Paul Brodeur: historian and crusader - crusader-investigative reporter-historian who specializes in chronicling risk of microwave radiation

Nutrition Health Review, Spring, 1993

When the tragedy of man-made nuclear radiation is finally rectified, one of the heroes of the war will be crusader-investigate reporter-historian Paul Brodeur. His monumental works exposing and chronicling the deadly risk of microwave radiation and subsequent scandalous coverups ensure him a place in the Hall of Twentieth Century Fame.

Brodeur is no newcomer to battling to preserve the environment and human health. In 1968, he alerted the nation to the massive public health hazard posed by asbestos and has written four books on the subject. His pioneering articles on the destruction of the ozone layer by man-made chemicals won an award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"Microwave radiation can blind you, alter your behavior, cause genetic damage, even kill you," he warned the world several decades ago. Although the war against an elusive foe would vanquish a lesser spirit, Brodeur continues to say: "The risks have been hidden from you by the Pentagon, the State Department, and the electronics industry."

In "The Zapping of America" (W.W. Norton Company) he defines the enemy: Nature has not prepared us for this invisible assault. Radar technicians and electronics workers exposed to microwaves are developing cataracts, blood disorders, and cardiovascular problems. Animal fetuses irradiated with microwaves develop birth defects. Microwaves may cause human genetic damage, possibly altering behavior, and causing dizziness, headaches, irritability, loss of judgment, and other disorders of the central nervous system.

In his later book, "Currents of Death," the author updates the crisis (with little regulatory progress twelve years later). Although millions of people are now aware of the real dangers posed by radiation, the electric power industry, the military, and much of the electronics industry are continuing their maneuvers to avoid radical changes. "Minimize the impact of scientific facts," is the key to their evasive tactics.

"Calamity on Meadow Street," a masterful documentary, depicts the tragedy of living close to a power station. Brodeur presents case histories of a multitude of families who coincidentally suffered through destructive and fatal variations of cancer. Published in The New Yorker magazine (7-9-90), the Brodeur investigation has not lost its prophetic litany of horrors to come. More than ever, illnesses in various disguises show up in neighborhood clusters -- by coincidence where power stations are inadequately maintained. Too many power companies still do not modify the high levels of radiation emanating from their equipment.

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0876/is_n66/ai_14192453/pg_1

Pepsi admits Aquafina comes from tap water

by Mike Adams

It's a great marketing gimmick: A bottle of water with a clean, blue label showing images of snow-capped mountains and the claim, "Pure water, perfect taste." That's the image created by Pepsico's Aquafina brand of water, and many consumers leap to the incorrect conclusion that Aquafina is sourced from mountain spring water.

In reality, Aquafina comes from tap water. Yes, the same water you get when you turn on your kitchen faucet. Of course, Aquafina is filtered, purified and perhaps even enhanced with trace amounts of added minerals, but it's certainly not mountain spring water. It's just processed tap water -- the same stuff that fills your toilet bowl when you flush.

Both the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and the FDA believe there's really no need to require bottled water manufacturers to admit their products come from tap water. No surprise there -- both these organizations routinely act to protect the interests of powerful corporations, and when it comes to bottled water, the biggest companies are often those sourcing the lowest quality water (such as tap water).

This idea that consumers should not be informed their high-priced bottled water is really just filtered tap water is consistent with the aims of food, drug and beverage corporations, who almost universally agree that consumers should be given less information, not more, about the products they're swallowing. Over the last several decades, corporations have vigorously opposed truth in labeling laws and regulations, including those requiring the labeling of trans fatty acids, sodium content and even ingredients lists! (If the food corporations had their way, all ingredients would be considered "proprietary formulas" and not listed on the label at all.)

This bottled water issue brings to light the apparent deceptive practices of some of the largest suppliers of bottled water products. By avoiding the honest labeling of the source of their water while relying on snow-capped mountain imagery, these companies quietly mislead consumers into thinking their water products are from a pristine, natural source such as a mountain spring.

More: http://www.newstarget.com/z021962.html

The American Cancer Society is misleading the public
http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/american_cancer_society.htm

--------
Re: The American Cancer Society is misleading the public

An important contextual point to the recent story in the Washington Post about this American Cancer Society paper linked below is the back story to it. Without this context, the true story behind the American Cancer Society's vested interests can not be seen.

In 2002, shortly before this American Cancer Society study was launched, a high-ranking official from the American Cancer Society was a witnesses for the mobile phone industry in a highly visible legal proceeding in Baltimore, Maryland. The proceeding, a Daubert hearing to evaluate scientific evidence regarding the link between cell phones and cancer, was part of the lawsuit brought by Baltimore, Maryland neurosurgeon Dr. Christopher Newman. The testimony of the American Cancer Society scientist was used to unfairly and visciously discredit Dr. Neil Cherry and Dr. Henry Lai, two important witnesses for Dr. Newman. At the time, this was a critical legal proceeding for the mobile phone industry and the focal point of millions of dollars of legal fees paid on their behalf to 'keep the lid on' the cell phone cancer issue. This American Cancer Society study was launched shortly after the testiimony. It is noteworthy that the disclosures in the published paper do not show funding for the study coming from the industry. I personally believe as do others, that the industry made substantial contributions to the American Cancer Society to secure their testimony in the litigation. In a litigation proceeding, the industry would make sure to not pay the American Cancer Society staff person directly, so a payment 'under the table' had to be arranged. There would be no other reason for the American Cancer Society official to participate in the litigation: the American Cancer Society up to that point had not even looked into the cell phone cancer issue; they had done no work on it whatsoever. I know this from sources within the American Cancer Society.

The industry has systematically laundered support money to support their positions: for Mike Repacholi at the World Health Organization; through ICNIRP, the IEEE and other so-called independent groups; through various scientific labs around the world; through various bought scientists. In 2002, this type of money-based influence peddling was the modus operandi of the industry under the leadership of Tom Wheeler [ http://tinyurl.com/yvdmq9 ]and his cohorts. A brief read through Tom Wheeler's book addressing how business leaders can take home lessons from civil war generals reveals a chapter entitled, "If you can't win, change the rules": That is exactly the strategy that the industry put in place in those years and continues forward today. The rules are being changed by biasing the process that consumers should be able to trust.

Further evidence of this was seen two years ago. When renowned California attorney Johnnie Cochran died of a brain tumor that his surgeon, Dr. Keith Black from Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Johnnie's family believed was caused by his long-time heavy use of cell phones, CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta covered it with a story that attempted to paint Johnnie's family and surgeon as emotional outliers. The industry did not even offer a spokesperson to appear on camera. Instead they offered a doctor from Emory University to say there was no link between brain cancer and cell phones -- a doctor with no history of any work on cell phones and cancer and who was part of the industry's litigation expert team coordinated through a law firm in Atlanta, Georgia where Emory University is located. Further, the industry submitted a written quote that was pasted on the screen: "The American Cancer Society has determined that cell phones and brain cancer is one of the top ten cancer myths".

The American Cancer Society for many years now, has been doing the bidding of the mobile phone industry. The question is why. The answer is money. (and I would also say the Sick-care, mass genocide agenda, Amandha)

That the spokeman from the American Cancer Society saw the need to underscore the importance of their recent work by identifying themselves as one of the independent and reliable sources on the causes of cancer underscores the point that they are under much criticism for their biased bidding. This is but one more example. We can only hope that an informed public can see through this blatant manipulation.

Dr. George L. Carlo
Science and Public Policy Institute
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW -- 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 http://www.sppionline.org
http://www.safewireless.org
202-756-7744