and child safety, or deep fakes, or the looming threat of new regulations. It’s about aspirations for an “energy transition” in how the world is fueled. It is inconvenient, to put it mildly, to see demand for electricity—especially reliable, 24–7 supply—take off at the same time as regulators are forcing utilities to shut down conventional power plants and spend money on costlier and less reliable power from wind and solar hardware. The epiphany that transition aspirations and the power realities of AI are in conflict was epitomized in a recent New Yorker essay titled, “The Obscene Energy Demands of A.I.” The article’s subtitle asks: “How can the world reach net zero if it keeps inventing new ways to consume energy?” The question answers itself.
The challenge is not only the need for far more electricity than forecast a mere year or so ago but also the need for it to be both inexpensive and available precisely when needed—and soon. New factories and new datacenters are coming online rapidly with many more coming in a few years, not decades. There aren’t many ways to meet the velocity and scale of electric demand coming without a boom in building more natural-gas-fired power plants.
This seemingly sudden change in the electricity landscape was predictable—and predicted. Almost exactly 25 years ago, my long-time colleague Peter Huber and I published articles in both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal pointing to the realities at the intersection of energy and information. (A decade ago, I also published a study on the matter, which, it turns out, accurately forecast electric demands from data, and I more recently expanded on that theme in my book The Cloud Revolution.) At the time, we were nearly alone in making such observations in the public-policy space, but we were far from alone in the technical community, which has long recognized the power realities of information. Indeed, in the engineering community, the convention for talking about the size of datacenters is in terms of megawatts, not square feet.
There’s a full-on race in the tech industry, and in tech-centric investment communities, to spend billions of dollars on new AI-infused infrastructures. The furious pace of expanding manufacturing to produce AI-capable silicon chips and simultaneously building massive, AI-infused datacenters is shattering the illusion that a digital economy enables a decoupling of economic growth from rising energy use.
As recently as two years ago, an analysis from the OECD (an organization in the vanguard of the “energy transition” vision) concluded: “Digital transformation is increasingly recognised as a means to help unlock the benefits of more inclusive and sustainable growth and enhanced social well-being. In the environmental context, digitalisation can contribute to decoupling economic activity from natural resource use and their environmental impacts.” It turns out that the physics of power and information neutered that aspiration.
Now the key question for policymakers and investors is whether the current state of affairs is a bubble or signals a more fundamental shift. Just how much more power will information consume? It is now conventional wisdom to see the digital economy as vital for economic growth, and that information supremacy matters both for economies and for militaries. But the core feature of an information-centric economy is in the manufacturing and operation of digital hardware—and unavoidably, the energy implications of both.
To see what the future holds, we must take a deep dive into the arcana of today’s “cloud,” the loosely defined term denoting the constellation of data centers, hardware, and communications systems.
Each datacenter—and tens of thousands of them exist—has an energy appetite often greater than skyscrapers the size of the Empire State Building. And the nearly 1,000 so-called hyperscale datacenters each consume more energy than a steel mill (and this is before counting the impacts of piling on AI chips). The incredible level of power use derives directly from the fact that just ten square feet of a datacenter today has more computing horsepower than all the world’s computers circa 1980. And each square foot creates electric power demands 100 times greater than a square foot of a skyscraper. Even before the AI revolution, the world was adding tens of millions more square feet of datacenters each year.
All that silicon horsepower is connected to markets on an information highway, a network whose scale vastly exceeds that of any of its asphalt and concrete analogues. The universe of communications hardware transports bytes not only along “highways” comprised of about 3 billion miles of glass cables but also along the equivalent of another 100 billion miles (that’s 1,000 times the distance to the sun) of invisible connections forged by 4 million cell towers.
The physics of transporting information is captured in a surprising fact: the energy used to enable an hour of video is greater than the share of fuel consumed by a single person on a ten-mile bus ride. While a net energy-use reduction does occur when someone Zooms rather than commutes by car (the “dematerialization” trope), at the same time, there’s a net increase in energy use if Zoom is used to attend meetings that would never have occurred otherwise. When it comes to AI, most of what the future holds are activities that would never have occurred otherwise.
Thus, the nature of the cloud’s energy appetite is far different from that of many other infrastructures, especially compared with transportation. For transport, consumers see where 90 percent of energy gets spent when they fill up a gas tank or recharge a battery. When it comes to information, though, over 90 percent of energy use takes place remotely, hidden away until utilities “discover” the aggregate impact.
Today’s global cloud, which has yet to absorb fully the power demands of AI, has grown from nonexistent, several decades ago, to using twice as much electricity as Japan. And that estimate is based on the state of hardware and traffic of several years ago. Some analysts claim that, as digital traffic has soared in recent years, efficiency gains were muting or even flattening growth in datacenter energy use. But such claims face countervailing factual trends. Since 2016, there’s been a dramatic acceleration in datacenter spending on hardware and buildings, along with a huge jump in the power density of that hardware—and again, all of this before the AI boom.
To guess what the future holds for the energy appetite of the cloud, one must know two things: first, the rate at which efficiency improves for digital hardware in general, especially for AI chips; second, the rate of growth in demand for data itself.
The past century of modern computing and communications shows that demand for data has grown far faster than engineers can improve efficiency. There’s no evidence to suggest this trend will change. In fact, today’s information-system energy use is the result of astounding gains in computing energy-efficiency. At the energy-efficiency of computing circa 1984, a single iPhone would use as much power as a skyscraper. If that were the case, there would be no smartphones today. Instead, we have billions of them. The same patterns hold across the entire silicon landscape, including for AI. Chip efficiencies for AI are improving at a blistering pace. Nvidia’s latest chip is 30-fold faster for the same power appetite. That won’t save energy—it will accelerate the market’s appetite for such chips at least 100-fold. Such is the nature of information systems. And the continued and dramatic improvement in AI chip efficiencies is built into the assumptions of all the industry-insider forecasts of ballooning overall energy use for AI.
But this raises the fundamental question: Just how much demand is there for data, the “fuel” that makes AI possible? We are on the precipice of an unprecedented expansion in both the variety and scale of data yet to be created, stored, and subsequently refined into useful products and services. As a practical matter, information is an infinite resource.
If it feels as though we’ve reached a kind of apotheosis in all things digital, the truth is otherwise: we are still in the early days. As an economic resource, data are unlike natural analogues—because humanity literally creates data. And the technological means for generating that resource are expanding in scale and precision. It’s one of those rare times when rhetorical hyperbole understates the reality.
The great explosion of data production will come from the nature and capacity to observe and measure the operation and activities of both our built environment and our natural environment, amplified by the increasing automation of all kinds of hardware and systems. Automation requires sensors, software, and control systems that necessarily generate massive data streams. Long before we see the autonomous car, for example, the “connected” car, with all its attendant features and safety systems, is already generating massive data flows.
Similarly, we’re seeing radical advances in our capacity to sense and measure all the features of our natural environment, including our own bodies. Scientists now collect information at astronomical scales, not only in the study of astronomy itself but also in the biological world, with new instruments that generate more data per experiment than trafficked on the entire Internet a few decades ago.
All trends face eventual saturation. But humanity is a very long way away from peak information supply. Information, in effect, is the only limitless resource.
One way to guess the future magnitude of data traffic—and derivatively the energy implications—is in the names of the numbers we’ve had to create to describe quantities of data. We count food and mineral production in millions of tons; people and their devices in billions of units; airway and highway usage in trillions of air- or road-miles; electricity and natural gas in trillions of kilowatt-hours or cubic feet; and our economies in trillions of dollars. But, at a rate of a trillion per year of anything, it takes a billion years to total one “zetta”—i.e., the name of the number that describes the scale of today’s digital traffic.
The numerical prefixes created to describe huge quantities track the progress of society’s technologies and needs. The “kilo” prefix dates back to 1795. The “mega” prefix was coined in 1873, to name 1,000 kilos. The “giga” prefix for 1 billion (1,000 million) and “tera” (a trillion, or 1,000 billion) were both adopted in 1960. In 1975, we saw the official creation of the prefixes “peta” (1,000 giga) and “exa” (1,000 peta), and then the “zetta” (1,000 exa) in 1991. Today’s cloud traffic is estimated to be roughly 50 zettabytes a year.
It’s impossible to visualize such a number without context. A zetta-stack of dollar bills would reach from the earth to the sun (93 million miles away) and back—700,000 times. All the molecules that comprise the Earth’s atmosphere weigh about five zettagrams. Even if each byte entails an infinitesimal amount of energy, the sheer volume of zettabyte-scale operations leads to consequential energy use.
Until just over a year ago, there was only one remaining official prefix name for a number bigger than a zetta: the 1,000 times bigger “yotta.” Given the AI-accelerated pace of data expansion, we’ll soon be in the yottabyte era. So now the bureaucrats in the Paris-based International Bureau of Weights and Measurements have officially given names to even bigger numbers, because before long, data traffic will blow past the yottabyte scale. One thousand yottabytes? That’s a ronnabyte. Your children will be using such numbers.
Such astonishing volumes of data being processed and moved will overwhelm the gains in energy efficiency that engineers will inevitably achieve. Already today, more capital is spent globally on expanding the energy-consuming cloud each year than all the world’s electric utilities combined spend to produce more electricity.
Credit Andreessen Horowitz’s “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” for observing that “energy is the foundational engine of our civilization. The more energy we have, the more people we can have, and the better everyone’s lives can be.” Our cloud-centric and AI-infused twenty-first-century infrastructure illustrates this fundamental point. The world will need all forms of energy production imaginable. An “energy transition” would only restrict energy supplies—and that’s not going to happen. The good news is that the U.S. does have the technical and resource capacity to supply the energy needed. The only question is whether we have the political will to allow the proverbial “all of the above” energy solutions to happen.
Mark P. Mills is a contributing editor of City Journal, executive director of the National Center on Energy Analytics, a strategic partner in the energy fund Montrose Lane, and author of The Cloud Revolution: How the Convergence of New Technologies Will Unleash the Next Economic Boom and a Roaring 2020s.
Copyright © 2024 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.
The amount of copper needed to build EVs is ‘impossible for mining companies to produce’
By Tanya Weaver | Engineering & Technology | May 16, 2024
Copper cannot be mined quickly enough to keep up with current policies requiring the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), according to a University of Michigan study.
Copper is fundamental to electricity generation, distribution and storage. According to GlobalData, there are more than 709 copper mines in operation globally, with the largest being the Escondida mine in Chile, which produced an estimated 882,100 tonnes of copper in 2023.
This may sound like a lot but with electrification ramping up globally it is not. The Michigan study, Copper mining and vehicle electrification, has focused on the copper required just for the production of EVs over the coming years.
Many countries across the world are putting forward policies for EVs. For instance, in the US the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in 2022, calls for 100% of cars manufactured by 2035 to be electric.
However, an EV requires three to five times more copper than petrol or diesel cars, not to mention the copper required for upgrades to the electricity grid.
“A normal Honda Accord needs about 40 pounds of copper. The same battery electric Honda Accord needs almost 200 pounds of copper,” said Adam Simon, professor of earth and environmental studies at the University of Michigan.
“We show in the paper that the amount of copper needed is essentially impossible for mining companies to produce.”
The researchers examined 120 years of global data from copper production dating back to 1900. They then modelled how much copper is likely to be produced for the rest of the century and how much copper the US electricity infrastructure and fleet of cars would need to upgrade to renewable energy.
The study found that renewable energy’s copper needs would outstrip what copper mines can produce at the current rate. Between 2018 and 2050, the world will need to mine 115% more copper than has been mined in all of human history up until 2018 just to meet current copper needs without considering the green energy transition.
To meet the copper needs of electrifying the global vehicle fleet, as many as six new large copper mines must be brought online annually over the next several decades. About 40% of the production from new mines will be required for EV-related grid upgrades.
The research concluded that instead of fully electrifying the entire US fleet of vehicles, they should focus on manufacturing hybrid vehicles.
“We know, for example, that a Toyota Prius actually has a slightly better impact on climate than a Tesla. Instead of producing 20 million EVs in the US and, globally, 100 million battery EVs each year, would it be more feasible to focus on building 20 million hybrid vehicles?”
Apart from EVs, copper is, of course, vital in other sectors: for instance, building infrastructure in the developing world such as an electricity grid for the approximately one billion people who don’t yet have access to electricity.
“What we will end up with is tension between how much copper we need to build infrastructure in less developed countries versus how much copper we need for the energy transition,” warned Simon.
“We are hoping this study gets picked up by policymakers who should consider copper as the limiting factor for the energy transition, and to think about how copper is allocated.”
© 2024 The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Baby Formula and Breastfeeding
On the Nature of Cartel Medicine
Lies are Unbekoming | June 1, 2024
What would the world look like without Obstetricians and Pediatricians?
I don’t need to wonder.
It would be a better place.
With everything I’ve recently read and written about Hysterectomy and Childbirth, let alone Childhood Vaccination, I’ve been thinking about the Nature of Cartel Medicine.
I’ve described Cartel Medicine as predatory many times, but what am I really describing?
I’m describing its Nature.
The same as if I was describing the Nature of a Wolf.
A wolf sees me as prey because that is its Nature.
I am trying to understand what IT is, why it behaves the way it does, and I’m trying to help others orient themselves correctly to this creature.
Its Nature is to eat, to feed, to prey.
We are the Prey.
The “clothing” for this Nature are the Doctors.
The well intentioned, naïve sheep that are poured into The Academy to be “educated” by the most sophisticated indoctrination technology the world has ever seen.
They emerge, shiny and sparkling with their white coats that coincidentally are a similar color to that of a sheep’s coat.
The Wolf manages to perpetually drape itself with a constantly renewed Sheep’s Clothing.
The Sheep don’t understand their purpose.
Dr Robert Mendelsohn understood their purpose more than anyone else I have read so far, and to our eternal loss only got to write three books about it.
This stack is about the Wolf and how it preys on mothers and newborns via the assault on breastfeeding and the industrial propaganda of the Baby Formula Cartel.
We will start with an excerpt from Mendelsohn’s masterpiece Male Practice.
We will then look at a Q&A drawn from a chapter of Your Baby, Your Way, by Jennifer Margulis.
And I will end with a Q&A based on four Mercola articles.
With thanks to all three of these giants.
Male Practice by Dr Robert Mendelsohn
Chapter 23 – “I Know What’s Best for Your Child.”
A mother is doubly victimized by Modern Medicine. In addition to the abuses she suffers, she must also worry about what a doctor may do to her child. Creative diagnosis and the harmful intervention that often follows isn’t limited to adults. Doctors will practice it on any available victim, regardless of size.
The damage inflicted on children begins, as noted earlier, when silver nitrate drops are placed in their eyes. It continues throughout childhood in an endless succession of useless examinations, worthless medications, and needless surgery that serve only to make pediatricians rich.
The child’s health is often placed at risk shortly after birth when the doctor discourages breast-feeding and urges the mother to raise her baby on formula milk. There is virtually no medical or physical reason, short of a bilateral mastectomy, why doctors should urge substitution of nutritionally deficient formula for a perfect food like mother’s milk. Breast-feeding may be impractical for some working mothers, of course, but that doesn’t explain why doctors seem so determined to deny the benefits of breast-feeding to all the rest. Many aspects of obstetrical intervention mitigate against breast-feeding and, if these are not sufficient to discourage the mother, pediatricians always seem able to find another excuse. They tell her that her breasts are too small, her milk is too thin, or that she has a cold and should stay away from the baby.
I blame three factors for the failure of doctors to urge that mothers breast-feed their children. First, they learn nothing about nutrition in medical school and are actually taught that formula is just as good as mother’s milk. Second, this belief is reinforced by the misleading medical journal advertising purchased by the formula manufacturers. It stops just short of citing women as defective because their breasts aren’t calibrated and encased in tin. Finally, I believe doctors oppose breast-feeding for the same reason they oppose natural childbirth. It denies them too many lucrative opportunities to intervene.
Rather than discouraging breast-feeding, conscientious doctors should be doing everything they can to promote it because of its enormous importance to both mother and child. It strengthens the bond between them in a way that no amount of holding and hugging will achieve. It stimulates hormones that reduce postpartum bleeding and discomfort and causes the uterus to contract more rapidly to its normal size. It gives the mother sensual pleasure. It helps protect her from cancer of the breast.
Breast-feeding also stimulates the production of prolactin by the pituitary gland, which enhances maternal behavior. It also has a tranquilizing effect (without drugs) that helps the mother adjust to the pressures of having a new baby in the home. The prolactin also suppresses production by the ovaries of the hormone that triggers ovulation, thus providing natural birth control for a much longer time.
The baby benefits because breast-feeding provides it with nourishment superior to that supplied by formula milk. It provides better bone maturation and intellectual development. It protects the child from asthma and other hereditary allergies. Because nursing babies are not locked into rigid feeding schedules they eat when they are hungry. This makes them less prone to the digestive upsets seen in babies who are allowed to cry until the clock says mother can shove a bottle in their mouths. There is even evidence that the resulting avoidance of emotional disturbances and the breast-fed baby’s closer bond to its mother reduce the danger of hypertension later in life.
One of the most important benefits that the baby receives from mother’s milk is protection from infectious diseases that the mother has fought off through her well-developed immune system. The bottle-fed baby is much more likely to suffer a nightmare of illnesses that include diarrhea, colic, gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, meningitis, asthma, hives, other allergies, pneumonia, eczema, obesity, arteriosclerosis, dermatitis, growth retardation, hypocalcemic tetany, neonatal hypothyroidism, necrotizing enterocolitis, and sudden infant death syndrome. Babies raised on canned formula milk may also be affected by ingesting too much lead.
Not long ago the American Academy of Pediatrics finally discovered the virtues of breast-feeding and took a strong position in favor of mother’s milk. With an enthusiasm usually reserved for products of the pharmaceutical labs, it said that “Human milk is nutritionally superior to formula,” and it urged all elements of the medical profession to encourage breast-feeding.
That’s mildly encouraging, but I’m not so naive as to believe that the Academy’s recommendations will prevail. Hospital personnel don’t like breast-feeding because it involves more work for them and upsets their routine. Pediatricians don’t like it for the opposite reason. It means less work and fewer office call fees for them. When babies are breast-fed, pediatricians are hard put to justify their existence. There are no diets to juggle and the babies enjoy a natural immunity to most ailments. There’s nothing more useless than a doctor who has nothing to treat.
Your Baby, Your Way by Jennifer Margulis
Chapter 7 – Bottled Profits: How Formula Manufacturers Manipulate Moms
Question 1: What are some of the physical and emotional benefits of breastfeeding for mothers?
Breastfeeding provides numerous physical and emotional benefits for mothers. Physically, breastfeeding helps the uterus contract and return to its pre-pregnancy size, reduces postpartum bleeding, and helps women lose pregnancy weight more easily. Emotionally, breastfeeding releases the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which promote feelings of bonding, relaxation, and well-being. The skin-to-skin contact during breastfeeding also enhances the emotional connection between mother and baby.
Question 2: How does breastfeeding impact the bonding experience between mother and baby?
Breastfeeding facilitates a strong bonding experience between mother and baby. The close physical contact, skin-to-skin touch, and eye contact during breastfeeding sessions create an intimate and nurturing environment. The release of oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” during breastfeeding promotes feelings of attachment and affection. Mothers who breastfeed often report feeling a deep sense of connection and satisfaction in providing nourishment and comfort to their babies.
Question 3: What are the long-term health benefits of breastfeeding for women?
Breastfeeding offers several long-term health benefits for women. Studies have shown that women who breastfeed have a lower risk of developing breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes later in life. Breastfeeding also helps with natural child spacing, as exclusive breastfeeding can delay the return of ovulation and menstruation.
Question 4: Despite the known benefits, how do breastfeeding rates in the United States compare to other industrialized countries?
Despite the well-established benefits of breastfeeding, the United States has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates among industrialized countries. While 77% of American women initiate breastfeeding, only 36% are exclusively breastfeeding at three months postpartum. This means that out of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States each year, only 1.5 million are still being nursed at three months of age.
Question 5: What factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States?
Several factors contribute to the low breastfeeding rates in the United States. These include insufficient support and education from healthcare providers; aggressive marketing practices by formula companies; and cultural attitudes that may view breastfeeding as inconvenient or embarrassing. Additionally, the medicalization of childbirth and common hospital practices that separate mothers and babies after delivery can hinder the initiation and establishment of breastfeeding.
Question 6: How can medical interventions during labor and delivery impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed?
Medical interventions during labor and delivery can significantly impact a woman’s ability to breastfeed. Procedures such as induction of labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean section can lead to prolonged labor, delayed skin-to-skin contact, and separation of mother and baby, all of which can interfere with the initiation of breastfeeding. Medications used during labor may also cause drowsiness in the newborn, making it more difficult for the baby to latch on and feed effectively.
Question 7: What role do pediatricians and other medical professionals play in undermining breastfeeding?
Pediatricians and other medical professionals can undermine breastfeeding by providing inaccurate information, encouraging unnecessary supplementation with formula, or failing to offer adequate support to breastfeeding mothers. Some healthcare providers may lack sufficient knowledge about breastfeeding and its challenges, leading them to recommend formula supplementation prematurely. Additionally, the influence of formula company marketing on medical professionals can lead to a bias toward formula feeding over breastfeeding.
Question 8: How do formula companies use misleading advertising to promote their products?
Formula companies use various misleading advertising tactics to promote their products. They often make claims that their formula provides benefits similar to breast milk, such as promoting brain development, eye health, and immune function, despite the lack of scientific evidence to support these claims. Formula advertisements may also depict unrealistic and idealized images of formula-fed babies, suggesting that formula feeding is a superior or more convenient choice for mothers.
Question 9: What tactics do formula companies employ to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales?
Formula companies employ several tactics to undermine breastfeeding and increase their sales. These include providing free formula samples to new mothers in hospitals, which has been shown to decrease breastfeeding rates; offering coupons and discounts on formula products; sponsoring parenting events and baby fairs; and marketing directly to pregnant women and new mothers through advertisements, websites, and social media. Formula companies also partner with hospitals and healthcare providers to distribute promotional materials and samples, effectively endorsing their products.
Question 10: How do formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals?
Formula companies influence nurses and other medical professionals by providing free samples, gifts, and educational materials that promote their products. They may offer sponsored continuing education courses, conferences, and workshops that present information biased toward formula feeding. Formula representatives often develop personal relationships with nurses and hospital staff, providing meals, gift baskets, and other incentives. This subtle influence can lead healthcare professionals to view formula as an acceptable or even preferred alternative to breastfeeding.
Question 11: How do professional medical organizations, like the AAP, receive funding from formula companies, and what is the potential impact of this relationship?
Professional medical organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), receive funding from formula companies through sponsorships, grants, and donations. In the five years following the AAP’s endorsement of exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, formula manufacturers donated more than $6.7 million to the organization. This financial relationship raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of formula companies on the AAP’s policies and recommendations regarding infant feeding practices.
Question 12: What are the neurological advantages of breastfeeding for babies?
Breastfeeding offers several neurological advantages for babies. Breast milk contains essential nutrients, such as long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (DHA and ARA), that are crucial for brain development. The act of breastfeeding also provides important sensory stimulation through skin-to-skin contact, which promotes optimal brain development. Studies have shown that breastfed infants have higher scores on cognitive and developmental tests compared to formula-fed infants, and these benefits may extend into childhood and adulthood.
Question 13: How does breast milk composition compare to cow’s milk and infant formula?
Breast milk is a dynamic, living substance that adapts to the changing needs of the growing infant. It contains a perfect balance of nutrients, including proteins, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals, as well as immune-boosting components such as antibodies, white blood cells, and enzymes. In contrast, cow’s milk and infant formula are static, processed products that cannot replicate the complexity and adaptability of human milk. While formula attempts to mimic the composition of breast milk, it lacks many of the bioactive components and living cells found in human milk.
Question 14: How have breastfeeding rates in Norway changed over time, and what factors contributed to these changes?
Breastfeeding rates in Norway have undergone significant changes over time. In the 1960s, breastfeeding rates reached an all-time low, with only one out of five Norwegian babies being breastfed at three months of age. This decline was largely attributed to the medicalization of childbirth and hospital practices that discouraged breastfeeding. However, with the rise of mother-to-mother support groups and changes in hospital policies, breastfeeding rates began to increase in the 1980s. Today, Norway has one of the highest breastfeeding rates in the industrialized world, with nearly 100% of mothers initiating breastfeeding and 80% still breastfeeding at six months postpartum.
Question 15: What policies and practices have been implemented in Norway to support breastfeeding?
Norway has implemented several policies and practices to support breastfeeding. These include paid maternity leave, which allows mothers to stay home and breastfeed their infants for an extended period; restrictions on the marketing of infant formula, in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes; and the establishment of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding, which provides education and support to healthcare professionals and parents. Norwegian hospitals also prioritize skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, encourage rooming-in, and provide lactation support to new mothers.
Question 16: How do infant mortality rates in the United States compare to those in Norway, and what role does breastfeeding play in this difference?
Infant mortality rates in the United States are significantly higher than those in Norway. A baby born in the United States is almost twice as likely to die in infancy compared to a baby born in Norway. Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in this difference, as it has been shown to reduce the risk of infant death, particularly from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and necrotizing enterocolitis. Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and supportive policies contribute to its lower infant mortality rates, while the United States’ low breastfeeding rates and lack of support for breastfeeding mothers may contribute to its higher infant mortality rates.
Question 17: What are the financial costs of formula feeding compared to breastfeeding?
Formula feeding is significantly more expensive than breastfeeding. The cost of formula for an infant for 12 months is estimated to be around $2,366, while the cost of breast milk is essentially zero. In addition to the direct cost of formula, there are indirect costs associated with formula feeding, such as increased healthcare expenses due to the higher rates of illness and infection among formula-fed infants. Breastfeeding, on the other hand, provides significant cost savings for families and the healthcare system as a whole.
Question 18: What is the purpose of the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway?
The National Resource Center for Breastfeeding in Norway is an academic center that aims to promote and support breastfeeding through research, education, and information dissemination. The center, overseen by Dr. Gro Nylander, uses scientific evidence to provide accurate and up-to-date information about breastfeeding to healthcare professionals, parents, government agencies, and the media. By serving as a centralized resource for breastfeeding information and support, the National Resource Center for Breastfeeding plays a crucial role in maintaining Norway’s high breastfeeding rates and ensuring that both healthcare providers and parents have access to reliable, evidence-based guidance on breastfeeding practices.
Question 19: How do Norwegian hospitals support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula?
Norwegian hospitals implement several practices to support breastfeeding and minimize the use of formula. These practices include encouraging skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately after birth, promoting rooming-in (keeping the baby in the same room as the mother), and allowing babies to breastfeed on demand. Norwegian hospitals also avoid giving newborns supplemental feedings of formula or sugar water, which can interfere with the establishment of breastfeeding. If a baby does require formula for medical reasons, it is given via alternative methods, such as a syringe or spoon, rather than a bottle, to avoid nipple confusion and maintain the baby’s ability to latch and breastfeed effectively.
Question 20: What are some of the potential dangers of supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life?
Supplementing breastfed babies with sugar water or formula in the early days of life can pose several potential dangers. First, it can interfere with the establishment of a healthy milk supply, as the baby’s suckling stimulates milk production. If a baby receives supplemental feedings, they may not nurse as frequently or effectively, leading to decreased milk production. Additionally, sugar water can cause digestive issues, such as stomach discomfort and diarrhea, while formula can alter the gut microbiome and increase the risk of infections and allergies. Supplementation can also disrupt the natural bonding and attachment process between mother and baby, as well as undermine the mother’s confidence in her ability to nourish her child.
Question 21: What are some of the risks associated with formula feeding, as highlighted by product recalls and contamination incidents?
Formula feeding carries several risks, as evidenced by product recalls and contamination incidents. In recent years, there have been several instances of formula being recalled due to contamination by harmful substances, such as insects, larvae, and bacteria. These contaminants can cause serious health issues in infants, including gastrointestinal distress, infections, and even life-threatening illnesses. Additionally, formula products have been recalled for issues such as off-odors, unusual consistencies, and the presence of foreign objects. These incidents highlight the importance of strict quality control in formula manufacturing and the potential dangers of relying on a processed, artificial product to nourish infants.
Question 22: How do the profits of major formula companies compare to the cost of formula for families?
The profits of major formula companies are substantial, particularly when compared to the cost of formula for families. In 2011, Abbott Laboratories, the maker of Similac, reported global sales of $38.9 billion, while Mead Johnson Nutrition, the manufacturer of Enfamil, reported $3.7 billion in sales. Nestlé, the company behind Gerber formula, earned $10.1 billion in profits in the same year. In contrast, the average cost of formula for a family over a 12-month period is estimated to be $2,366. This disparity highlights the significant financial burden that formula feeding places on families, while formula companies continue to generate substantial profits.
Question 23: What is the estimated cost savings in healthcare if American women followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines?
If American women followed the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) breastfeeding guidelines, which recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life and continued breastfeeding for at least one year, the potential cost savings in healthcare could be significant. According to one study, if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP guidelines, the country could save $13 billion in healthcare costs annually. These savings would be primarily due to the reduced incidence of illness and infection among breastfed infants, as well as the long-term health benefits for both mothers and children.
Question 24: How many infant deaths could potentially be avoided if American women breastfed according to recommendations?
If American women breastfed according to the recommendations set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, a significant number of infant deaths could potentially be avoided. One study estimated that if 90% of U.S. families followed the AAP breastfeeding guidelines, approximately 900 infant deaths could be prevented annually. This reduction in infant mortality would be largely attributed to the protective effects of breastfeeding against sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), necrotizing enterocolitis, and other life-threatening conditions. By increasing breastfeeding rates and duration, the United States could make substantial progress in improving infant health outcomes and reducing preventable infant deaths.
Formula weakens the baby, versus breastfeeding, and makes them less resilient to the assault of vaccination. So, it’s an indirect relationship rather than a direct causal one.
Questions and Answers based on these four Mercola articles:
Most Baby Formula Claims Not Backed by Science (substack.com)
How to Mitigate the Infant Formula Disaster (substack.com)
The US Campaign Against Breastfeeding (substack.com)
Infant Soy Formula – A Risky Public Experiment (substack.com)
Question 1: What percentage of infant formula health and nutrition claims are supported by clinical trial evidence, according to a 2023 study?
According to a study published in February 2023, only 26% of the infant formula products surveyed attempted to support their health and nutrition claims with a clinical trial or a review. Of these, only 14% used clinical trials in humans, and 90% of those trials carried a high risk of bias due to missing data or conclusions that were not supported by the data.
Question 2: How have infant formula marketing techniques influenced families, scientists, and policy makers, as discussed in the 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding?
The 2023 Lancet Series on breastfeeding called for greater regulation over the “predatory” nature of the infant formula industry’s marketing campaigns aimed at new mothers. These marketing techniques and strategies have influenced families, policy, and science, often portraying commercial milk formula products as solutions to common infant health and developmental challenges in ways that systematically undermine breastfeeding.
Question 3: How is the grocery industry aligning with Big Pharma through apps like Albertsons’ “Sincerely Health,” and what are the potential implications for consumers in terms of limiting their freedoms?
Grocery store conglomerate Albertsons has entered the digital health space with its app “Sincerely Health,” which encourages customers to connect data from wearable monitoring devices and track their prescriptions, grocery store purchases, and vaccination appointments. This merger between Big Food and Big Pharma uses tracking technology to gather details about consumers’ activities, potentially leading to a database of private health decisions that could be used against individuals during future public health emergencies or to limit their access to food based on their medical history.
By gathering and analyzing this data, companies and government entities may create detailed profiles of individuals’ health status, medical history, and purchasing habits. This information could then be used to restrict access to certain products or services based on a person’s health profile or vaccination status. For example, unvaccinated individuals or those with specific medical conditions could be denied access to certain foods or be subject to higher prices. Such practices could lead to discrimination and infringe upon personal freedoms and privacy rights, ultimately limiting consumer freedoms in various ways.
Question 4: What are some of the evidence-based benefits of breastfeeding for both mother and baby?
Breastfeeding offers numerous evidence-based benefits for both mother and baby. For mothers, breastfeeding is associated with a lower risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, ovarian or breast cancer, and high blood pressure, as well as reduced stress and improved sensitivity to their infant’s needs. Breastfed infants have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, ear infections, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in preterm infants. Breastfeeding also promotes cognitive development and socio-affective response in children.
Question 5: How do most commercial infant formulas compare to breast milk in terms of nutritional composition and added ingredients?
Most commercial infant formulas are nutritionally inferior to breast milk and contain questionable added ingredients. While breast milk contains hundreds of unique substances, including over 100 different types of fats and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that nourish healthy gut bacteria, infant formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils. Many formulas also contain synthetic vitamins, inorganic minerals, excessive protein, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate.
Question 6: What was the controversy surrounding the U.S. delegation’s opposition to the World Health Assembly’s resolution to encourage breastfeeding in 2018, and what specific actions did they take?
In 2018, the World Health Assembly introduced a nonbinding resolution to encourage breastfeeding and emphasize its health benefits. The U.S. delegation opposed this resolution, demanding the removal of language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” They threatened countries with trade sanctions and the withdrawal of crucial military aid if they did not reject the resolution. Additionally, the American delegation insisted on adding the phrase “evidence-based” to references to breastfeeding initiatives, which critics saw as an attempt to undermine these programs. The international response was one of shock and dismay, with many delegates expressing astonishment at the U.S. government’s aggressive tactics to prioritize the interests of the infant formula industry over global public health.
Question 7: How has the infant formula industry’s marketing influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time?
The infant formula industry’s aggressive marketing practices have negatively influenced the perception and prevalence of breastfeeding over time. Following the development of manufactured infant formula, mothers were told that breastfeeding was unnecessary and that formula offered greater freedom for busy moms. The promotion of the idea that breastfeeding in public is shameful also contributed to the decline in breastfeeding rates, as more mothers opted for bottle-feeding to avoid social stigma.
Question 8: What are the potential dangers associated with soy-based infant formulas, and why are they considered among the worst options for babies?
Soy-based infant formulas are considered among the worst options for babies due to the potential dangers associated with their high levels of phytoestrogens, such as genistein. These formulas have been linked to a number of troubling side effects, including altered age of menarche in girls, uterine fibroids, endometriosis, tumors, disrupted thyroid and reproductive function, inhibited testosterone in boys, and autoimmune diseases. The estrogen content in soy formulas can be equivalent to at least five birth control pills per day, posing significant risks to infant development.
Question 9: What are some healthy alternatives for mothers who cannot breastfeed, and how do homemade formulas compare to commercial options?
For mothers who cannot breastfeed, healthy alternatives include using donated breast milk from a trusted source or making homemade infant formula using high-quality, organic ingredients. Homemade formulas, such as those based on raw cow’s milk or liver, can provide a more nutritious option compared to commercial formulas. These homemade recipes often include essential nutrients like lactose, whey, probiotics, acerola powder, cod liver oil, and coconut oil, while avoiding the processed sugars, synthetic vitamins, and harmful additives found in many commercial products.
Question 10: How can predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition?
Predatory marketing practices by infant formula companies can undermine breastfeeding efforts and contribute to suboptimal infant nutrition in several ways. These practices often portray infant formula as a superior alternative to breast milk, making unsubstantiated claims about its ability to solve common infant health and developmental challenges. By promoting the idea that formula is a convenient and effective substitute for breastfeeding, these marketing tactics can discourage mothers from breastfeeding, leading to lower breastfeeding rates and depriving infants of the unique benefits of breast milk.
Question 11: What are some of the unique components of breast milk that provide benefits for infants, and how do these differ from the ingredients found in commercial formulas?
Breast milk contains several unique components that provide benefits for infants, many of which are not found in commercial formulas. One example is the presence of over 150 different oligosaccharides, which are complex sugars that nourish healthy gut bacteria and support the development of a strong immune system. Breast milk also contains antibodies that provide passive immunity to the infant, as well as growth factors and hormones that promote optimal development. In contrast, commercial formulas are primarily composed of processed sugars, dried skim milk, and refined vegetable oils, lacking the diverse array of beneficial components found in breast milk.
Question 12: How do the added sugars and other questionable ingredients in many commercial infant formulas contribute to health risks for babies?
Excessive sugar consumption, particularly in the form of processed corn syrup, has been linked to an increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disorders later in life. Other concerning ingredients, such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic vitamins, and harmful contaminants like glyphosate and perchlorate, may negatively impact infant health and development. These ingredients can disrupt the gut microbiome, contribute to inflammation, and expose infants to potentially toxic substances during a critical period of growth and development.
Question 13: How have societal attitudes and marketing campaigns influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, and what impact has this had on breastfeeding rates?
Societal attitudes and marketing campaigns have significantly influenced the perception of breastfeeding in public, often portraying it as shameful or indecent. Formula companies have promoted the idea that bottle-feeding is a more convenient and socially acceptable alternative, contributing to the stigmatization of public breastfeeding. This negative perception has led to lower breastfeeding rates, as many mothers feel discouraged from breastfeeding in public spaces for fear of judgment or legal consequences. In some cases, women have faced fines or charges of public indecency for breastfeeding in public, further reinforcing the idea that it is an unacceptable practice. As a result, many mothers have opted for formula feeding, even when they may have preferred to breastfeed, leading to suboptimal infant nutrition and health outcomes.
Question 14: What are the specific hormonal and developmental risks associated with the high levels of phytoestrogens found in soy-based infant formulas?
The high levels of phytoestrogens, particularly genistein, found in soy-based infant formulas pose several specific hormonal and developmental risks. These phytoestrogens can mimic the effects of estrogen in the body, leading to potential disruptions in endocrine function and development. Some of the risks associated with soy formula include altered age of menarche in girls, increased risk of uterine fibroids, endometriosis, and tumors, disrupted thyroid function, and inhibited testosterone in infant boys, which may impede appropriate male development. Additionally, exposure to high levels of phytoestrogens in infancy has been linked to an increased risk of autoimmune diseases and reproductive issues later in life.
Question 15: What are some of the key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas, and how do these differences impact infant health and development?
There are several key differences between the composition of breast milk and commercial infant formulas that can significantly impact infant health and development. Breast milk contains a unique blend of nutrients, including easily digestible proteins, healthy fats, and complex sugars called oligosaccharides that support the growth of beneficial gut bacteria. It also contains antibodies, growth factors, and hormones that promote optimal immune function and development. In contrast, commercial formulas are typically made from processed ingredients, such as corn syrup, refined vegetable oils, and synthetic vitamins and minerals, which may be harder for infants to digest and absorb. Formula also lacks many of the beneficial compounds found in breast milk, such as antibodies and growth factors, which can leave infants more vulnerable to infections and developmental issues. Furthermore, the high sugar content and lack of complex oligosaccharides in many formulas can disrupt the development of a healthy gut microbiome, increasing the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic health conditions later in life.
Houthis’ Red Sea Blockade Makes Russia’s Northern Sea Route Attractive to Desperate West
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 01.06.2024
Shipping costs through the Red Sea have spiked by over 250 percent since Yemen’s Houthi militia began its partial blockade of the region last November. Shipbrokers estimate that commercial tonnage passing through the Gulf of Aden has dropped by over 60 percent in that time, with some shipments, such as LNG, dropping to zero.
With the US and Britain proving unable to dislodge the Houthis from their strongholds or stop the militia from attacking Israeli-linked, American, and British vessels in the Red and Arabian Seas, commercial shippers have increasingly eyed Russia’s Northern Sea Route as an attractive potential alternative, a leading mainstream US news magazine has reported.
“The surging costs and fear of getting hit by Houthi drones and missiles have led some shippers to consider the Arctic as an alternative, as melting ice begins opening new potential on the so-called Northern Sea Route,” Foreign Policy wrote.
The article “discovered” what Russian officials and media have been saying for years – that the roughly 5,600 km Northern Sea Route is the shortest maritime route between Europe and Asia, and can shave 8,000 km or more of distance, and 40-60 percent in time, off shipments, compared to traditional Europe-Asia routes via the currently troubled waters in the Middle East.
“The ability to slash some 5,000 miles off a ship’s journey would mean much faster travel times – a major plus in today’s world of online retail and next-day delivery,” FP said.
Unfortunately, the magazine lamented, there’s a catch: 70 percent of the Arctic, including virtually the entire length of the Arctic portion of the route, passes through Russian waters. “Ships wanting to use the route must secure the Russians’ permission and pay them transit fees. Given current relations between many Western countries and Russia amid the Ukraine war, that poses an obvious challenge.”
Lobbyists opposed to the ambitious Russian shipping route also cited other potential issues, from shallow local waters and cold Arctic winters to floating ice and the remoteness of much of the route, to try to make the Northern Sea Route look less attractive – ignoring the array of actions undertaken by Russia in recent years to address these and other concerns. This includes the equivalent of billions of dollars in investments into 16 deep-water ports and 14 airfields, regional air defense and search and rescue infrastructure, Internet communications infrastructure via new satellites in geostationary orbits, a burgeoning fleet of new heavy icebreakers, etc.
Russia plans to increase the tonnage of cargoes shipped through the Northern Sea Route to 80 million tons by 2024, and some 270 million tons annually by 2035. Once fully functional, it will give Russia the chance to become a major player in the transit of trillions of dollars in trade annually, and ease the development and exploitation of Russian territories in the Far North – including vast, untapped energy and rare mineral reserves.
The United States has expressed displeasure over Russia’s control of the Arctic, threatening to expand “freedom of navigation” missions in Russian Arctic waters, but facing problems doing so owing to the sorry state of its fleet of Arctic-class ships and lack of infrastructure. Russia accounted for the Northern Sea Route in the 2022 amendment to its naval doctrine, naming it as one of six strategic priority directions for strengthening “its position among leading global naval powers.”
The WHO pandemic treaty: dead but not buried
BY KEVIN BARDOSH | UNHERD | MAY 28, 2024
As the World Health Assembly began this week in Geneva, it was announced that member states had failed to reach agreement on a new, legally binding pandemic treaty.
Despite not reaching the deadline after more than two years of negotiations, the WHO Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, remained confident that the 194 member states would eventually reach an agreement, perhaps in six to 12 months. Health diplomats are also confident that amendments to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) — a parallel set of global governance rules, including a new tiered system to declare a pandemic — will go ahead this week. We will have to wait and see.
Front and centre in the failure of the treaty this week were disputes between the Global North and South regarding pathogen sharing and access to the new tests, treatments and vaccines that would be developed by the pharmaceutical industry in the event of a new pandemic. This rekindled longstanding neocolonial sentiments, especially among African countries, concerned that access to pharmaceutical products would be dependent on fulfilling treaty obligations.
Recent analyses have also shown that, to meet basic targets of the treaty, developing countries would need to heavily invest in pandemic preparedness and response to the tune of some $31 billion per year. This level of financing would take away vital budgets from existing health systems and skew national priorities. Is this really in the best interest of developing countries?
Other criticisms of the treaty have come from US and UK conservatives. Senate Republicans recently called for the Biden administration to reject the treaty and shift focus to “comprehensive WHO reforms that address its persistent failures without expanding its authority”. With US elections set for November, negotiators in Geneva are well aware that Donald Trump may withdraw from the WHO if elected, as he did in 2020. In the UK, Nigel Farage also came out against the treaty, expressing concern about future WHO-supported lockdowns: “The WHO can be a force for good in the world, but only if it returns to its noble principles and core objectives.”
Yet the WHO has vehemently rejected any concerns about the treaty infringing on “national sovereignty”, previously calling them “fake news, lies, and conspiracy theories”. Mainstream news outlets — from the New York Times to Reuters — have reiterated these talking points. Recent articles in Health Policy Watch called for critics, or rather “spreaders of disinformation”, to be treated like an “organised crime” network. Any legitimate criticism is unwelcome.
Those in global health leadership want bolder steps to manage the “infodemic”. But advocates of the treaty have regularly engaged in misinformation themselves. Take, for example, a recent video from former UK prime minister Gordon Brown, now WHO Ambassador for Global Health Financing. In the video, Brown makes the bold claim that “the world needs agreement on the pandemic accord” since “no one is safe anywhere until everyone is safe everywhere”. The latter statement is a perfect illustration of the propaganda tools used by governments in the name of “health” during Covid: utopian, illogical, and Orwellian.
The negotiations and media framing of them, therefore, represent the cultural ethos of biosecurity, which prioritises “making the world safer” (security) over all other values and, given our collective experiences during Covid, basic principles of logic and Western democratic norms.
The WHO is also, this week, seeking an unprecedented increase of its budget by $7 billion over four years to respond to crises. Yet the organisation has failed to conduct a serious post-mortem of the failures of the Covid pandemic response. Instead, media outlets and health authorities complain about “mistrust” and “populism” without any mention of the harms of vaccine mandates and coercive and ineffective lockdowns, school closures, mask mandates, and other Covid measures. We must march forward into a global treaty, no questions asked.
Yet this problem is now systemic in global public health. Many preeminent Covid evaluation reports are deeply flawed. A recent paper called the UK Royal Society’s assessment, published last year, “irrelevant and weak from a methodological point of view but also dangerously misleading in terms of policymaking. This is how misinformation occurs.”
Many countries, the UK and US included, are still in the process of evaluating their Covid response. Others have none planned. It seems more than reasonable that the global public health community should first be obliged to take a serious, evidence-based look at just how wrong the experts got it from 2020-22. But to do that, we need the WHO to be less concerned about fighting “conspiracy theorists” and “far-Right nationalists” and more concerned about earning back the trust of the world’s public. It will be a long road ahead.
Kevin Bardosh is a research professor and Director of Research for Collateral Global, a UK-based charity dedicated to understanding the collateral impacts of Covid policies worldwide.
For a Fistful of Shekels: Israeli Defense Contractors’ Profits Boom as Economy Takes a Beating
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 30.05.2024
With the world watching in horror as the raging Palestinian-Israeli conflict approaches its eight month anniversary, arms makers continue to quietly make a tidy profit from the war. Israel’s domestic defense sector is no exception.
US business media has warned of the “haunting parallels” between Israel’s ballooning military expenditures amid the Gaza War and the country’s 1970s ‘lost decade’ of surging inflation, out of control budget deficits, stagnant growth and faltering investor confidence.
Israel’s Central Bank expects the war in Gaza to cost a whopping 250 billion shekels ($67.4 billion US) through 2025, as defense spending as a share of GDP jumps from 5.3% to 9%. That’s amid increasingly dour circumstances in the civilian economy, with Q4 of 2023 seeing Israel’s GDP drop by over 20%, while consumption dropped 27% and investment by 70%.
Most worrying of all for Tel Aviv is the potential loss of investment flows – particularly in the tech sector. “We can’t even begin to measure how many people have decided not to invest in Israel in the short term, let alone on a permanent basis,” Shoresh Institute economist Dan Ben-David told Bloomberg in a report published Thursday.
But as the civilian economy suffers, Israel’s arms makers have no complaints, boasting record profits, buoyed by Washington’s nod to an unprecedented $17 billion in new military aid (more than five times the $3 billion+ Tel Aviv has been getting from the US annually since the early 1980s). A portion of the funds can be spent on Israeli-made weapons – a privilege not granted to other US allies, with roughly half a billion dollars also typically slated for Israeli-US joint research in missile defense.
Israel’s top three defense giants – Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Elbit Systems have enjoyed surging stock prices and orders growing at a pace beyond their ability to keep up.
- IAI reported a 7% growth in sales to $5.3 billion in 2023, a 49% jump in net profit, with production ranging from drones, missiles, bombs, radars and electronic warfare articles to space-based defenses. Its order backlog has soared to $18 billion.
- Rafael – makers of Tamir missiles for the Iron Dome and an array of other air defense and anti-tank missiles and drones, saw a record 21% increase in sales and a whopping 85% increase in order volume, with net profits hitting $158 million – a 17% jump from 2022, and the backlog of orders reaching over $14 billion.
- Elbit, makers of much of the “guts” of Israeli weapons, plus drones, communications equipment, small arms, cluster munitions and armored vehicles, saw profits jump 8% in 2023, with revenues reaching nearly $6 billion, and Q1 2024 results this week showing $1.6 billion in revenues, and a $20.4 billion order backlog.
French PM reveals how countries like Poland will be flooded with migrants his country doesn’t want
‘They either accept migrants or pay’
BY GRZEGORZ ADAMCZYK | REMIX NEWS | MAY 27, 2024
French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal’s claim that the EU migration pact will mean illegal migrants will be transferred to Central Europe and will not go to France, has caused uproar on the Polish right.
“The migration pact introduces solidarity. We managed to force eastern countries to sign a document according to which they either accept migrants or pay,” said Attal during a television debate.
The leader of the Polish conservative Law and Justice (PiS), Jarosław Kaczyński, told the Polish Press Agency (PAP) over the weekend that his party would be calling for an emergency meeting of the Polish parliament to consider the remarks made by France’s Attal during a television debate.
Attal claimed that the French provinces are safe from being allocated migrants covered by the EU migration pact, as the migrants will in the first instance be sent to Central and Eastern Europe. Kaczyński contrasted Attal’s statement with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s claim that the migration pact will not affect Poland because it has taken in hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
“It seems that Tusk once again is saying one thing in the EU and another in Poland,” said Kaczyński.
Conservatives in countries like Hungary and Poland have long warned that the EU’s recently passed migration pact was a ploy to transfer unwanted migrants to countries like Poland and Hungary, despite the West claiming that more migration and diversity was always a good thing and a source of “strength.”
Kaczyński said the parliamentary session on the EU migration pact should receive detailed information from PM Tusk with regard to the circumstances in which his government had failed to block the EU migration pact on the reallocation of migrants entering EU states.
Senior PiS MEP Jacek Saryusz-Wolski told independent television channel TV Republika that the migration pact will act as “a pump for migrants from Africa” and the Middle East who will see the pact as an invitation to come to Europe.
Saryusz-Wolski reminded that EU Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson has admitted that Europe needs to have 4.5 million migrants coming every single year “to bridge the demographic gap, change society and provide the left with future voters.”
The Polish government did vote against the EU migration pact at a session of the Council of the European Union, the body in which decisions are made by qualified majority. Kaczyński and PiS have consistently argued that the decision on the pact should be made by the European Council, at which all decisions must be unanimous. In the Council of the European Union, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia voted against the migration pact, which will introduce migrant quotas, but the new law carried the day as most EU states backed it.
The most controversial aspect of the EU migration pact is the provision that should member states refuse to take their share of the reallocated migrants, they will have to pay up to €23,000 for every migrant refused.
The Carbon Capture Con
By Viv Forbes | Master Resource | May 17, 2024
Carbon-capture-and-underground-storage “(CCUS)” tops the list of silly schemes “to reduce man-made global warming.” The idea is to capture exhaust gases from power stations or cement plants, separate the CO2 from the other gases, compress it, pump it to the chosen burial site and force it underground into permeable rock formations. Then hope it never escapes.
An Australian mining company who should know better is hoping to appease green critics by proposing to bury the gas of life, CO2, deep in the sedimentary rocks of Australia’s Great Artesian Basin.
They have chosen the Precipice Sandstone for their carbon cemetery. However, the chances of keeping CO2 gas confined in this porous sandstone are remote. This formation has a very large area of outcrop to the surface and gas will escape somewhere, so why bother forcing it into a jail with no roof?
Glencore shareholders should rise in anger at this wasteful and futile pagan sacrifice to the global warming gods. It will join fiascos like Snowy 2, pink bats and SunCable (a dream to take solar energy generated in NT via overhead and undersea cable for over 5000 km across ocean deeps and volcanic belts to Singapore).
Engineers with buckets of easy money may base a whole career on Carbon Capture and Underground Storage. But only stupid green zealots would support the sacrifice of billions of investment dollars and scads of energy to bury this harmless, invisible, life-supporting gas in the hope of appeasing the high priests of global warming.
The quantities of gases that CCUS would need to handle are enormous, and the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is a dreadful waste of energy and resources, consuming about twenty percent of power delivered from an otherwise efficient coal-fired power station.
For every tonne of coal burnt in a power station, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen from the air used to burn the coal, plus 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour from the coal combustion process.
Normally these beneficial atmospheric gases are released to the atmosphere after filters take out any nasties like soot and noxious fumes.
However, CCUS also requires energy to produce and fabricate steel and erect gas storages, pumps and pipelines and to drill disposal wells. This will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for zero benefit.
But the real problems are at the burial site – how to create a secure space to hold the CO2 gas. There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space on Earth is occupied by something – solids, liquids or gases. Underground disposal of CO2 requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever fills the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.
The natural gases in sedimentary rock formations are commonly air, CO2, CH4 (methane) or rarely, H2S (rotten egg gas). The liquids are commonly salty water, sometimes fresh water or very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.
Pumping out air is costly; pumping out natural CO2 to make room for man-made CO2 is pointless; and releasing rotten egg gas or salty water on the surface would create a real problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.
In some cases, CCUS may require the removal of fresh water to make space for CO2. Producing fresh water on the surface would be seen as a boon by most locals. Pumping out salt water to make space to bury CO2 would create more problems than it could solve.
Naturally, some carbon dioxide buried under pressure will dissolve in groundwater and aerate it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil.
Then there is the dangerous risk of a surface outburst or leakage from a pressurised underground reservoir of CO2. The atmosphere contains 0.04% CO2 which is beneficial for all life. But the gas in a CCUS reservoir would contain +90% of this heavier-than-air gas – a lethal, suffocating concentration for nearby animal life if it escaped in a gas outburst.
Pumping gases underground is only sensible if it brings real benefits such as using waste gases to increase oil recovery from declining oil fields – frack the strata, pump in CO2, and force out oil/gas. To find a place where you could drive out natural hydro-carbons in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but unlikely event.
Normally however, CCUS will be futile as the oceans will largely undo whatever man tries to do with CO2 in the atmosphere. Oceans contain vastly more CO2 than the thin puny atmosphere, and oceans maintain equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 dissolved in the oceans. If man releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceans will quickly absorb much of it. And if by some fluke man reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 would bubble out of the oceans to replace much of it. Or just one decent volcanic explosion could negate the whole CCUS exercise.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere encourages all plants to grow better and use more CO2. Unfortunately natural processes are continually sequestering huge tonnages of CO2 into extensive deposits of shale, coal, limestone, dolomite and magnesite – this process has driven atmospheric CO2 to dangerously low concentrations. Burning hydrocarbons and making cement returns a tiny bit of this plant food from the lithosphere to the biosphere.
Regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans and plants – they have been doing it successfully for millennia.
The only certain outcome from CCUS is more expensive electricity and a waste of energy resources to do all the separation, compressing and pumping. Unscrupulous coal industry leaders love the idea of selling more coal to produce the same amount of electricity, and electricity generators would welcome an increased demand for power. And green zealots in USA plan to force all coal and gas plants to bury all CO2 plant food that they generate. Consumers and taxpayers are the suckers.
Naturally the Greens love the idea of making coal and gas-fired electricity more expensive. They conveniently ignore the fact that CCUS is anti-life – it steals plant food from the biosphere.
Global Warming has never been a threat to life on Earth – Ice is the killer. Glencore directors supporting this CCUS stupidity should be condemned for destructive ignorance.
————-
Geologist Viv Forbes is the founder of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
Featured Video
US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The New Baghdad Pact
By Dr Bouthaina Shaaban | February 23, 2017
A recently declassified CIA document prepared in 1983, and released on 20 January 2017, shows that the United States had at the time encouraged Saddam Hussein to attack Syria, which would have led to a vicious conflict between the two countries, thus draining their resources.
The report, which was then prepared by CIA officer Graham Fuller, indicates that the US tried adamantly to convince Saddam to attack Syria under any pretense available, in order to get the two most powerful countries in the Arab East to destroy each other, turning their attention away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- The prospect of an expanded and far more violent war
- Canada’s Carney Revives Online Censorship Bill
- Israeli soldiers kill UNICEF truck drivers delivering water to Gaza families
- Iran defends limits on Strait of Hormuz passage
- ‘We warned you’: Hormuz Strait back to pervious state amid US blockade
- Iran rejects uranium transfer, warns of response to naval blockade
- US Middle East Policy: The Growing Propensity for Genocide
- Daniel Davis: Iran Reopens the Strait of Hormuz
- Trump taps military-grade flu pandemic architect to lead CDC amid simultaneous gain-of-function and vax development
- Israeli General: War with Iran does not serve Israel as global standing erodes over Gaza
- If Americans Knew
- Israel relegates another population to life in tents – Daily Update
- Senate again fails to block weapons to Israel
- Think the Iran war is a disaster? Blame these DC think tanks first.
- Number of Palestinian Prisoners Rises By 83% Since October 2023
- With multiple “ceasefires” in place, Israel keeps on killing in Gaza and Lebanon – Daily Update
- Mearsheimer: Israel Owns Trump
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- No Tricks Zone
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
Aletho News 