Last week, Congress finally got around to finalizing the 2011 budget, which included a record-breaking appropriation of $3 billion in military aid to Israel (not including an additional $415 million in Pentagon funding for joint U.S.-Israeli missile defense projects).This money was the third installment of a ten-year Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Israel to provide Israel with $30 billion in U.S. military aid from 2009-2018, an annual average increase of 25% over previous levels.
It is well-known that Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. military aid and that U.S. weapons provided to Israel make the United States intricately, deeply, and comprehensively complicit in Israel’s human rights abuses of Palestinians. However, until now, the extent of U.S. weapons transferred to Israel and the direct relationship between these weapons and Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians has been difficult to detail.
Not any longer. To coincide with Tax Day, the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation launched a new website: How Many Weapons to Israel? to catalogue and quantify the types, values, and quantities of U.S. weapons transferred to Israel between 2000-2009. Even for someone like myself who works everyday to challenge U.S. military aid to Israel and follows the issue closely, the results of our research are eye-popping. The sheer magnitude of weapons given to Israel is staggering; the devastation caused to Palestinians by these weapons is heart-breaking. Our research shows that during the past decade, the United States provided Israel with more than 670 million weapons and related equipment, valued at nearly $19 billion, through three major weapons transfer programs. In our database, we detail more than 500 different weapons categories, along with the value and quantity of each type of weapon transferred to Israel.
How Many Weapons to Israel? paints a disturbing picture of the extent to which the United States is saturating Israel with weapons. Take just one example: in the last three years alone, the United States has provided Israel with enough ammunition (47 million pieces) to kill every Palestinian in the Occupied Territories more than ten times over! What a truly frightening thought.
If Israel were using these weapons for their intended purpose under U.S. law, which is restricted to “legitimate self-defense” and “internal security,” then perhaps these weapons transfers would raise only fiscal concerns. However, How Many Weapons to Israel? also makes clear the moral and political implications of arming Israel.
From September 2000-December 2009, roughly the same period during which the United States transferred these weapons to Israel, the Israeli military killed at least 2,969 Palestinians who took no part in hostilities, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. How Many Weapons to Israel? demonstrates the direct correlation between Israel’s killing of Palestinian civilians and types of weapons provided to it by the United States. Returning to the example of ammunition, the database reveals that Israel killed 1,931 unarmed Palestinians, including 735 children, with small arms gunfire.
The US Campaign launched this website, as part of its ongoing organizing campaign to end U.S. military aid to Israel, to provide incontrovertible and irrefutable evidence that Israel is misusing U.S. weapons to commit grave human rights abuses against Palestinians in violation of U.S. and international law.
With easy-to-use slideshows and spreadsheets, the US Campaign intends for How Many Weapons to Israel?to be used by activists to raise awareness about the moral and political costs of arming Israel with our tax dollars.
This new website is designed as a complement to our sister website How Much Military Aid to Israel? which reveals the budgetary trade-offs involved in arming Israel. On that website, viewers can use our interactive map to find out how much money their city, county, Congressional district, and state provide in weapons to Israel, and which unmet social needs could be funded instead with this money.
Both websites are designed as interactive tools for activists to use in their communities to educate people about the financial, moral, and political costs of transferring weapons to Israel. Activists can also sign up to receive an organizing packet from the US Campaign to be a part of our ongoing campaign to end U.S. military aid to Israel.
And, after viewing these websites, if you are as outraged at this misuse of our taxes as I am, then you can join with me in “offsetting” the estimated $21.59 you just gave Uncle Sam for weapons to Israel this year by making a tax-deductible contribution to support the work of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.
~
Josh Ruebner is the National Advocacy Director of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, a national coalition of more than 350 organizations working to change U.S. policy toward Palestine/Israel to support human rights, international law, and equality. He is a former Analyst in Middle East Affairs at Congressional Research Service.
An Iraqi lawmaker has unveiled a secret US military initiative which he says is aimed at extending the presence of US troops in Iraq beyond December 2011.
Member of Iraqi Parliament’s Security & Defense Committee Qasim Mohammad Jalal said that the American officials have held secret meetings with Iraqi government authorities in an effort to pave the way for the US troops to stay past the deadline set in the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), IRIB reported on Wednesday.
The Iraqi politician pointed out that the US administration has mounted pressure on Iraqi officials in order to prolong its presence in the country.
The SOFA agreement signed between the United States and the Iraqi government mandates that Washington withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of December 2011.
During his latest visit to Baghdad, US Defense Secretary Roberts Gates also signaled Washington’s willingness to extend its military presence in Iraq beyond December 31, 2011.
“I think there is interest in having a continuing presence, but the politics are such that we’ll just have to wait and see because the initiative ultimately has to come from the Iraqis,” Gates added.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, however, rejected Gates’ offer, reiterating that he expects all American troops to leave his country by the end of the year.
Currently, over 47,000 US troops are stationed in Iraq.
An Israeli gunboat has entered the Lebanese territorial waters in a fresh violation of the country’s sovereignty, the Lebanese army says.
The army said in a statement that the gunboat entered illegally at 7:30 a.m. local time on Monday, a Press TV correspondent reported from Beirut.
The Israeli gunboat entered the Lebanese territorial waters on the coastline of the southern border town of Naqoura before returning, the statement said.
On Friday, six Israeli fighter jets violated Lebanon’s airspace and flew over the Shebaa Farms, Nabatieh, Marjayoun, Hasbaya and Kfar-Kila, said the Lebanese army.
Meanwhile, Israeli tanks made an incursion into the Lebanese territory on Thursday.
Two Israeli Merkava tanks infiltrated four meters across the Blue Line in the vicinity of al-Adeisseh before withdrawing.
Israel violates Lebanon’s sovereignty on an almost daily basis under the pretext that the infringements have surveillance purposes.
The Lebanese government, the Hezbollah resistance movement, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have repeatedly criticized Israel over its violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which brokered a ceasefire in the war of aggression Israel launched against Lebanon in 2006, calls on Israel to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy sent a message to the African Union in their jointly written April 14 op-ed: They’ll block any attempt to negotiate peace in Libya that doesn’t include Gaddafi’s ouster and the opening of Libya’s economy.
On April 14 US president Barak Obama, British prime minister David Cameron and French president Nicolas Sarkozy wrote an op-ed titled “Libya’s pathway to peace.” Appearing in the International Herald Tribune and two other newspapers, the op-ed set out US, British and French goals for Libya. One would be peace, but the pathway was to be Gaddafi’s exit, and his replacement by the Benghazi rebels.
While not presented as such, the op-ed was in fact a rejection of an African Union proposal for a negotiated settlement.
The AU had dispatched a delegation to Tripoli to meet with Gaddafi four days earlier, on April 10. The delegation proposed an immediate cease-fire, delivery of humanitarian aid, and negotiations between the Libyan government and the Benghazi rebels. Gaddafi accepted. But when the delegation arrived in Benghazi the next day, the rebels let it be known that the only peace they were interested in was one that saw Gaddafi, “his sons and his inner circle leave immediately.” (1)
US secretary of state Hilary Clinton quickly echoed the rebels’ position. Nothing could be resolved, she said, without “the departure of Gaddafi from power, and from Libya.” (2)
Peace was impossible in Libya without Gaddafi’s exit, the leaders insisted in their op-ed, because Gaddafi was the main threat to peace. It was “impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gaddafi in power” they wrote, and added that “so long as Gaddafi is in power, NATO must maintain its operations.” Their case was based on the fiction that the conflict in Libya isn’t a civil war between rebels in the east and loyalists in the west but between the state and the people, as was true in Tunisia and Egypt and is true in Bahrain and Yemen.
As for Gaddafi being an obstacle to peace, that was belied by his acceptance of the AU peace proposal. But the armed uprising has, from the beginning, had nothing to do with peace. It has always been about regime-change.
Gaddafi is wrongly fit by the three leaders, as well as by supporters of the Western military intervention, into the mold of Bahrain’s Khalifa regime, which has used armed force to violently suppress a popular peaceful revolt. The uprising in Libya was armed, not peaceful, and while it may be popular in the east among tribalists, royalists, and radical Islamists led by neo-liberals connected to the United States, it has little popular support elsewhere in the country.
Despite casting the Gaddafi government in the role of the Khalifa regime, the leaders make no reference to the latter, which remains largely invisible in discussions of the “Arab spring” and which provides the Pentagon with a headquarters for its Fifth Fleet and runs a low-tax, no minimum-wage, foreign investment-friendly economy. If the US, British and French leaders were truly interested in protecting civilians they would have long ago imposed a no-fly zone over Bahrain and ordered the Saudi monarchy, surely the most regressive force on the planet, to withdraw its troops from Bahrain. But what they’re really interested in achieving in Libya is what was long ago achieved in Bahrain: a neo-colonial puppet regime that opens its country to Western military bases and unconditional exploitation by foreign corporations and investors.
And so Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy used their op-ed to declare that there must be “a genuine transition” in Libya “led by a new generation of leaders” and that “in order for that transition to succeed, Gaddafi must go and go for good.” Significantly, the transition would usher in the new Western puppet. There are two indications of this.
The first is the nature of the rebel leadership. Its key members have important connections to the United States. Khalifa Heftir, a former Libyan Army colonel, has spent the last 25 years living seven miles from CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia with no obvious means of support. (3) Mahmoud Jibril “earned his PhD in 1985 from the University of Pittsburgh under the late Richard Cottam, a former US intelligence official in Iran who became a renowned political scientist specializing on the Middle East.” Jibril “spent years working with Gaddafi’s son Saif on political and economic reforms … (b)ut after hardliners in the regime stifled the reforms, Jibril quit in frustration and left Libya about a year ago.” (4) Jibril has been out of Libya since the uprising began, meeting with foreign leaders. (5) Then there is the rebel government’s finance minister, Ali Tarhouni, who has been in exile for the last 35 years. His latest job was teaching economics at the University of Washington.
The second indication is provided in the three leaders’ op-ed. Libya, they write, must “develop the institutions to underpin a prosperous and open society.” Revealingly, the three leaders tell Libyans what institutions they should develop. But what if Libyans don’t want an open society at this point in their development? What if they want what the United States, Britain and France have had through long parts of their history (and still do have): a society closed to outsiders in strategic areas?
While the institutions of an open society aren’t exclusively economic, an open society is understood to be one whose doors are open to unconditional integration into the global economy. This differs from the Gaddafi government’s strategic integration, based on linkages aimed at increasing real wages in Libya rather than maximizing returns to foreign investors. This isn’t to say that Libya hasn’t welcomed foreign investment where it makes sense for the development of the country, but it is likely that the open society Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy foresee for Libya, has little to do with what makes sense for Libya, and everything to do with what makes sense for US, British and French investors and corporations.
1. Kareem Fahim, “Truce plan for Libya is rejected by rebels”, The New York Times, April 11, 2011.
2. David E. Sanger, “Possible Libya stalemate puts stress on U.S. policy”, The New York Times, April 11, 2011.
3. “Professor: In Libya, a civil war, not uprising”, NPR, April 2, 2011. http://www.npr.org/2011/04/02/135072664/professor-in-libya-a-civil-war-not-uprising
4. Farah Stockman, “Libyan reformer new face of rebellion”, The Boston Globe, March 28, 2011.
5. Kareem Fahim, “Rebel leadership in Libya shows strain”, The New York Times, April 3, 2011.
The news and entertainment media love anniversaries. So it is strange that the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War has been so low key. The BBC has a regular item each evening explaining the Secession crisis, in contrast to the shrugs of the US channels. The New York Times has been the only publication to pay some attention but on April 12 it ran a piece by Ken Burns, co-director of the celebrated PBS series, pointing out that notwithstanding its centrality in the national story the conflict does not always receive the attention it merits. He compared this phenomenon to the ‘acoustic shadow’ noticed during the Civil War itself whereby towns quite close to a battlefield were bathed in silence while quite distant locations could distinctly hear the roar of the fusillades and the canon’s bark. PBS is airing a re-run of the Civil War programmes but extensive cuts have reduced the fascinating and acute commentaries of the featured historians.
Harold Meyerson has argued in the Washington Post (14/04/11) that the issues that sparked the mighty conflict continually re-appear in new forms. In the 1860s the roots of the clash lay in rival labor systems, with Northerners fearing the expansionist longings of the ‘Slave Power’. Today, Meyerson points out, the Republicans – the then champions of an expansive ‘free labor’ regime embracing public education and the right to organize, are now the sworn foes of public expenditure and trade union rights.
While this observation is on the mark it still does not explain why so many avoid the topic. Apparently – even a century and a half later – there is no commonly-agreed narrative of the meaning of the war. What can still be called Northern opinion insists that the war was about slavery and race, something that many Southerners will not accept. Those South Carolinians who observed the anniversary of their own state’s secession last December portrayed it as a brave blow for state’s rights and minimal government.
It is easy for Northerners to see the bad faith in Southern denials that the glorious cause was no more than a wretched defense of racial bondage. The most insistent secessionists were indeed the large slave-owners, and the Confederacy’s very belated recourse to the freeing of some slaves to form a Confederate regiment cannot alter the fact that the rebellion was animated by the desire to insulate slavery from the peril of a Republican president and the persisting contempt of so many Northerners. Slavery was a delicate institution that could not be subjected to the rough and tumble of party politics.
But if Northerners can spot the beam in the eyes of the Southerners they don’t notice the mote in their own. This is the more difficult to do because it requires simultaneous attention to two considerations. Firstly, in April 1861, and for many months thereafter, slavery remained entirely lawful in the Union. Secondly, so long as both sides remained attached to slavery, the Union case against secession would remain flawed at best. Modern liberal and democratic theory allows for a right of self-determination and each of the seceding states had agreed the fateful step only after the deliberation of a representative body as determined by the prevailing authorities. Of course the slaves themselves had no say in the matter, but neither did they at most places in the North.
Indeed in February 1861 the Congress had endorsed a Thirteenth Amendment – never subsequently ratified by the states and very different from the later one — which would have renounced any right or ability to challenge slavery and reserved to the slave states themselves the entire responsibility for regulating slavery. Lincoln gave his support. Many urged that the Constitution itself already entailed such a concession but it remained unfortunate nevertheless. Lincoln wished to re-assure loyal slaveholders that they had nothing to fear from his administration.
Until president and Congress could agree initiatives to suppress slavery they could not offer abolitionism as the justification for making war against the rebels. Of course the Union had the right to condemn and deplore Secession, and even to refuse to recognise it, and to devise peaceful ways of dissuading them. But Lincoln himself in his first speech to the House of Representatives had insisted in the most emphatic terms that all peoples have a right of revolution and that this extended to communities that were in a minority nationally so long at they had a local majority.
In fact nineteenth-century democrats generally supported national secessions where this received local support, as it did when Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in 1830 or Norway from Sweden in 1905. However Lincoln was to specify an exception to this rule in his speech in Peoria in 1854. In that speech he says that slaveholders cannot claim this right as against a free community. In the US case acquiescence in secession would have allowed the North and the West to become a large and progressive state, a sort of vast and diversified Canada, hospitable to free labor, social protection and gun control. The Confederacy meanwhile, would have become a republican version of the ramshackle Brazilian Empire, a major slave society that eventually managed to shed slavery in a largely peaceful manner.
So the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment had a bearing on the legitimacy of the war against the secession, clearly putting the Union in the right. The virtuous measures taken in 1863 and after lent a quite new purpose to the struggle, rescuing it from its deficiency deficit. Karl Marx went further, since he was confident that the slavery issue could not be kept out of the conflict and the North would be driven to attack slavery since it was the very basis of the Confederate regime.
The coming months and years are going to furnish a succession of thorny topics for the commemoration industry – dating from Reconstruction as well as the War – and it will be fascinating to see how they are navigated. The terrible destructiveness of the war and its very unsatisfactory ultimate outcome for African Americans are issues that will have to be addressed.
But however the later sequence of events is addressed it remains highly unsatisfactory to allow the war’s inception to be enveloped by the ‘acoustic shadow’. We live in a world where the US and other Western governments believe themselves entitled to resort to military intervention almost at will, though the more scrupulous crave the rubber stamp of the UN Security Council, notwithstanding that the stamp of approval is issued from a supine position.
In this context a willingness on the part of the United States to admit the possibility that the war was not the best response to Secession would be a healthy sign. (Recent books by Drew Gilpin Faust, — This Republic of Suffering — and Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club is encouraging auguries.) A willingness to grant this, even if combined with the severest stricture on slavery and Jim Crow, could help the US to find a post-imperial vocation and to defeat threats to free and thriving labor. It would also help to clarify how Washington would react to any future wish of a state to withdraw from the Union. If that wish was reached by clear majorities, after democratic debate, is it really conceivable that anyone would wish the matter to be settled by tanks and aerial bombardment.
The issues regarding depleted uranium (DU) and its toxicity have sometimes, in recent years, gone beyond the scope of science. The writer [1] has dealt with radiation protection for twenty years and depleted uranium since 1999. After an experience of publishing scientific papers in journals, conference proceedings and international conferences on DU, this article attempts to estimate the possible environmental and health impacts of the use of depleted uranium in the war of Libya (2011).
Reports of its use have appeared in the media since the beginning of the conflict[2]. In particular, Cruise missiles have been used since the first days, and we will show there is a strong suspicion that those missiles bring Depleted Uranium either as flight stabilizers in the wings, or as weight kinetic energy enhancer. In the last week of the conflict, A-10 airplanes were deployed, and those too are well known for using DU bullets.
The ICBUW (International Council for the Ban of Uranium Weapons) has thoroughly address the question [3]. Statements from US Air Force that A-10 airplanes are not using DU bullets will be taken as a starting hypothesis, however being very suspect since in all past conflicts (Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan) A-10 airplanes have widely used DU ammunition. Also other suspected weapons bearing DU, such as the AV-8B aircraft, are pointed out here, but disregarded in the following calculations and assessments, which largely focus on Cruise missiles.
Because of its unique physical characteristics, in particular the density that makes it extremely convenient as a mass enhancer (about 19 kg/l), but also the low cost (the production cost of DU is about $ 2 per kg) and the inconvenience to treat as radioactive waste, DU has found its way use in the military field.
If properly treated, the U-Ti alloy is a very effective material for the construction of kinetic energy penetrators, thick metal bullets that can pierce armours when fired against it at high speed.
The penetration process pulverizes most of the bullet, exploding into incandescent fragments of Uranium (violent combustion of almost 5000 ° C), when it hits the perforated armor, increasing the destructive effect. This property is called “pyrophoricity”, as for example, the characteristic of sulfur in matches. So in addition to the high density of DU, pyrophoricity too makes it a material of great interest for these applications, in particular as an incendiary weapon (API: Armour Piercing Incendiary).
Finally, during the impact on the objective, the relative hardness of the DU (alloyed with titanium) provides the projectile self-sharpening ability: in other words, the projectile does not “flatten” against the armour that must break through, forming a “head flat “- as for example a projectile of lead – but it retains its shape tapering to the complete fragmentation, without thereby losing the penetrating properties.
In battle, the DU has certainly been used in the Gulf War of 1991, during the bombings NATO / UN over the Serbian Republic of Bosnia in September 1995, against Yugoslavia in spring 1999; in this century, during the attack on Afghanistan and then further in Iraq in 2003.
The use of DU devices in wars in Somalia and Bosnia-central and central-eastern Europe (especially large areas around Sarajevo) in the 90s, in Palestine and shooting ranges the responsibility of NATO military forces, is still incompletely documented. [4]
Among weapons that use DU, we also include the Tomahawk Cruise missile, whose use during the Balkan war of spring 1999, although not recognized by NATO has been confirmed by findings on site and sources of the European Union. [5]
On the other hand, in the Decalogue delivered to all the soldiers sent to Kosovo in 1999, there were recommendations to be followed to the letter, stating the presence of depleted uranium on the territory and particularly in Cruise Tomahawk missiles. The introduction reads:
“The vehicles and materials of the Serbian army in Kosovo can be a threat to the health of soldiers and civilians who were exposed to them. The vehicles and equipment found destroyed, damaged or abandoned must be inspected and handled only by qualified personnel. The dangers arising from depleted uranium as a result of damage caused by NATO bombing campaign in relation to vehicles hit directly or indirectly. In addition, the collimators containing tritium and the instruments and indicators can be treated with radioactive paint, dangerous for those who had access to the means to inspect. “Here are tips on how to avoid exposure to depleted uranium. Textually: “Avoid any medium or material suspected of being hit by munitions containing depleted uranium or Tomahawk Cruise missiles. Do not pick or collect with DU munitions found on the ground. Tell your command immediately around the area that you feel contaminated. Wherever you are demarcated the area contaminated by any material found on site. If you are in an area contaminated, at least wear a mask and gloves. Ensure good personal hygiene. Frequently wash the body and clothes. ”
The evaluations on the amount of DU used in cruise missiles differ very much. In particular, they vary in different sources, including values around 3 kg, but to go up to about 400 kilograms. In the note[6] there is a compilation of different sources available on this aspect, very important for the estimation of environmental impact.
The predictable official denial statements about the presence of uranium in these missiles collide with the above publications, as well as sources of military origin[7]
This large variability in the data can be easily explained. Some Cruise missiles are with their head weighted with depleted uranium, some are not. Even those other ones, however, even if they do not have a depleted uranium warhead, they bring it in the wings, as a stabilizer in flight.
Then we can define two cases,
WORST CASE: Cruise with uranium in the head. Assume 400 kilos of DU.
BEST CASE: Cruise without uranium in the head. Take 3 kilos of DU in the wings.
Calculation of environmental impact and health effects
In the large literature on depleted uranium by the author[8], the problem was already dealt with: a calculation of radioactive contamination from uranium due to cruise missiles, particularly those launched on Bosnia in 1995, was already performed. The study can also be found on the Internet, as well as the scientific journal “Tribuna Biologica e Medica” (Biological and Medical Forum).[9], [10].
Returning to the models used in the article mentioned above, one can deduce which is the mechanism of contamination, at the point of exposure and inhalation, with a calculation designed to determine only if – at least in a realistic case – the relevance of the doses does not allow to neglect the problem.
We consider the impact of a Tomahawk cruise missile that brings 3 kg (best case), or 400 kg (worst case) of DU.
The impact produces a cloud of debris of various sizes, after violent combustion at about 5000 ° C. The dust is, as mentioned, is composed of particle sizes in the range [0.5 – 5] micron. Between 500 and 1000 meters from the impact one can breathe clouds with a density sufficient to cause significant doses, consisting of particles having a mass of about 0.6 to about 5 nanograms. An estimate was made using the GENII[11] code for dose and dispersion calculations. We chose to neglect the effects of fire, considering only the inhalation exposure due to the simple release of the material, not considering some factors that could cause further increase the exposure.
Critical group, in this case, it is precisely those people “invested” by the cloud of dust after explosion.
After the missile hits the target, dust can ignite and disperse and be oxidized into the environment, according to the estimates that will be done in this work.
About 70% of DU, contained in the missile which is supposed to always hit the target, being an “intelligent weapon”, burns. Of this, about 50% are soluble oxides.
The size distribution of the constituent particles of DU oxide dust belongs entirely to the small-size, breathable, and ultra-fine dust. In particular, the diameter of the particles in this case is finer than the dust of uranium usually encountered in the preparation of nuclear fuel within the nuclear industry. It deals practically with dust included in the range [1-10] micron, with a significant proportion of particles with a diameter less than one micron.
As for the behaviour of DU dust in the human body, the main route of contamination is – as noted – inhalation. As mentioned, part of the dusts are soluble and some insoluble into body fluids.
Given the characteristics of DU oxides of military origin, it should be noted that they have different behaviour with respect to industrial dust of uranium. You can, however, still assume, according to ICRP[12], that about 60% of the inhaled dust is deposited in the respiratory system, the rest is re-exhaled.
It can be assumed that about 25% of the particles around 1 micron in diameter are retained for a long period in the lungs, while the rest is deposited in the upper breathing apparatus, then it passes into the digestive system and hence is eliminated, while small parts go to accumulate in the bones.
About 25% of micro-particles is held in the lungs, about half the material behaves like a class M according to ICRP, which is slowly soluble in body fluids, while the rest is insoluble.
This type of behaviour and exposure has not been studied in any previous situation of exposure to alpha emitters in the lungs, found in the civil applications. The way of exposure is very different from those under which equivalences-dose radiation damage were derived
It is therefore not entirely correct – though it is a starting reference point – to use here the ICRP risk assessments, which were derived from the radioactive dust data and the exposure of miners of uranium mines, nor of course is it correct to use the correlations derived from the epidemiological studies on the highly-irradiated Hiroshima and Nagasaki population. ICRP radiation protection standards are based on these experiences, and therefore may underestimate the risk in this case.
Moving on to another type of toxicity than the one due to ionizing radiation, is also plausible that:
– Given the component of fine and ultra-fine dust of DU for military origin,
– Given the well-known chemical toxicity of uranium,
environmental contamination by DU oxidized dusts of military origin has both chemical and radiological toxicity: it must be evaluated the synergistic effect of these two components.
In other words, radioactivity and chemical toxicity of DU could act together to create a “cocktail” effect which further increases the risk.
We must also put emphasis on the fact that the arid climate of Libya favours the dispersion in the air of particles of depleted uranium, which can be inhaled by civilians for years after the explosion. That is not the case, for instance, of the Balkans. The main mechanism of exposure at the long-term concerns the re-suspension of dust and consequent inhalation.
The methodology and assumptions for this model have already been published in other works to which the author refers[13]. We will mention here only the refinements and changes with respect to the model applied and already published, and in particular:
– The calculation of the dose commitment of 70 years and not more than 50 years, as recommended by ICRP.
– The available data are used to approximate population distribution around the points of impact, which also considers the use of the main DU weapons in relatively populated areas of Lybia.
The model results can be summarized as follows:
– CEDE (collective effective dose equivalent): 370 mSvp in 70 y, for 1 kg of DU oxidized and released into the environment.
– CEDE annual maximum in the first year (76 mSvp), followed by the second year (47 mSvp) and third (33 mSvp).
– The entire route of exposure is by inhalation of dust. The target organ is the lung (97.5% contribution to CEDE).
– Among the most responsible nuclides, 83% of the CEDE is U238, and 14% by U234.
As for the total amount of oxidized DU in the environment, we start from the data for this assessment by the international press: in the first day of the war, about 112 cruise missiles impacted on Libyan soil[14]. How many missiles will be fired before the end of the war? That is unknown, however we will do an assessment considering about 1,000 missiles fired, and in any case the values are linearly variable with the actual amount of fired missiles, by means of a simple proportion.
Given the length of the military operations, the wide variety of suspect DU-bearing weapons, we consider this statement to be on the safe side.
If all the missiles were “without” DU, it would still have a quantity of:
1000 * 3 = 3000 kilos = 3 tons of DU (best case)
If all the missiles were using DU we have an amount up to:
400,000 kilos = 400 tons of DU.
Compare these data with the 10-15 tons of DU fired in Kosovo in 1999 to assess their seriousness.
Assume that about 70% of DU burns and it is released into the environment, thus arriving at an estimate of the amount of DU dispersed oxides of about 2.1 tonnes (best case) and 280 tonnes (worst case).
This therefore allows to estimate a CEDE (collective dose) for the entire population of:
· Best case: 370 mSvp / kg * 2100 kg = 780 Svp
· Worst case: 370 mSvp / kg * 280,000 kg = 104,000 Svp
We state once again that it is not entirely correct – though it is a starting point of reference – to extrapolate the risk assessments for exposure to this type of micro-radioactive dust from the ICRP radiation protection standards, which are those adopted by the GEN II code.
However, if we apply here the coefficient of 6% Sv-1 for the risk of cancer, we get about
· Best case: about 50 cases of cancer, to be found in 70 years.
· Worst case: about 6200 cases of cancer, to be found in 70 years.
Conclusions
The risks from exposure to depleted uranium of the population of Libya due to the use of this material in the War of 2011 were evaluated with an approach as broad as possible, trying to take into account some recent results of studies in the field.
This type of exposure has not been studied in any previous situation of exposure to alpha emitters in the lungs, found in the civil applications.
However, the assessment made of the doses and the consequent risks to both situations (Cruise “without uranium” or “uranium”) allows us to draw some conclusions.
In the first case (best case), the expected number of cancers is very small and absolutely not relevant from the statistical point of view. This statistical difficulty – as is just obvious point out – has nothing to do with the acceptation of this practice, its moral acceptance, or even less with an allegation of a minor impact or even a safety of this practice.
In the second case (worst case), however, we are faced with a number of tumours of some thousands. Such an amount could easily be detected in epidemiological studies and such a number of casualties is, no doubt about that, quite a concern.
It should be useful, therefore, that the armies that are bombing Libya clarify with evidence, and not simple assertions of convenience, the presence or absence, and in what quantities, of uranium in their missiles and other weapons.
In the past, there were “official” denials of the presence of uranium in Cruise missiles, but they were coming from the military area: the author allows, at least, some caution in their flat acceptance.
Based on available data, estimates on the trend of cancer cases in the coming years in Libya as a result of this practice are absolutely unjustified and constitute a concern. The discussion about the relative impact of each of the carcinogenic substances used in a war (chemical, radioactive, etc.), seems – at a certain level – of little significance. Also, the author puts this as a final reflection, such a discussion shows little respect for the fact that the civilian casualties in Libya that will be caused by this attack will exceed by far any amount that may be defined as “a fair price to pay.”
Finally, it is important to collect data and research – and there are many – in the field of the effects of “new wars” on population and environment. We must show how modern weapons, not at all surgical and intelligent, produce unacceptable damage to population that have been subjected to the “humanitarian” wars since 1991.
Massimo Zucchetti is Professor at the Department of Energy at the Torino Polytechnic
NOTES
This paper has been originally published in Italian in many online journals and site, among which:
[1] Professor of “Nuclear Power Plants” c/o Politecnico di Torino, Italy. Chair of “Safety and Risk Analysis” and “Radiation protection”. zucchetti@polito.it
[3] Air Force Spokeswoman claims that A-10s were not loaded with DU ammunition, but does not rule out future use in the conflict. 4 April 2011. A US Airforce Spokeswoman has told a Scottish journalist that, as of 2nd April, A-10s fighting in Libya have not been firing DU ammunition. However, she refused to give any assurances about the future use of DU, stating that she didn’t want “to speculate on what may or may not be used in the future”. ICBUW calls for the US to give a categorical assurance, similar to that given by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, that weapons containing DU have no place in this conflict. A clear statement, covering both A-10 and AV-8B aircraft should be issued at the earliest opportunity. If the US has taken a strategic decision not to equip US planes with DU ammunition in this conflict, that is a progressive step. However, in the absence of a public declaration that such a decision has been taken, concerns will remain that the door has been left open for the future use of DU in Libya. ICBUW calls for the US to take steps in a clear and transparent manner to assure the world that no US aircraft will go into the air equipped with DU ammunition, and that pilots will not be cleared to fire it. Any DU ammunition currently in theatre should be separated and left unused. As ICBUW has long maintained, DU has no place in conventional munitions. The current position of the US affirms that position: if US planes have been able to use alternatives, there is no reason why alternatives should not be found for all ammunition containing DU. We call for all current user states to remove these weapons from their arsenals. An urgent step to protect civilians in areas where DU weapons have already been used, is for user states to share targeting data with the authorities in affected states – a move endorsed by 148 states in the UN General Assembly last December, and opposed by only four, including the US, France and UK.
[4] Zajic V.S., 1999. Review of radioactivity, military use and health effects of DU: http://members.tripod.com/vzajic; Liolos Th. E.(1999) , Assessing the risk from the Depleted Uranium Weapons used in Operation Allied Forces, Science and Global Security, Volume 8:2, pp.162 (1999); Bukowski, G., Lopez, D.A. and McGehee, F.M., (1993) “Uranium Battlefields Home and Abroad: Depleted Uranium Use by the U.S. Department of Defense” March 1993, pp.166, published by Citizen Alert and Rural Alliance for Military Accountability.
[5] Letter of Satu Hassi, Minister of the Environment of Finland, to all Ministers of Environment in Europe, stating that the majority of the 1500 missiles shot on Serbia in 1995 had depleted uranium, about 3 kilos each.
Zajic, Vladimir S. “Review of Radioactivity, Military Use, and Health Effects of Depleted Uranium” [1 August, 1999]. 2/27/2002. http://vzajic.tripod.com
[7] While the US Navy claims that they have replaced the MK149-2 Phalanx round with a DU penetrator by the MK149-4 Phalanx round with a tungsten penetrator (with the DU round remaining in the inventory), new types of DU ammunition are being developed for other weapons systems, such as the M919 rounds for Bradley fighting vehicles. Depleted uranium is also placed into the tips of the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM) during test flights to provide weight and stability. The TLAM missile has a range of 680 nautical miles (1,260 km) and is able to carry a conventional warhead of 1000 lb. (454 kg). Older warheads were steel encased. In order to increase the missile range to 1,000 nautical miles (1,850 km), the latest Tomahawk cruise missiles carry a lighter 700 lb. (318 kg) warhead WDU-36 developed in 1993, which is encased in titanium with a depleted uranium tip.
[8] M.Zucchetti, ‘Measurements of Radioactive Contamination in Kosovo Battlefields due to the use of Depleted Uranium Weapons By Nato Forces”, Proc. 20th Conf. of the Nuclear Societies in Israel, Dead Sea (Israel), Dec. 1999, p.282.
M.Cristaldi, A.Di Fazio, C.Pona, A.Tarozzi, M.Zucchetti “Uranio impoverito (DU). Il suo uso nei Balcani, le sue conseguenze sul territorio e la popolazione”, Giano, n.36 (sett-dic. 2000), pp. 11-31.
M.Zucchetti, ‘Caratterizzazione dell’Uranio impoverito e pericolosità per inalazione’, Giano, n.36 (sett-dic. 2000), pp. 33-44.
M.Cristaldi P.Angeloni, F.Degrassi, F.Iannuzzelli, A.Martocchia, L.Nencini, C.Pona, S.Salerno, M.Zucchetti. Conseguenze ambientali ed effetti patogeni dell’uso di Uranio Impoverito nei dispositivi bellici. Tribuna Biologica e Medica, 9 (1-2), Gennaio-Giugno 2001: 29-41.
M. Zucchetti, “Military Use of Depleted Uranium: a Model for Assessment of Atmospheric Pollution and Health Effects in the Balkans”, 11th International Symposium on “Environmental Pollution And Its Impact On Life In The Mediterranean Region”, MESAEP, Lymassol, Cyprus, October 2001, p.25.
M. Zucchetti “Some Facts On Depleted Uranium (DU), Its Use In The Balkans And Its Effects On The Health Of Soldiers And Civilian Population”, Proc. Int. Conf. NURT2001, L’Avana (Cuba), oct. 2001, p.31.
M. Zucchetti, M. Azzati “Environmental Pollution and Population Health Effects in the Quirra Area, Sardinia Island (Italy)”, 12th International Symposium on Environmental Pollution and its Impact on Life in the Mediterranean Region, Antalya (Turkey), October 2003, p. 190, ISBN 975-288-621-3.
M.Zucchetti, R. Chiarelli ‘Environmental Diffusion of DU. Application of Models and Codes for Assessment of Atmospheric Pollution and Health Effects’, Convegno ‘Uranio Impoverito. Stato delle Conoscenze e Prospettive di Ricerca’, Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Roma) Ottobre 2004.
R. Chiarelli, M.Zucchetti, ‘Effetti sanitari dell’uranio impoverito in Iraq’, Convegno ‘La Prevenzione Primaria dei Tumori di Origine Professionale ed Ambientale’, Genova, Novembre 2004. Poster reperibile al sito: http://registri.istge.it/italiano/eventi/poster%20n°25.htm
R. Chiarelli, M.Zucchetti, ‘Applicazione di modelli e codici di dose alla popolazione alla dispersione ambientale di Uranio impoverito’, Convegno ‘La Prevenzione Primaria dei Tumori di Origine Professionale ed Ambientale’, Genova, Novembre 2004. Poster reperibile al sito: http://registri.istge.it/italiano/eventi/poster%20n°26.htm
M. Zucchetti, “Environmental Pollution and Population Health Effects in the Quirra Area, Sardinia Island (Italy) and the Depleted Uranium Case”, J. Env. Prot. And Ecology 1, 7 (2006) 82-92.
M. Zucchetti, “Scenari di esposizione futura In Iraq: convivere con l’uranio impoverito” in: M.Zucchetti (a cura di) “Il male invisibile sempre più visibile”, Odradek, Roma, giugno 2005, pp. 81-98.
M. Zucchetti, “Uranio impoverito. Con elementi di radioprotezione ed utilizzo delle radiazioni ionizzanti”, CLUT, Torino, febbraio 2006. ISBN 88-7992-225-4.
M.Zucchetti “Depleted Uranium”, European Parliament, GiethoornTen Brink bv, Meppel (Holland), 2009. ISBN 978-90-9024147-0
[10] Cristaldi M. et al., Conseguenze ambientali ed effetti patogeni dell’uso di Uranio Impoverito nei dispositivi bellici. Tribuna Biologica e Medica, 9 (1-2), Gennaio-Giugno 2001: 29-41.
[11] It is a dispersion and dose code, developed in the USA and used worldwide: B.A.Napier et al. (1990), GENII – The Hanford Environmental Radiation Dosimetry Software System, PNL-6584, Pacific Northwest Laboratories (USA)..
[12] ICRP, 1995. Age-dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 3 – Ingestion Dose Coefficients. Publication 69 Annals of the ICRP. 25 (no 1).
[13] M.Zucchetti, ‘Caratterizzazione dell’Uranio impoverito e pericolosità per inalazione’, Giano, n.36 (sett-dic. 2000), pp. 33-44; R.Chiarelli, M.Zucchetti, ‘Applicazione di modelli e codici di dose alla popolazione alla dispersione ambientale di Uranio impoverito’, Convegno ‘La Prevenzione Primaria dei Tumori di Origine Professionale ed Ambientale’, Genova, Nov.2004. http://registri.istge.it/italiano/eventi/poster%20n°26.htm
The world’s military spending has increased to a record high of $1.6 trillion in 2010, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says.
The Swedish think-tank said on Monday that the global military spending rose 1.3 percent in 2010, indicating that budget constraints caused by the worldwide financial crisis has slowed the growth of military investment, Reuters reported.
The institute also announced that the top three arms investors are the US, China and Britain, underlining that South America was the region with the largest military spending growth of 5.8 percent.
The Unites States, with extravagant military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, increased the arms investment by 2.8 percent to $698 billion — about six times as much as China which is the world’s second-biggest spender followed by Britain, France and Russia.
The head of the institute’s military expenditure project, Sam Perlo-Freeman, said, “The United States has increased its military spending by 81 percent since 2001… At 4.8 percent of gross domestic product, US military spending in 2010 represents the largest economic burden outside the Middle East.”
China also increased its military expenditures by 3.8 percent in 2010 to $119 billion.
SIPRI said its figures include salaries, costs for operations, purchases of arms and equipment as well as research and development.
“As long as the $1.2-trillion annual budget for the military-security complex is off limits (to cutting), nothing can be done about the US budget deficit except to renege on obligations to the elderly, confiscate private assets or print enough money to inflate away all debts,” Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Secretary under President Reagan warns.
In an article titled “Stealing from Social Security to Pay for Wars and Bailouts,” published in the April issue of the “Rock Creek Free Press” of Washington, D.C., Roberts says that Republicans are calling Social Security and Medicare “entitlements”—making them sound like welfare—when, in fact, workers over their lifetimes have contributed 15 percent of all their earnings to the payroll tax that funds these benefits and have every right to them.
And far from Social Security being in the red, between 1984 and 2009, Roberts writes, “the American people contributed $2-trillion…more to Social Security and Medicare in payroll taxes than was paid out in benefits” but “the government stole” that sum to fund wars and pork-barrel projects!
What’s more, under one realistic estimate, far from crashing into the red, “Social Security(OASDI) will have produced surplus revenues of $31.6-trillion by 2085, Roberts says.
Americans, apparently, are unaware of how the federal government’s illegal, foreign wars sap the economy and rob every household. The Iraq war cost alone is 20 percent of the size of last year’s entire U.S. economy. Instead of investing that sum at home, “which would have produced income and jobs growth and solvency for state and local governments, the US government wasted the equivalent of 20% of the economy in 2010 in blowing up infrastructure and people in foreign lands,” Roberts says.
“The US government spent a huge sum of money committing war crimes, while millions of Americans were thrown out of their jobs and foreclosed out of their homes,” he added. Viewed another way, the Pentagon continues to expand and put people to work to modernize its 700-800 bases abroad in order to dominate every corner of the globe while public works and public employment in America are going into the toilet.
“When short-term and long-term discouraged workers are added …the US has an unemployment rate of 22%,” Robert says. A country with that large a percentage out of work “has a shrunken tax base and feeble consumer purchasing power.”
The U.S. media, he claims, is only reporting one-third of the real cost of the wars, leaving out the sums needed for “lifelong care for the wounded and maimed, the cost of lifelong military pensions of those who fought in the wars, the replacement costs of the destroyed equipment, the opportunity cost of the resources wasted in war, and other costs.”
President Obama’s budget, if passed, doesn’t reduce the deficit over the next 10 years by enough to cover the projected deficit in the fiscal year 2012 budget alone, the financial authority writes. “Indeed, the deficits are likely to be substantially larger than forecast,” as the military-industrial complex “is more powerful than ever and shows no inclination to halt the wars for US hegemony,” Roberts says.
#
Sherwood Ross heads a public relations firm “for good causes” and also runs the Anti-War News Service. Reach him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com
Despite the fact that the Palestinian factions, including the Hamas movement, in Gaza declared a ceasefire with Israel starting Thursday midnight, the Israeli army bombarded several areas, and carried out a number of aerial attacks in Gaza.
The decision was made following talks between different Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, and talks held by the Hamas-led government in Gaza with a number of Arab and international parties.
The ministry of interior in Gaza said that the decision was made to curb any future Israeli assaults against Gaza.
The Israeli strikes had resumed on Thursday afternoon after a Palestinian shell hit a bus in southern Israel seriously wounding one student.
The al-Qassam Brigades of Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack and stated that it came in retaliation to the assassination of three Qassam leaders identified as Ismail Lubbad, Abdullah Lubbad, and Mohammad al-Dahya.
The three were killed in an Israeli Air Strike in Khan Younis in the southern part of the Gaza Strip.
On Thursday, the Israeli army killed three Palestinians in Gaza and wounded more than 40 others, including children.
Nabil Abu Rodeina, spokesperson of President Mahmoud Abbas, said that the escalation against Gaza is unjustified and that Abbas contacted several world leaders urging them to intervene.
Interview with Ali al-Ahmed, director of Institute of Gulf Affairs in Washington.
Al-Qaeda in Yemen has not been held responsible for the death of even one American for the past five years, yet the US continues to play the al-Qaeda card and provide the country’s regime with military aid.
In an interview with Press TV, Ali al-Ahmed, director of Intitute (Persian) Gulf Affairs (IGA) in Washington, shares his views on US military aid to Yemen, the exaggerated al-Qaeda connection, and optimal outcomes. The following is a transcript of the interview.
Press TV:What is your reaction toward the Pentagon state secretary saying there is no decision yet in stopping military aid to Yemen and of the US assertion that US weapons are not being used against demonstrators?
They have been used; it is not honest to say that they have not. We know that (there are) special units the US and CIA have been training; perhaps they have not directly taken part in the shooting and killing of demonstrators personally. However, they have displaced other forces, meaning that they freed other forces to do that. There is a direct link between US aid to Yemen and the killings of hundreds of demonstrators.
Press TV:Yemen is a very divided society as you and other analysts have mentioned previously; however, a lot of Yemenis have united for this revolution. Was the US essentially pressed in a corner — not having a choice, but to continue to provide military aid to Yemen?
No I don’t believe that. Saleh is sustaining al-Qaeda to use it as a bargaining chip with Saudi Arabia and the US. Once Saleh is outside of the palace, al-Qaeda’s threats will diminish greatly and the US knows this very well; however, they have not called on Abdullah Saleh to resign until recently, for which they want a transfer of power.
Focusing on supporting the people is going to be the best way for the US to diminish the threat of al-Qaeda – supporting these demonstrators. And instead of sending weapons they should send humanitarian aid. They should allow the people to govern their own country in reflection of what the people want, which is not dictatorship. That is the best tool to fight terrorism.
Press TV:What about US negotiations with the opposition?- There is a story that Riyadh may be getting involved in hosting negotiations of some sort. Do you see potential for success through these negotiations? Or is it simply too late for Saleh?
I think it is too late for Saleh to be part of any future plans for Yemen. I am worried and wary of any Saudi role in Yemen because so far, history has proven that Saudi Arabia’s role in Yemen has been a negative one. They have supported violence and bombed the country as everybody knows. So they are not a neutral player here. I think other countries, like Egypt, Syria — or Qatar even — would be a better choice.
It is a question that I’ve always asked – the US has been able to bring in coalitions to wage wars and they have not worked to building any coalition to mediate peace between Arab countries with Arab and Muslim majority populations. And that is disturbing.
The US could get a lot accomplished in terms of winning hearts and minds by becoming the peacemaker in Yemen and the other countries in the region. Instead of sending weapons, they could be sending in a delegation with authority, who would mediate between the enemies in the role of a broker just like they did when they mediated the treaty between Egypt and Israel, which was led by Jimmy Carter. Why not mediate between the enemies so that we can have a government that is responsible for the wishes of its people (and) not to the whim of a dictator and his family?
Press TV:Why are the US and a coalition involved now in Libya, but not in Yemen? All this talk about the al-Qaeda bogeyman in Yemen; certainly the al-Qaeda factor is considered highly important to the US, isn’t it?
Well, there is a threat of al-Qaeda in Yemen, but I think it has been exaggerated tremendously and so far, al-Qaeda in Yemen has not been able to kill a single American in the past five years so we are not really talking about something that is of catastrophic importance.
In Yemen we don’t need to have war. What you need is to apply political pressure on Yemeni parties to come and speak to each other to collaborate in building a government that is modern and responsible to its citizens. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do that and it would definitely be cheaper than dropping bombs on people like what happened last year in Yemen or what is happening now in Libya.
So there is a cheaper alternative with a much more positive outcome for the US. Rather than flying military jets, the US could be flying in peace envoys to bring the parties together and Yemenis would be shy and embarrassed by the fact that there is an American trying to get them to talk to each other to make peace for them. This is a far better position for the US.
Press TV: You speak of peace envoys being a better choice for the US in Yemen…
It revolves around a Saudi connection. John Brennan in the White House is the American architect of US foreign policy in Yemen and was the former CIA chief in Saudi Arabia so he is influenced by the desires of the Saudi monarchy. He is why we see the Yemen situation getting worse; an American official designing US policy heavily tied to Saudi wishes. His policy is solely been to support Abdullah Saleh and that’s all – he should be removed.
The solution is to talk to every party and they are not weak. In fact, Saleh is one of the weaker players. US policy right now is a failure.
Part One, The Record, treats the history of garlic as evidence. From the clay garlic bulb placed in an Egyptian grave nearly six thousand years ago, through the Ebers Papyrus, through Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Pliny and Galen, the Arab physicians under Avicenna, the medieval herbals, Culpeper, and the plague years, to the last era in which Western physicians prescribed garlic as a matter of course, which ran from 1850 to 1945. It closes with the living traditions that never stopped using it, and with the folklore of charms, vampires and the evil eye.
Part Two, The Chemistry and the Evidence, sets out what is known about why a clove has no smell until it is cut, and why the order of crush, rest and heat changes the medicine. It then reads the clinical evidence against the historical record — bacteria, blood and vessels, cancer epidemiology, metals and fatigue — and names the trials that went against garlic as directly as the trials that went for it, including the 2007 Stanford trial funded by the US National Institutes of Health which found that raw garlic, garlic powder and aged garlic extract moved LDL cholesterol no more than placebo did. It then turns to onion, garlic’s closest relative, and reads the newer evidence published since 2015, before closing with the whole of the record through the terrain lens.
Part Three, Why Medicine Set It Aside, asks the question directly. One chapter contrasts the pharmaceutical model of isolating a single active compound with the folk model of combining whole plants, and reports what the garlic evidence says about which model works better. One chapter examines the economics of research on a plant that cannot be patented. One chapter — Fire Cider — tells the story of a folk preparation whose name was taken into a United States trademark by a Massachusetts company in 2012, and won back by three herbalists in 2014 who documented forty years of prior use through Rosemary Gladstar and her students into the older tradition.
Part Four, Garlic in Practice, is the working manual — the kitchen pharmacy, traditional uses by body system, a full chapter on safety and interactions, and a complaint-by-complaint practical guide. The book closes with The Trial That Was Never Run — a one-chapter reading of the whole evidential architecture.
At the back: two appendices (a traditional list of uses, and a preparation quick-reference), a full bibliography, and a live index.
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Part One, The Record, treats the history of garlic as evidence. From the clay garlic bulb placed in an Egyptian grave nearly six thousand years ago, through the Ebers Papyrus, through Hippocrates, Dioscorides, Pliny and Galen, the Arab physicians under Avicenna, the medieval herbals, Culpeper, and the plague years, to the last era in which Western physicians prescribed garlic as a matter of course, which ran from 1850 to 1945. It closes with the living traditions that never stopped using it, and with the folklore of charms, vampires and the evil eye.
Aletho News
