Growing Food Crisis As Bio Fuel Subsidies Undermine Free Markets
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Martin Walker
Washington (UPI) Feb 27, 2008
The announcement by Josette Sheeran, executive director of the U.N. World Food Program, that the globe's main provider of food aid may have to start rationing is not just bad news for countries like Afghanistan and Ethiopia that depend on its supplies.
It's grim news for everybody. The global economy is just about coping with the subprime crisis, the fall of the dollar and oil at $100 a barrel. But the inflationary surge in food prices could prove to be the final straw.
Wheat prices hit $24 a bushel this week in the futures markets, having been $3 a bushel four years go. That dwarfs the rise in oil prices.
This problem has been coming for some time, driven by three separate factors. The first is overall population increase. The second is that emergent economies like China and India are climbing up the prosperity chain and demanding more meat protein, which takes eight times as much land to produce as vegetable protein. The third is that short-sighted government subsidies for biofuels are eroding the amount of crops available for eating.
Sheeran says the immediate problems are rising food prices and a lack of funds for the U.N. body to buy food aid, while demand from poor countries is increasing. Her statement echoes earlier warnings from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization that the soaring cost of grains and cereals was becoming "a major global concern."
"In some of these developing countries, prices have gone up 80 percent for staple food," Sheeran said, adding her agency's budget was soaring by millions of dollars a week. "If food is twice as expensive, we can bring half as much in for the same price and the same contribution."
This problem is not going to be easily resolved because the world faces the double threat of a long-term trend of rising demand in conditions of tightly constrained supply. There are already limits to the availability of arable land and severe pressures on water supplies, and climate change seems to be exacerbating both. The world is heading into a perfect storm.
The price movements tell the story. Soybean prices in the United States have jumped from $5.72 in 2004 to $10.60 now. Wheat sold for $3.01 a bushel in 2004 and is now over $7.50, with prices for March delivery being quoted at $10.50 a bushel. Spring wheat prices were trading last week at $18.
Joseph Glauber, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief economist, noted last week that wheat prices had previously moved from $3 to $5 a bushel without major pain for consumers. "But now the wheat price has jumped to nearly $20 a bushel."
World grain reserves are at their lowest levels since records were first kept back in 1960, and the U.S. stockpile had not been this low since 1948.
This is already having important political effects around the world. Pakistan has reintroduced food ration cards, an unpopular and crisis-driven move that has contributed to the unpopularity of President Pervez Musharraf and helps explain his party's recent stinging electoral defeat.
Egypt has extended its own food rationing system, and the Indian government is straining to maintain its food price subsidy system as costs soar. China and Russia are imposing price controls, and Argentina and Vietnam are reducing supplies to the world market through rationing and higher export taxes.
"India has a deficit of oilseed, a deficit of many pulses and now a deficit of wheat -- all the major staples are now getting hit by the demand-supply gap," B.C. Khatua, chairman of the Forward Markets Commission, which regulates futures trading for food commodities, warned this week.
The market should adjust, spurring more planting and more production in response to higher prices. Last week's annual outlook conference of the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that U.S. farmers were cutting their plantings of cotton and sugar in order to take advantage of the higher prices for wheat, corn and soy. Wheat production is projected to soar 13 percent to 2.33 billion bushels as farmers expand planting for the grain by 6 percent.
But markets worldwide face severe constraints from government manipulation of prices. Sometimes, like the U.S. subsidies for biofuels, this is done with the best of intentions, to cut U.S. dependency on imported fossil fuels. But government action can have severe effects.
The European Union, for example, sharply restricts the use of new genetically modified crops, which many agricultural scientists see as the technological way forward. Genetically modified organisms can be tailored to grow on marginal land and survive drought, to need less fertilizer or to survive saltwater flooding.
William Doyle, head of the world's biggest fertilizer company, Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, sounded the alarm last week by using the word "famine." With world grain stocks at their lowest since records were first kept, Doyle warned: "If you had any major upset where you didn't have a crop in a major growing agricultural region this year, I believe you'd see famine."
It was just such an upset that led to this week's jump in the wheat price to $24. Kazakhstan had announced a freeze in grain exports.
"We keep going to the cupboard without replacing and so there is enormous pressure on agriculture to have a record crop every year. We need to have a record crop in 2008 just to stay even with this very low inventory situation," Doyle added.
There are few easy choices. GMO crops remain controversial. And while one fast way to increase food production would be to increase the acreage under the plough in countries like Brazil, that would also mean further erosion of the rainforest and tougher environmental problems in the future. Food prices look set to keep on rising, and unless the World Food Program gets significant new funds the world's poor are set to get even hungrier.
Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article
Related Links
Farming Today - Suppliers and Technology
Friday, July 25, 2008
The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!
As our politicians drill the human food supply for energy
by Christopher Calder On December 19th, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Energy Independence and Security Act" (summary pdf 107kb), which mandates that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced in the United States every year by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase over 2006 production levels. Ethanol (vodka minus H2O) and "biodiesel" (a.k.a. cooking oil) are made from food or inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity. Biofuel crops include corn, soybeans, rapeseed (canola oil), sugarcane, palm trees (palm oil), and cassava, as well as experimental "second generation" crops such as switchgrass, jatropha, giant reed, hemp, and algae. [see picture of George W. Bush holding bottle of ethanol]
In 2007, 54% of the world's corn was grown in the United States, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop ended up in gas tanks instead of stomachs. The corn required to fill the 18.5 gallon gas tank of a Toyota Camry with ethanol could feed one human being for 270 days. Ethanol production took only about 6 to 7% of American corn in 1998, but has grown as a cancer on our food supply, taking somewhere between 30 to 38% by 2008. Readers should be warned that it is difficult to get honest figures on exactly how much US corn is currently being turned into ethanol, as Secretary of Agriculture Edward Schafer has effectively turned the USDA into a propaganda machine for the biofuel industry. President Bush's Katrina style mishandling of America's food supply is a disgrace, as any responsible president would appoint a Secretary of Agriculture concerned with food supply security, not with the profits of ethanol manufacturers.
The US is also diverting increasing amounts of soybean and rapeseed oil to biodiesel production, and world supplies of cooking oil are getting tight. Corn, soybeans, and rapeseed are the foundation of America's food supply because they feed our farm animals which give us dairy products, eggs, and meat. When the cost of animal feed is pushed up by biofuel production, the price American families pay for those food items also rise. [see corn price chart] Biofuels require massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizers to produce, and the price of fertilizer rose by more than 200% in 2007 alone. Nitrogen fertilizers are largely made from natural gas, which experienced little overall price gain in 2007, so the main driving force of fertilizer price hyperinflation is undeniably biofuel production. Biofuels are pushing up the cost of all foods that require fertilizers, including rice, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, and broccoli.
NEWS - Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007, which qualifies as hyperinflation. The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008. The United Nations warns that 82 countries face food emergencies because cereal stocks are at an all-time low. Unfortunately, few consumers understand exactly why food prices have risen so dramatically, and even our most respected politicians do not comprehend the magnitude of the global food crisis which they themselves helped create.
WARNING - From Barack Obama's campaign website - "Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030."
NEWS! - Obama links to ethanol industry exposed by NYT - Obama's ignores warnings from scientists and food advocates and "wants to shovel $150 billion over 10 years into biofuels."
Kay Bailey Hutchison proposes a sane energy plan that will actually produce new energy!
The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods created by biofuel production. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity," and warned that “This is an imminent massacre.” Ziegler explained that families in the United States and the European Union spend only about 10 to 20% of their budgets on food, but those in poor countries are forced to spend 60 to 90%, so “It’s a question of survival.” The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, has also called for U.S. and E.U. biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is "a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people."
Food banks in the US are running low on supplies, and many families who use to contribute food are now in need of help themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on high prices created by biofuel mandates, they reduce production of other crops such as wheat. The USDA stated that in May, 2008, US wheat supplies were lower than at any time since 1948, in part because 16% of US farmland formerly planted in wheat and soybeans was planted in corn for ethanol instead.
The increased cost of oil has pushed the price of all products higher, but biofuel production has amplified an expected food price rise by shrinking food supplies, thus turning a manageable cost problem into a global humanitarian disaster. Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has! The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food. As massive new biofuel mandates have only recently been signed into law, the world should be warned that the biofuel food price spiral has only just begun. [see Parallels - Biofuels and Mao's "Great Leap Forward"]
The ideology of biofuel production sounds wholesome superficially; a kind of green, health food store way of producing energy, and that is part of the reason biofuels have an almost cult-like following in our scientifically undereducated United States Congress. US biofuel plans are based on selfish political calculation and hype, without legitimate ecological or economic justification.
Ten reasons to oppose the Obama-Pelosi-Bush biofuel plan
1) Starvation - Globally, biofuel production will contribute to the early, avoidable deaths of at least between 10 and 20 million people in the year 2008 alone. With 100 million of the world's poorest put in jeopardy, the body count could climb much higher. The more we artificially push up grain prices by manufacturing biofuels, the more people we kill. 4 billion of earth's 6.66 billion human inhabitants live in poverty, yet our politicians wish to starve people to feed cars.
The poor of the Third World, the homeless, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and all those living on low fixed incomes are the hardest hit by high food prices. News reports show people in Haiti resorting to eating mud because American biofuel mandates have made grains unaffordable. Most Americans do not realize that global food reserves are at historic lows, while proven global oil reserves are at historic highs. With biofuels you pay twice; once at the pump and then again at the supermarket, which effectively makes biofuel production a massive new tax on food.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculates that biofuels are responsible for at least 30% of grain price hikes. German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul put the figure at between 30 and 70%. A detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the World Bank, states that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%! US Congressman Jim McGovern admitted that "If there was a secret vote (on biofuels), there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing.”
2) Higher cost - Biofuels increase our federal budget deficit because they depend on large subsidies just to exist. Without federal and state subsidies and political mandates, there would be no significant free market demand for biofuels in the United States. Ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline, so it takes 15 gallons of pure ethanol to travel the same number of miles that could be traveled using just 10 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline. Our politicians have effectively mandated that we all get lower gas mileage at a time we are paying record high prices at the pump. Ethanol fuel blends increase engine maintenance costs and lower engine reliability, a particularly significant issue for light aircraft owners.
To calculate the true cost of biofuels you must add together all of their negatives; the high direct cost of producing the fuel itself, increased cost of food worldwide, loss of water used for irrigation, and increased damage done to the environment. Judged in total, biofuels are tremendously more expensive than using gasoline and diesel fuel made from oil. Economist Ronald Cooke estimated that just the production and food penalty costs of ethanol was close to $6.89 a gallon back in February, 2007, before recent spectacular corn price rises. By contrast, Shell Oil physicist Harold Vinegar believes that by the year 2015 oil can be extracted from shale for about $30 per barrel. Colorado alone has massive shale reserves reported to contain more oil potential than the entire Middle East did before the British began drilling in Iran in 1908.
Corn hit $6 a bushel on April 3, 2008, up 30% in only 3 months, and up 300% in two years. Corn then rose to over $7 a bushel on June 12th, 2008, due to Midwest flooding. Barack Obama claims we can gradually switch from corn to cellulosic ethanol and thus save food supplies, but three agricultural economists at Iowa State University state that ethanol made from cellulose will never be economically viable. Switchgrass, crop waste, and wood chip ethanol schemes are too expensive to help. [study pdf 180kb]
3) Environmental damage - Biofuel production harms the environment by eroding topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are desperately needed to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major greenhouse gas that causes global warming, and the two great sponges of carbon dioxide are the oceans and the forests. The oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2 as they are becoming increasingly acidic due to pollution, so if we also destroy our forests global warming will accelerate that much faster. Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while destroying native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we breathe.
Roland Clift, a senior science advisor to the British Government, stated that British plans to promote biofuels are a "scam." The demand for biofuels is causing forests to be burnt to make way for palm trees (palm oil) and similar crops. “We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70 to 300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction.” Biofuel production transports carbon into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered (trapped) in soils and native vegetation. In gaseous form these carbon based molecules, such as carbon dioxide and methane, act as a automobile windshield and hold in heat gained from solar radiation.
Biofuel advocates ignore the fact that when we pump up grain prices through biofuel production, we raise grain prices all over the world which gives other countries a strong financial incentive to burn down rainforests in order to plant more food. U.S. corn subsidies are currently driving the rapid destruction of the Amazon basin. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging nonessential agricultural activity, which vastly enlarges our heavy human footprint on earth and speeds desertification of the planet. Jatropha, the new biofuel crop being promoted in tropical countries, is effectively a giant toxic monster weed which will have a destructive impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost impossible to get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future farming potential of the land.
The highly respected journal SCIENCE published the Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, which states that the production of biofuels from grains or switchgrass greatly increases the release of greenhouse gases and is far worse for the environment than using gasoline. The authors found that "Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." [Also see Biofuels: an unfolding disaster pdf 514kb]
Scientists point out that nitrogen fertilizers, which are made from natural gas, coal, and mined minerals, react with soil to unleash large amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296 times more effective at trapping the earth's heat than CO2. Farming contributes more to global warming each year than all land, sea, and air transportation combined, so growing vast amounts of biofuels crops will heat up the earth's atmosphere faster than if we only used imported oil. A recent study says corn ethanol biofuel production will cause a 10 to 34% increase in nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers due to fertilizer run-off, thus increasing the size of the DEAD ZONE in the Gulf of Mexico. [study abstract]
4) Water shortages - Biofuel crop production causes water shortages because irrigation water is taken away from our shrinking supplies of safe drinking and agricultural water. There is not enough salt free water in the world to grow biofuel crops and still provide essential utility water for our homes and to grow sufficient food for humans to survive. It takes 9,000 gallons of water to produce just 1 gallon of biodiesel made from soybeans, so we obviously need to save our very limited supplies of ground water to grow food, not fuel. In California water is now so precious that some farmers want to sell water instead of food, and water rationing is being considered as officials fear a long term drought. Even without biofuel production, we are turning vast areas of land into desert every year through loss of topsoil due to farming for essential food.
5) It's a lie - The Obama-Pelosi-Bush "biofuel energy independence plan" is a scientific hoax and an economic fraud because all current US production methods use more energy to create biofuels than they yield in the form of biofuel itself. Biofuel advocates often distort energy efficiency calculations by leaving out essential energy inputs required to make fuel. The average American does not understand that when you pour nitrogen fertilizers on crops, you are literally pouring on fossil fuel energy. Nitrogen fertilizers are so full of chemical energy potential that they are used to make explosives, so when you grow biofuels only part of the plant's energy accumulation comes from sunlight, and the rest comes from the fossil energy we feed them. Rather than use natural gas to make fertilizer to grow biofuel crops, it would be much more efficient to alter our cars to run on natural gas directly.
"The following are the major energy inputs to industrial corn farming: nitrogen fertilizer (all fossil energy), phosphate, potash and lime (mostly fossil energy), herbicides and insecticides (all fossil energy), fossil fuels used = diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas (LG), electricity (almost all fossil energy), transportation (all fossil energy), corn seeds and irrigation (mostly fossil energy), infrastructure (mostly fossil energy), labor (mostly fossil energy). Corn produced at a large expense of fossil energy is then transformed, with even more fossil energy, into pure ethanol." - Tad W. Patzek, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. [833kb pdf]
Politicians hope that second and third generation biofuel crops will generate more energy than they take to produce, but those schemes have yet to be proven in the real world. Congress has decided to mandate science fiction now and prove their hypothesis later. Even proposed second and third generation biofuel plants do not eliminate the tremendous environmental damage that massive biofuel production creates.
Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that will reduce air pollution. Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis, because ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline. Ethanol blended fuels actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in addition to emitting far more CO2 during their manufacture. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol increases the production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 4 to 7% over gasoline. Ethanol use will increase the number of premature deaths caused by toxic exhaust gases, with deaths counts currently estimated in the thousands. Despite all this bad news, biofuel fans and many television news anchors mindlessly repeat false claims that ethanol is "green" and "renewable." If we dramatically speed up global warming by producing ethanol, soon we won't be able to "renew" much of anything.
6) It's politics and greed - The biofuel hoax was created by domestic American politics and corporate greed. Both the Democratic and Republican parties want to get the "farm vote" in the politically strategic states of Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio. Our leaders, and most significantly farm state Senator Barack Obama, have put political gain ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and the welfare of the American middle class. It should be noted that Tom Daschle, national co-chairman of Obama's campaign, serves on the boards of three large ethanol companies. Obama himself is often flown around the country at reduced rates on corporate jets owned by the giant corn-ethanol corporation, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).
Wealthy politicians can afford to pay the dramatically higher food bills that biofuel production creates, and they have decided to throw science to the wind and charge blindly into what will inevitably be branded as one of the most destructive political fiascoes of the 21st century. Ambitious young biofuel entrepreneurs and giant agricultural corporations smell the money to be made, and have lobbied our Congress in hopes of turning the farm belt into the Saudi Arabia of "renewable energy," even if the energy they supply comes at the cost of human starvation and accelerated environmental damage.
7) The outlook for biofuels is dismal - All present and future biofuels have the same problems. Biofuel crops are all too low in energy, too light in weight, and thus too bulky and expensive to transport to be of any real value. They all require vast amounts of sunlight to grow and take up too much land, water, and fertilizer resources to be economically beneficial. By contrast, coal has been successful as a valuable fuel because it is very heavy, high in energy content, and thus makes energy sense to transport. Coal already exists in the ground so you don't have to grow it, water it, or fertilize it. All biofuel schemes, planned or imagined, will never amount to a hill of beans (excuse the expression) because of the basic limitations of their solar based production process. A requirement for vast amounts of sunlight will always equal a requirement for vast amounts of land area to collect that sunlight, thus solar power schemes can never replace the massive concentrated energy reservoir of fossil fuels.
Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has most of the same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn. We will use land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass that will be diverted from food production, with soaring food prices the result. If we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze cattle, we will reduce beef and milk production. If we grow switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn those marginal lands into a new dust bowl, which they may turn into anyway due to global warming. Computer models for the progression of global warming show the America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel production will actually speed up global warming, so why are we pinning so much hope on an environmental battle plan that any fool can see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce enough biofuels to run our cars or enough food to fill our bellies.
Switchgrass and other biofuel weeds will be grown by ordinary, profit motive driven farmers, not by environmentally trained scientists. Farmers will grow switchgrass on land that could be used to grow corn, wheat, or soybeans, and farmers will want to maximize yield, so they will use lots of fertilizer to increase output. The plans biofuel idealists are trying to sell the American public will never produce the kind of "green," food friendly energy source they promise. The next great scandal will be how to get rid of all the millions of acres of invasive, deep rooted biofuel weeds once society inevitably realizes that even growing "second generation" biofuel crops is a tragic mistake.
In practical terms, there is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands. According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope of Biofuels).
Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel. To make biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil instead of electricity. Researchers brag that algae can produce 15 times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres (about 133 million acres) of concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy demands. Those schemes that grow algae in closed reactor vessels, without sunlight, necessitate the algae being fed sugars or starches as a source of chemical energy. The sugars or starches must then be made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka. If we construct genetically engineered super-algae that are capable of out-competing native algae strains that contaminate open air algae ponds, the new gene-modified algae will be immediately carried to lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of migrating birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic results. [see Shell Oil's algae research]
Using "agricultural waste" to make biofuels has its own problems (see soil scientist report). Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we will end up committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without topsoil, the world starves!
Using wood chips to make ethanol or biodiesel sounds like a good idea until you remember that we currently use wood chips to make fuel pellets for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one building products. Every part of the trees we cut down is used for something, including bark which is used for garden mulch. The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles. Such a scheme would inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood, creating yet another resource crisis. Making fuel from true garbage, such as used cooking oil and winery waste, is fine. Those usable true waste resources are very limited, however, and not a major energy solution for a country that uses 8 billion barrels of crude oil every year.
8) Political instability - Dramatic food price inflation created by biofuel production is causing political instability around the globe, because food products are sold in a worldwide marketplace just like oil. There have already been mass protests and/or food riots in many countries, including Mexico, Haiti, Bolivia, Morocco, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Madagascar, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Hungary, and Italy. Some newspapers report that there have been food riots in 37 countries, and it is a full time job just keeping up with all the latest food riot news. In the United Kingdom, anger over biofuels has led to numerous street demonstrations by environmental groups. Food rationing has hit stores in the US for the first time since World War II. The great call of ordinary people around the world is for FOOD SUPPLY SECURITY, not for biofuels. Our governments are "sleepwalking into crisis" as most American television networks understate the destructive role of biofuels and often parrot pro-biofuel propaganda put out by farm state politicians and biofuel manufacturers.
9) Illegal immigration - Barack Obama imagines the United States growing and harvesting more than 60 million acres of corn and switchgrass to make ethanol, and the low paying agricultural jobs needed for this work will undoubtedly come from an expansion of illegal immigration. Unlike the smaller number of high paying skilled jobs required for nuclear energy, coal to diesel conversion, or shale to oil conversion, corn and switchgrass production is mainly a labor intensive, low paying endeavor which will be an unstoppable magnet for illegal immigrants. The more we starve the rest of the world, the more the rest of the world will want to come here.
10) It's a strategic national security disaster - In the years before biofuel production, the US had large food reserves kept in storage due to the excess bounty created by modern agricultural technology. Those days are long gone, and global food reserves are now at historic lows. In earth's history there have always been great natural disasters that periodically cause poor crop harvests, such as crop diseases, insect plagues, droughts, floods, impacts of asteroids and comets, and volcanic eruptions that throw up so much dust and noxious gas into the atmosphere that sunlight is reduced for a year or longer. The eruption of the island of Krakatau in 1883 produced a 1.2 degree Celsius global temperature decline that did not return to normal until 1888, and caused poor crop harvests around the world.
When America's giant Yellowstone volcano inevitably erupts again, there will be disastrous effects on agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere. By using agriculture to produce energy for both transportation and human caloric intake, we have eliminated our strategic cushion of food reserves. When global disaster strikes, starvation will set in quickly because of government biofuel mandates. If we use nonagricultural energy sources for producing fuel for transportation, we will not suffer the double systemic insult of food and fuel shortages. Large scale biofuel production, which depends on normal climactic conditions to grow crops, is a severe threat to our national security.
We go nuclear, or we go extinct!
British scientist James Lovelock, father of the living earth Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large human population on planet earth without causing global warming and destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green solution. Lovelock states that "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger." Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
Every year the human race burns the equivalent of 400 years worth of total planetary vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels, so it is obviously impossible to replace all of that concentrated biomass energy by growing a relatively small volume of biofuel crops. The one and only energy source large enough to replace that massive fossilized energy reservoir is nuclear power. The mass of an atom is in its nucleus, not in its electrons, and as E=MC2 the nucleus is where the really BIG energy is stored. The tiny energy potential created by bonding and unbonding electrons through chemical reactions in the growth of vegetation must be amplified over centuries by the gradual process of fossilization in order to make it strong enough to power a heavily populated, industrialized planet.
We can slow global warming by creating an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved electric car battery technology, and the use of new technology to make superior quality, sulfur free gasoline and jet fuel from atmospheric carbon dioxide. [see Green Freedom 1.8mb pdf] This new energy scheme is cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it is completely compatible with current vehicles and our existing energy distribution infrastructure. Intense heat from lower cost, higher temperature helium cooled prismatic block and/or pebble bed reactors is used to break down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and oxygen. The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be burned in ordinary automobile engines. Initially, the viability of this scheme could be demonstrated by using electrolysis of water to produce the needed hydrogen gas, using electricity generated from lower temperature water cooled nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power currently produces only 19.4% of our nation's electricity, so we need to build more nuclear power plants now using mass production techniques if we want to slow global warming. Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed over and over again, because only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel there is very little high level waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain Repository because the "waste" is reused as fuel. If you consider current stockpiles of nuclear fuel leftover from weapons programs, the amount of uranium easily available in the earth's crust for mining, the use of abundant thorium as fuel, and the benefits of using breeder reactors for recycling, then the world has enough nuclear fuel to last for at least 10,000 years.
Current nuclear power plants efficiently output 93 times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the energy used in their construction and decommissioning, but even that impressive figure can be improved upon. The art of nuclear power plant design has the potential to advance by leaps and bounds, becoming more efficient, cheaper, and safer. [see Generation IV nuclear power plant concepts] Even beyond the latest fourth generation nuclear power plant designs, there are credible proposals to use nanotechnology to achieve the direct conversion of nuclear energy to electricity without the use of turbines, making nuclear power plants stable, essentially solid state devices that run cold and have few moving parts. These advanced design concepts include electronically controlled nuclear reflectors for ultra-light radiation shielding, which would reduce the size and cost of nuclear reactors to a tiny fraction of today's designs. These developments could eventually lead to a portable 1 gigawatt or larger reactor that could be constructed in a factory and shipped to site on a single truck. [See Nanomaterial turns radiation directly into electricity (more details)]
The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are largely unfounded. One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would never be allowed in the West. The Chernobyl accident killed a total of 56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.
Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for safety and pollution free operation. By contrast, the over 600 coal burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity unleash tremendous pollution. They emit acid rain creating sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all CO2 emissions worldwide. Coal power plants also spew out thorium and uranium (see article), both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal. Incredibly, the potential nuclear energy value of these trace metals far exceeds the energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself. Coal power plants release microscopic particulate matter, which clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000 premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the Chernobyl death toll!
Prismatic block and pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due to the basic laws of physics. If the reactor's cooling system should fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels without mechanical intervention. Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plants using mass production techniques for major structural and control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same proven design the cheaper they become. If we build enough standardized reactors, it is conceivable that we could cut the cost of nuclear power in half, which could mean an essentially endless supply of sulfur free synthetic gasoline that sells for $2.00 a gallon at the pump.
Other positive ideas to consider
Solar and wind power are positive developments, but they can only hope to satisfy perhaps 20% of our energy needs because they tap into natural energy sources that are far too diffuse and fluctuating to power an advanced, industrialized nation. How much solar and wind power can we generate on a still, windless night? Solar power advocates have suggested that we could satisfy 69% of United States electricity needs for the year 2050 by covering 34,000 square miles of our beautiful Southwestern desert with solar panels, thus turning much of our nation's "living desert" into a vast DEAD ZONE. Alternative energy sources currently produce only 2.4% of America's electricity, so even an increase to 20% would be a heroic undertaking. If we wished to make solar and wind power our prime energy sources, we would have to revert to a horse and buggy economy and intentionally kill off the majority of the earth's human population. William Tucker's article, Food Riots Made in the USA, explains in easy to understand terms why solar and wind power can never compete with nuclear energy.
To lower energy costs in the short term, we should begin drilling in the Alaska ANWR oil reserve, which will do far less environmental damage than plunging ahead with biofuel production. Drilling on the proposed 2,000 acres of ANWR's 19.6 million acres will have inconsequential impact on vegetation and wildlife. [see The costly symbolism of ANWR] The Bakken Oil Formation, which runs from North Dakota through Saskatchewan and Manitoba, holds billions of barrels of recoverable oil, which we can extract without driving up the cost of food. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have massive oil shale deposits that are suitable for extraction using newly developed "in-situ" (in ground and in place) oil recovery techniques. The United States has large oil deposits off both coasts that can be tapped if Congress starts taking the energy crisis seriously (Poll shows 74% support coastal drilling). Converting cars and trucks to run on cheaper natural gas can help reduce our dependence on oil products, and this can be accomplished comparatively quickly.
General Motors has made unsubstantiated claims that it has an economical way to make ethanol from garbage, including old tires. If true, then their new process does not need government subsidies because market forces alone will make it profitable. Building large numbers of nuclear power plants now is a good idea no matter what the future holds for transportation fuels, because we will always need more electricity for homes and industry. Phasing out old coal burning power plants should be a top priority, as they produce the most greenhouse gas and unleash the most pollutants.
The crime of the century that you can stop
The Obama-Pelosi-Bush biofuel scheme is a prescription for planetary suicide. It dramatically shrinks the human food supply while rapidly accelerating global warming and aggravating water shortages. As a politically concocted man made disaster, it is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse Tung's 1958 Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in which China's agriculture based economy was forcefully shifted to greater industrial output at the expense of food production. Mao's well meaning ideas ended up killing millions through starvation.
If you do not want food prices to continue their wild inflationary spiral, write your political representatives and ask that all biofuel mandates and subsidies be ended. If we stop biofuels now, food prices will start declining instead of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and the United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to meet their moral obligations to help feed the poor. We can then concentrate on the authentically productive energy sources, such as oil, oil shale, clean coal technology, and ultimately synthetic fuels made from carbon free nuclear energy. Those who continue to promote biofuels are on the wrong side of science, economics, morality, and history.
Christopher Calder email = calderhouse at yahoo.com my home page
Notice: Feel free to repost or publish The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis! You can contact your federal political representatives here. You can also digitally sign a petition to end all biofuel mandates, and a petition to drill for oil on American soil.
See: Shocking biofuel world food crisis news
See: Biofuelwatch
Christopher Calder is an advocate for world food supply security with no financial interest in any energy related business. This webpage was created on December 19th, 2007, and is being continuously updated and revised as events unfold.
As our politicians drill the human food supply for energy
by Christopher Calder On December 19th, 2007, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Energy Independence and Security Act" (summary pdf 107kb), which mandates that 36 billion gallons of biofuels be produced in the United States every year by 2022, a nearly fivefold increase over 2006 production levels. Ethanol (vodka minus H2O) and "biodiesel" (a.k.a. cooking oil) are made from food or inedible crops which displace normal agricultural activity. Biofuel crops include corn, soybeans, rapeseed (canola oil), sugarcane, palm trees (palm oil), and cassava, as well as experimental "second generation" crops such as switchgrass, jatropha, giant reed, hemp, and algae. [see picture of George W. Bush holding bottle of ethanol]
In 2007, 54% of the world's corn was grown in the United States, and an ever increasing percentage of that crop ended up in gas tanks instead of stomachs. The corn required to fill the 18.5 gallon gas tank of a Toyota Camry with ethanol could feed one human being for 270 days. Ethanol production took only about 6 to 7% of American corn in 1998, but has grown as a cancer on our food supply, taking somewhere between 30 to 38% by 2008. Readers should be warned that it is difficult to get honest figures on exactly how much US corn is currently being turned into ethanol, as Secretary of Agriculture Edward Schafer has effectively turned the USDA into a propaganda machine for the biofuel industry. President Bush's Katrina style mishandling of America's food supply is a disgrace, as any responsible president would appoint a Secretary of Agriculture concerned with food supply security, not with the profits of ethanol manufacturers.
The US is also diverting increasing amounts of soybean and rapeseed oil to biodiesel production, and world supplies of cooking oil are getting tight. Corn, soybeans, and rapeseed are the foundation of America's food supply because they feed our farm animals which give us dairy products, eggs, and meat. When the cost of animal feed is pushed up by biofuel production, the price American families pay for those food items also rise. [see corn price chart] Biofuels require massive amounts of nitrogen fertilizers to produce, and the price of fertilizer rose by more than 200% in 2007 alone. Nitrogen fertilizers are largely made from natural gas, which experienced little overall price gain in 2007, so the main driving force of fertilizer price hyperinflation is undeniably biofuel production. Biofuels are pushing up the cost of all foods that require fertilizers, including rice, wheat, potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce, and broccoli.
NEWS - Scientists warn of lack of vital phosphorus as biofuels raise demand
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, global food prices rose an incredible 40% in 2007, which qualifies as hyperinflation. The World Bank states that the cost of staple foods rose by 83% during the 3 year period from 2005 to 2008. The United Nations warns that 82 countries face food emergencies because cereal stocks are at an all-time low. Unfortunately, few consumers understand exactly why food prices have risen so dramatically, and even our most respected politicians do not comprehend the magnitude of the global food crisis which they themselves helped create.
WARNING - From Barack Obama's campaign website - "Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030."
NEWS! - Obama links to ethanol industry exposed by NYT - Obama's ignores warnings from scientists and food advocates and "wants to shovel $150 billion over 10 years into biofuels."
Kay Bailey Hutchison proposes a sane energy plan that will actually produce new energy!
The United Nations states that its charity programs can no longer afford to feed the starving peoples of the world because of the high cost of staple foods created by biofuel production. Mr. Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, repeatedly denounced biofuels as "a crime against humanity," and warned that “This is an imminent massacre.” Ziegler explained that families in the United States and the European Union spend only about 10 to 20% of their budgets on food, but those in poor countries are forced to spend 60 to 90%, so “It’s a question of survival.” The new UN food envoy, Mr. Olivier De Schutter, has also called for U.S. and E.U. biofuel targets to be abandoned, and said the world food crisis is "a silent tsunami affecting 100 million people."
Food banks in the US are running low on supplies, and many families who use to contribute food are now in need of help themselves. When farmers plant more corn in order to cash in on high prices created by biofuel mandates, they reduce production of other crops such as wheat. The USDA stated that in May, 2008, US wheat supplies were lower than at any time since 1948, in part because 16% of US farmland formerly planted in wheat and soybeans was planted in corn for ethanol instead.
The increased cost of oil has pushed the price of all products higher, but biofuel production has amplified an expected food price rise by shrinking food supplies, thus turning a manageable cost problem into a global humanitarian disaster. Oil price increases have not shrunk the human food supply, but biofuel production has! The more biofuels we produce, the less food we have to eat because we grow biofuel crops using the same land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor we use to grow food. As massive new biofuel mandates have only recently been signed into law, the world should be warned that the biofuel food price spiral has only just begun. [see Parallels - Biofuels and Mao's "Great Leap Forward"]
The ideology of biofuel production sounds wholesome superficially; a kind of green, health food store way of producing energy, and that is part of the reason biofuels have an almost cult-like following in our scientifically undereducated United States Congress. US biofuel plans are based on selfish political calculation and hype, without legitimate ecological or economic justification.
Ten reasons to oppose the Obama-Pelosi-Bush biofuel plan
1) Starvation - Globally, biofuel production will contribute to the early, avoidable deaths of at least between 10 and 20 million people in the year 2008 alone. With 100 million of the world's poorest put in jeopardy, the body count could climb much higher. The more we artificially push up grain prices by manufacturing biofuels, the more people we kill. 4 billion of earth's 6.66 billion human inhabitants live in poverty, yet our politicians wish to starve people to feed cars.
The poor of the Third World, the homeless, the elderly, the disabled, veterans, and all those living on low fixed incomes are the hardest hit by high food prices. News reports show people in Haiti resorting to eating mud because American biofuel mandates have made grains unaffordable. Most Americans do not realize that global food reserves are at historic lows, while proven global oil reserves are at historic highs. With biofuels you pay twice; once at the pump and then again at the supermarket, which effectively makes biofuel production a massive new tax on food.
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculates that biofuels are responsible for at least 30% of grain price hikes. German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul put the figure at between 30 and 70%. A detailed analysis by Don Mitchell, an internationally respected economist at the World Bank, states that biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%! US Congressman Jim McGovern admitted that "If there was a secret vote (on biofuels), there is a pretty large number of people who would like to reassess what we are doing.”
2) Higher cost - Biofuels increase our federal budget deficit because they depend on large subsidies just to exist. Without federal and state subsidies and political mandates, there would be no significant free market demand for biofuels in the United States. Ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline, so it takes 15 gallons of pure ethanol to travel the same number of miles that could be traveled using just 10 gallons of regular unleaded gasoline. Our politicians have effectively mandated that we all get lower gas mileage at a time we are paying record high prices at the pump. Ethanol fuel blends increase engine maintenance costs and lower engine reliability, a particularly significant issue for light aircraft owners.
To calculate the true cost of biofuels you must add together all of their negatives; the high direct cost of producing the fuel itself, increased cost of food worldwide, loss of water used for irrigation, and increased damage done to the environment. Judged in total, biofuels are tremendously more expensive than using gasoline and diesel fuel made from oil. Economist Ronald Cooke estimated that just the production and food penalty costs of ethanol was close to $6.89 a gallon back in February, 2007, before recent spectacular corn price rises. By contrast, Shell Oil physicist Harold Vinegar believes that by the year 2015 oil can be extracted from shale for about $30 per barrel. Colorado alone has massive shale reserves reported to contain more oil potential than the entire Middle East did before the British began drilling in Iran in 1908.
Corn hit $6 a bushel on April 3, 2008, up 30% in only 3 months, and up 300% in two years. Corn then rose to over $7 a bushel on June 12th, 2008, due to Midwest flooding. Barack Obama claims we can gradually switch from corn to cellulosic ethanol and thus save food supplies, but three agricultural economists at Iowa State University state that ethanol made from cellulose will never be economically viable. Switchgrass, crop waste, and wood chip ethanol schemes are too expensive to help. [study pdf 180kb]
3) Environmental damage - Biofuel production harms the environment by eroding topsoil and encouraging the destruction of forests, which are desperately needed to soak up excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major greenhouse gas that causes global warming, and the two great sponges of carbon dioxide are the oceans and the forests. The oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2 as they are becoming increasingly acidic due to pollution, so if we also destroy our forests global warming will accelerate that much faster. Biofuel schemes speed up global warming because the entire biofuel production process, from beginning to end, releases huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while destroying native forests which naturally clean and rejuvenate the air we breathe.
Roland Clift, a senior science advisor to the British Government, stated that British plans to promote biofuels are a "scam." The demand for biofuels is causing forests to be burnt to make way for palm trees (palm oil) and similar crops. “We calculate that the land will need to grow biodiesel crops for 70 to 300 years to compensate for the CO2 emitted in forest destruction.” Biofuel production transports carbon into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered (trapped) in soils and native vegetation. In gaseous form these carbon based molecules, such as carbon dioxide and methane, act as a automobile windshield and hold in heat gained from solar radiation.
Biofuel advocates ignore the fact that when we pump up grain prices through biofuel production, we raise grain prices all over the world which gives other countries a strong financial incentive to burn down rainforests in order to plant more food. U.S. corn subsidies are currently driving the rapid destruction of the Amazon basin. The last thing we should be doing is encouraging nonessential agricultural activity, which vastly enlarges our heavy human footprint on earth and speeds desertification of the planet. Jatropha, the new biofuel crop being promoted in tropical countries, is effectively a giant toxic monster weed which will have a destructive impact on wildlife and biodiversity, and will be almost impossible to get rid of once planted, thus destroying the future farming potential of the land.
The highly respected journal SCIENCE published the Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change, which states that the production of biofuels from grains or switchgrass greatly increases the release of greenhouse gases and is far worse for the environment than using gasoline. The authors found that "Using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land use change, corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." [Also see Biofuels: an unfolding disaster pdf 514kb]
Scientists point out that nitrogen fertilizers, which are made from natural gas, coal, and mined minerals, react with soil to unleash large amounts of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296 times more effective at trapping the earth's heat than CO2. Farming contributes more to global warming each year than all land, sea, and air transportation combined, so growing vast amounts of biofuels crops will heat up the earth's atmosphere faster than if we only used imported oil. A recent study says corn ethanol biofuel production will cause a 10 to 34% increase in nitrogen pollution in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers due to fertilizer run-off, thus increasing the size of the DEAD ZONE in the Gulf of Mexico. [study abstract]
4) Water shortages - Biofuel crop production causes water shortages because irrigation water is taken away from our shrinking supplies of safe drinking and agricultural water. There is not enough salt free water in the world to grow biofuel crops and still provide essential utility water for our homes and to grow sufficient food for humans to survive. It takes 9,000 gallons of water to produce just 1 gallon of biodiesel made from soybeans, so we obviously need to save our very limited supplies of ground water to grow food, not fuel. In California water is now so precious that some farmers want to sell water instead of food, and water rationing is being considered as officials fear a long term drought. Even without biofuel production, we are turning vast areas of land into desert every year through loss of topsoil due to farming for essential food.
5) It's a lie - The Obama-Pelosi-Bush "biofuel energy independence plan" is a scientific hoax and an economic fraud because all current US production methods use more energy to create biofuels than they yield in the form of biofuel itself. Biofuel advocates often distort energy efficiency calculations by leaving out essential energy inputs required to make fuel. The average American does not understand that when you pour nitrogen fertilizers on crops, you are literally pouring on fossil fuel energy. Nitrogen fertilizers are so full of chemical energy potential that they are used to make explosives, so when you grow biofuels only part of the plant's energy accumulation comes from sunlight, and the rest comes from the fossil energy we feed them. Rather than use natural gas to make fertilizer to grow biofuel crops, it would be much more efficient to alter our cars to run on natural gas directly.
"The following are the major energy inputs to industrial corn farming: nitrogen fertilizer (all fossil energy), phosphate, potash and lime (mostly fossil energy), herbicides and insecticides (all fossil energy), fossil fuels used = diesel, gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas (LG), electricity (almost all fossil energy), transportation (all fossil energy), corn seeds and irrigation (mostly fossil energy), infrastructure (mostly fossil energy), labor (mostly fossil energy). Corn produced at a large expense of fossil energy is then transformed, with even more fossil energy, into pure ethanol." - Tad W. Patzek, Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. [833kb pdf]
Politicians hope that second and third generation biofuel crops will generate more energy than they take to produce, but those schemes have yet to be proven in the real world. Congress has decided to mandate science fiction now and prove their hypothesis later. Even proposed second and third generation biofuel plants do not eliminate the tremendous environmental damage that massive biofuel production creates.
Biofuel advocates falsely claim that ethanol is a "clean fuel" that will reduce air pollution. Ethanol blended fuels burn cleaner on a per gallon basis, but not on a miles traveled basis, because ethanol contains 33% less energy than gasoline. Ethanol blended fuels actually emit more CO2 per miles driven than ordinary gasoline in addition to emitting far more CO2 during their manufacture. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol increases the production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 4 to 7% over gasoline. Ethanol use will increase the number of premature deaths caused by toxic exhaust gases, with deaths counts currently estimated in the thousands. Despite all this bad news, biofuel fans and many television news anchors mindlessly repeat false claims that ethanol is "green" and "renewable." If we dramatically speed up global warming by producing ethanol, soon we won't be able to "renew" much of anything.
6) It's politics and greed - The biofuel hoax was created by domestic American politics and corporate greed. Both the Democratic and Republican parties want to get the "farm vote" in the politically strategic states of Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Ohio. Our leaders, and most significantly farm state Senator Barack Obama, have put political gain ahead of the world's starving poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and the welfare of the American middle class. It should be noted that Tom Daschle, national co-chairman of Obama's campaign, serves on the boards of three large ethanol companies. Obama himself is often flown around the country at reduced rates on corporate jets owned by the giant corn-ethanol corporation, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).
Wealthy politicians can afford to pay the dramatically higher food bills that biofuel production creates, and they have decided to throw science to the wind and charge blindly into what will inevitably be branded as one of the most destructive political fiascoes of the 21st century. Ambitious young biofuel entrepreneurs and giant agricultural corporations smell the money to be made, and have lobbied our Congress in hopes of turning the farm belt into the Saudi Arabia of "renewable energy," even if the energy they supply comes at the cost of human starvation and accelerated environmental damage.
7) The outlook for biofuels is dismal - All present and future biofuels have the same problems. Biofuel crops are all too low in energy, too light in weight, and thus too bulky and expensive to transport to be of any real value. They all require vast amounts of sunlight to grow and take up too much land, water, and fertilizer resources to be economically beneficial. By contrast, coal has been successful as a valuable fuel because it is very heavy, high in energy content, and thus makes energy sense to transport. Coal already exists in the ground so you don't have to grow it, water it, or fertilize it. All biofuel schemes, planned or imagined, will never amount to a hill of beans (excuse the expression) because of the basic limitations of their solar based production process. A requirement for vast amounts of sunlight will always equal a requirement for vast amounts of land area to collect that sunlight, thus solar power schemes can never replace the massive concentrated energy reservoir of fossil fuels.
Growing switchgrass to produce ethanol from lignocellulose has most of the same drawbacks as making ethanol from corn. We will use land, water, fertilizer, farm equipment, and labor to grow switchgrass that will be diverted from food production, with soaring food prices the result. If we grow switchgrass on land currently used to graze cattle, we will reduce beef and milk production. If we grow switchgrass on unused "marginal" prairie lands, we will soon turn those marginal lands into a new dust bowl, which they may turn into anyway due to global warming. Computer models for the progression of global warming show the America Midwest and Southwest getting hotter and dryer, with much of our farm and grazing land turning into desert. We know that biofuel production will actually speed up global warming, so why are we pinning so much hope on an environmental battle plan that any fool can see will blow up in our face over time? We won't be able to produce enough biofuels to run our cars or enough food to fill our bellies.
Switchgrass and other biofuel weeds will be grown by ordinary, profit motive driven farmers, not by environmentally trained scientists. Farmers will grow switchgrass on land that could be used to grow corn, wheat, or soybeans, and farmers will want to maximize yield, so they will use lots of fertilizer to increase output. The plans biofuel idealists are trying to sell the American public will never produce the kind of "green," food friendly energy source they promise. The next great scandal will be how to get rid of all the millions of acres of invasive, deep rooted biofuel weeds once society inevitably realizes that even growing "second generation" biofuel crops is a tragic mistake.
In practical terms, there is not enough usable land area to grow a sufficient quantity of biofuel plants to meet the world's energy demands. According to professors James Jordan and James Powell, "Allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7% of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15% of the demand." (see The False Hope of Biofuels).
Growing algae to make biodiesel is being touted as a cure-all for all our biofuel problems, but we are still stuck with the fact that algae need solar energy to turn carbon dioxide into fuel. To make biodiesel, algae are used as organic solar panels which output oil instead of electricity. Researchers brag that algae can produce 15 times more fuel per acre of land than growing corn for ethanol, but that still means we would need an impossibly large number of acres (about 133 million acres) of concrete lined open-air algae ponds to meet our highway energy demands. Those schemes that grow algae in closed reactor vessels, without sunlight, necessitate the algae being fed sugars or starches as a source of chemical energy. The sugars or starches must then be made from corn, wheat, beets, or other crop, so you are simply trading ethanol potential to make oil instead of vodka. If we construct genetically engineered super-algae that are capable of out-competing native algae strains that contaminate open air algae ponds, the new gene-modified algae will be immediately carried to lakes, reservoirs, and oceans all over the world in the feathers of migrating birds, with unknown and possibly catastrophic results. [see Shell Oil's algae research]
Using "agricultural waste" to make biofuels has its own problems (see soil scientist report). Removing unused portions of plants that are normally plowed under increases the need for nitrogen fertilizers, which release the most potent greenhouse gas of all; nitrous oxide. Much of the residual crop biomass must be returned to the soil to maintain topsoil integrity, otherwise the rate of topsoil erosion will increase dramatically. If we mine our topsoil for energy, we will end up committing slow agricultural suicide like the Mayan Empire. Without topsoil, the world starves!
Using wood chips to make ethanol or biodiesel sounds like a good idea until you remember that we currently use wood chips to make fuel pellets for stoves, paper, particle board, and a thousand and one building products. Every part of the trees we cut down is used for something, including bark which is used for garden mulch. The idea of sending teams of manual laborers into forests to salvage underbrush for fuel would be prohibitively expensive. Our forests are already stressed just producing lumber without tasking them with producing liquid biofuels for automobiles. Such a scheme would inevitably drive up the price of everything made from wood, creating yet another resource crisis. Making fuel from true garbage, such as used cooking oil and winery waste, is fine. Those usable true waste resources are very limited, however, and not a major energy solution for a country that uses 8 billion barrels of crude oil every year.
8) Political instability - Dramatic food price inflation created by biofuel production is causing political instability around the globe, because food products are sold in a worldwide marketplace just like oil. There have already been mass protests and/or food riots in many countries, including Mexico, Haiti, Bolivia, Morocco, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mauritania, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Madagascar, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Hungary, and Italy. Some newspapers report that there have been food riots in 37 countries, and it is a full time job just keeping up with all the latest food riot news. In the United Kingdom, anger over biofuels has led to numerous street demonstrations by environmental groups. Food rationing has hit stores in the US for the first time since World War II. The great call of ordinary people around the world is for FOOD SUPPLY SECURITY, not for biofuels. Our governments are "sleepwalking into crisis" as most American television networks understate the destructive role of biofuels and often parrot pro-biofuel propaganda put out by farm state politicians and biofuel manufacturers.
9) Illegal immigration - Barack Obama imagines the United States growing and harvesting more than 60 million acres of corn and switchgrass to make ethanol, and the low paying agricultural jobs needed for this work will undoubtedly come from an expansion of illegal immigration. Unlike the smaller number of high paying skilled jobs required for nuclear energy, coal to diesel conversion, or shale to oil conversion, corn and switchgrass production is mainly a labor intensive, low paying endeavor which will be an unstoppable magnet for illegal immigrants. The more we starve the rest of the world, the more the rest of the world will want to come here.
10) It's a strategic national security disaster - In the years before biofuel production, the US had large food reserves kept in storage due to the excess bounty created by modern agricultural technology. Those days are long gone, and global food reserves are now at historic lows. In earth's history there have always been great natural disasters that periodically cause poor crop harvests, such as crop diseases, insect plagues, droughts, floods, impacts of asteroids and comets, and volcanic eruptions that throw up so much dust and noxious gas into the atmosphere that sunlight is reduced for a year or longer. The eruption of the island of Krakatau in 1883 produced a 1.2 degree Celsius global temperature decline that did not return to normal until 1888, and caused poor crop harvests around the world.
When America's giant Yellowstone volcano inevitably erupts again, there will be disastrous effects on agriculture in the Northern Hemisphere. By using agriculture to produce energy for both transportation and human caloric intake, we have eliminated our strategic cushion of food reserves. When global disaster strikes, starvation will set in quickly because of government biofuel mandates. If we use nonagricultural energy sources for producing fuel for transportation, we will not suffer the double systemic insult of food and fuel shortages. Large scale biofuel production, which depends on normal climactic conditions to grow crops, is a severe threat to our national security.
We go nuclear, or we go extinct!
British scientist James Lovelock, father of the living earth Gaia theory, has stated that nuclear power is the only way to have a large human population on planet earth without causing global warming and destroying the environment. Please read James Lovelock's public statement on nuclear energy, Nuclear power is the only green solution. Lovelock states that "We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger." Nuclear power is the only technology that can produce an extremely high volume of energy using just a tiny amount of land and at reasonable cost, all without emitting significant amounts of greenhouse gases.
Every year the human race burns the equivalent of 400 years worth of total planetary vegetation in the condensed form of fossil fuels, so it is obviously impossible to replace all of that concentrated biomass energy by growing a relatively small volume of biofuel crops. The one and only energy source large enough to replace that massive fossilized energy reservoir is nuclear power. The mass of an atom is in its nucleus, not in its electrons, and as E=MC2 the nucleus is where the really BIG energy is stored. The tiny energy potential created by bonding and unbonding electrons through chemical reactions in the growth of vegetation must be amplified over centuries by the gradual process of fossilization in order to make it strong enough to power a heavily populated, industrialized planet.
We can slow global warming by creating an infrastructure based on nuclear energy, improved electric car battery technology, and the use of new technology to make superior quality, sulfur free gasoline and jet fuel from atmospheric carbon dioxide. [see Green Freedom 1.8mb pdf] This new energy scheme is cheaper and more practical than using hydrogen as fuel, because it is completely compatible with current vehicles and our existing energy distribution infrastructure. Intense heat from lower cost, higher temperature helium cooled prismatic block and/or pebble bed reactors is used to break down carbon dioxide into its component parts, carbon monoxide and oxygen. The carbon monoxide can then be combined with water in a catalytic process to make either pure hydrogen gas or more easily transportable liquid synthetic fuels that can be burned in ordinary automobile engines. Initially, the viability of this scheme could be demonstrated by using electrolysis of water to produce the needed hydrogen gas, using electricity generated from lower temperature water cooled nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power currently produces only 19.4% of our nation's electricity, so we need to build more nuclear power plants now using mass production techniques if we want to slow global warming. Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed over and over again, because only a tiny portion of the nuclear material is actually used up during each fuel cycle. When you reprocess fuel there is very little high level waste that needs to be stored at the Yucca Mountain Repository because the "waste" is reused as fuel. If you consider current stockpiles of nuclear fuel leftover from weapons programs, the amount of uranium easily available in the earth's crust for mining, the use of abundant thorium as fuel, and the benefits of using breeder reactors for recycling, then the world has enough nuclear fuel to last for at least 10,000 years.
Current nuclear power plants efficiently output 93 times more energy than they consume over their lifespan, including the energy used in their construction and decommissioning, but even that impressive figure can be improved upon. The art of nuclear power plant design has the potential to advance by leaps and bounds, becoming more efficient, cheaper, and safer. [see Generation IV nuclear power plant concepts] Even beyond the latest fourth generation nuclear power plant designs, there are credible proposals to use nanotechnology to achieve the direct conversion of nuclear energy to electricity without the use of turbines, making nuclear power plants stable, essentially solid state devices that run cold and have few moving parts. These advanced design concepts include electronically controlled nuclear reflectors for ultra-light radiation shielding, which would reduce the size and cost of nuclear reactors to a tiny fraction of today's designs. These developments could eventually lead to a portable 1 gigawatt or larger reactor that could be constructed in a factory and shipped to site on a single truck. [See Nanomaterial turns radiation directly into electricity (more details)]
The fears Americans have about civilian nuclear power plants are largely unfounded. One lone disaster that occurred at an obsolete Ukrainian reactor is insufficient reason to be eternally afraid of all nuclear power plants across the board. The old Chernobyl reactor used a dangerous design that has never been used in the West, and which did not even have a containment vessel. The 1986 Chernobyl accident was caused by Soviet engineers conducting irresponsible experiments that were unrelated to normal civilian power production, and which would never be allowed in the West. The Chernobyl accident killed a total of 56 people, a great tragedy, but not a nation killing disaster.
Nuclear power plants in America have an excellent record for safety and pollution free operation. By contrast, the over 600 coal burning power plants which produce 49% of our nation's electricity unleash tremendous pollution. They emit acid rain creating sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, tons of toxic mercury, and an enormous skyward bound river of carbon dioxide gas which represents 10% of all CO2 emissions worldwide. Coal power plants also spew out thorium and uranium (see article), both radioactive metals which naturally accumulate in coal. Incredibly, the potential nuclear energy value of these trace metals far exceeds the energy value of the combustible carbon content of the coal itself. Coal power plants release microscopic particulate matter, which clogs the lungs and is attributed to causing approximately 24,000 premature deaths in the United States every year; 428 times the Chernobyl death toll!
Prismatic block and pebble bed reactors are inherently meltdown proof due to the basic laws of physics. If the reactor's cooling system should fail, the core temperature automatically lowers itself to safe levels without mechanical intervention. Building new, more efficient standardized nuclear power plants using mass production techniques for major structural and control components can make nuclear power a bargain. Just like manufacturing television sets, the more you build using the same proven design the cheaper they become. If we build enough standardized reactors, it is conceivable that we could cut the cost of nuclear power in half, which could mean an essentially endless supply of sulfur free synthetic gasoline that sells for $2.00 a gallon at the pump.
Other positive ideas to consider
Solar and wind power are positive developments, but they can only hope to satisfy perhaps 20% of our energy needs because they tap into natural energy sources that are far too diffuse and fluctuating to power an advanced, industrialized nation. How much solar and wind power can we generate on a still, windless night? Solar power advocates have suggested that we could satisfy 69% of United States electricity needs for the year 2050 by covering 34,000 square miles of our beautiful Southwestern desert with solar panels, thus turning much of our nation's "living desert" into a vast DEAD ZONE. Alternative energy sources currently produce only 2.4% of America's electricity, so even an increase to 20% would be a heroic undertaking. If we wished to make solar and wind power our prime energy sources, we would have to revert to a horse and buggy economy and intentionally kill off the majority of the earth's human population. William Tucker's article, Food Riots Made in the USA, explains in easy to understand terms why solar and wind power can never compete with nuclear energy.
To lower energy costs in the short term, we should begin drilling in the Alaska ANWR oil reserve, which will do far less environmental damage than plunging ahead with biofuel production. Drilling on the proposed 2,000 acres of ANWR's 19.6 million acres will have inconsequential impact on vegetation and wildlife. [see The costly symbolism of ANWR] The Bakken Oil Formation, which runs from North Dakota through Saskatchewan and Manitoba, holds billions of barrels of recoverable oil, which we can extract without driving up the cost of food. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have massive oil shale deposits that are suitable for extraction using newly developed "in-situ" (in ground and in place) oil recovery techniques. The United States has large oil deposits off both coasts that can be tapped if Congress starts taking the energy crisis seriously (Poll shows 74% support coastal drilling). Converting cars and trucks to run on cheaper natural gas can help reduce our dependence on oil products, and this can be accomplished comparatively quickly.
General Motors has made unsubstantiated claims that it has an economical way to make ethanol from garbage, including old tires. If true, then their new process does not need government subsidies because market forces alone will make it profitable. Building large numbers of nuclear power plants now is a good idea no matter what the future holds for transportation fuels, because we will always need more electricity for homes and industry. Phasing out old coal burning power plants should be a top priority, as they produce the most greenhouse gas and unleash the most pollutants.
The crime of the century that you can stop
The Obama-Pelosi-Bush biofuel scheme is a prescription for planetary suicide. It dramatically shrinks the human food supply while rapidly accelerating global warming and aggravating water shortages. As a politically concocted man made disaster, it is reminiscent of Chairman Mao Tse Tung's 1958 Five Year Plan, known as "The Great Leap Forward," in which China's agriculture based economy was forcefully shifted to greater industrial output at the expense of food production. Mao's well meaning ideas ended up killing millions through starvation.
If you do not want food prices to continue their wild inflationary spiral, write your political representatives and ask that all biofuel mandates and subsidies be ended. If we stop biofuels now, food prices will start declining instead of rising, your local food banks will become full again, and the United Nations and other charitable organizations will be able to meet their moral obligations to help feed the poor. We can then concentrate on the authentically productive energy sources, such as oil, oil shale, clean coal technology, and ultimately synthetic fuels made from carbon free nuclear energy. Those who continue to promote biofuels are on the wrong side of science, economics, morality, and history.
Christopher Calder email = calderhouse at yahoo.com my home page
Notice: Feel free to repost or publish The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis! You can contact your federal political representatives here. You can also digitally sign a petition to end all biofuel mandates, and a petition to drill for oil on American soil.
See: Shocking biofuel world food crisis news
See: Biofuelwatch
Christopher Calder is an advocate for world food supply security with no financial interest in any energy related business. This webpage was created on December 19th, 2007, and is being continuously updated and revised as events unfold.
Let DDT to return to save millions in the poverty ridden world, don't purchase luxary insectisides from vested multinational companies
The case for DDT: A recent study by Drs. Roger Bate and Richard Tren, fellows of the Institute for Economic Research have concluded that there is no strong evidence for harmful effects of DDT on the environment or on human beings. After malaria was eradicated from the developed world, poorer nations were pressurized to stop using DDT by environmental groups and funding agencies. This was a severe blow to malaria eradication programs especially in Africa since DDT is cheap and very effective. Anopheles developed resistance to the pyrethroids used in the place of DDT, which led to a resurgence of malaria in the late 1990’s. The current feeling among experts is that though DDT should not be used for general purposes, its use in malaria eradication programs is vital. Further a long term plan to replace it with equally effective, safer alternatives should be made (eBMJ 26 June 2001).
Public health From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Public health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public health is the study and practice of managing threats to the health of a community. The field pays special attention to the social context of disease and health, and focuses on improving health through society-wide measures like vaccinations, the fluoridation of drinking water, or through policies like seatbelt and non-smoking laws.
The goal of public health is to improve lives through the prevention and treatment of disease. The United Nations' World Health Organization defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." In 1920, C.E.A. Winslow defined public health as "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals."
The public-health approach can be applied to a population of just a handful of people or to the whole human population. Public health is typically divided into epidemiology, biostatistics and health services. Environmental, social, behavioral, and occupational health are also important subfields.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Objectives
* 2 History of public health
o 2.1 Early public health interventions
o 2.2 Modern public health
* 3 Public health programs
* 4 Public Hygiene
* 5 Economics of public health
* 6 Research
o 6.1 Community based participatory research
* 7 Education and training
* 8 Academic Journals
* 9 See also
* 10 References
* 11 External links
[edit] Objectives
The focus of a public health intervention is to prevent rather than treat a disease through surveillance of cases and the promotion of healthy behaviors. In addition to these activities, in many cases treating a disease can be vital to preventing its spread to others, such as during an outbreak of infectious disease or contamination of food or water supplies. Vaccination programs and distribution of condoms are examples of public health measures.
Most countries have their own government public health agencies, sometimes known as ministries of health, to respond to domestic health issues. In the United States, the frontline of public health initiatives are state and local health departments. The United States Public Health Service (PHS), led by the Surgeon General of the United States, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, headquartered in Atlanta and a part of the PHS, are involved with several international health activities, in addition to their national duties.
There is a vast discrepancy in access to healthcare and public health intiatives between developed nations and developing nations. In the developing world, public health infrastructures are still forming. There may not be enough trained health workers or monetary resources to provide even a basic level of medical care and disease prevention. As a result, a large majority of disease and mortality in the developing world results from and contributes to extreme poverty. For example, many African governments spend less than USD$10 per person per year on healthcare, while, in the United States, the federal government spent approximately USD$4,500 per capita in 2000.
Many diseases are preventable through simple, non-medical methods. For example, research has shown that the simple act of hand washing can prevent many contagious diseases.[1]
Public health plays an important role in disease prevention efforts in both the developing world and in developed countries, through local health systems and through international non-governmental organizations, like the International Public Health Forum (IPHF)
The two major postgraduate professional degrees related to this field are the Master of Public Health (MPH) or the (much rarer) Doctor of Public Health (DrPH). Many public health researchers hold PhDs in their fields of speciality, while some public health programs confer the equivalent Doctor of Science degree instead. The United States medical residency specialty is General Preventive Medicine and Public Health.
[edit] History of public health
In some ways, public health is a modern concept, although it has roots in antiquity. From the beginnings of human civilization, it was recognized that polluted water and lack of proper waste disposal spread communicable diseases (theory of miasma). Early religions attempted to regulate behavior that specifically related to health, from types of food eaten, to regulating certain indulgent behaviors, such as drinking alcohol or sexual relations. The establishment of governments placed responsibility on leaders to develop public health policies and programs in order to gain some understanding of the causes of disease and thus ensure social stability prosperity, and maintain order.
[edit] Early public health interventions
By Roman times, it was well understood that proper diversion of human waste was a necessary tenet of public health in urban areas. The Chinese developed the practice of variolation following a smallpox epidemic around 1000 BC. An individual without the disease could gain some measure of immunity against it by inhaling the dried crusts that formed around lesions of infected individuals. Also, children were protected by inoculating a scratch on their forearms with the pus from a lesion. This practice was not documented in the West until the early-1700s, and was used on a very limited basis. The practice of vaccination did not become prevalent until the 1820s, following the work of Edward Jenner to treat smallpox.
During the 14th century Black Death in Europe, it was believed that removing bodies of the dead would further prevent the spread of the bacterial infection. This did little to stem the plague, however, which was most likely spread by rodent-borne fleas. Burning parts of cities resulted in much greater benefit, since it destroyed the rodent infestations. The development of quarantine in the medieval period helped mitigate the effects of other infectious diseases. However, according to Michel Foucault, the plague model of governmentality was later controverted by the cholera model. A Cholera pandemic devastated Europe between 1829 and 1851, and was first fought by the use of what Foucault called "social medicine", which focused on flux, circulation of air, location of cemeteries, etc. All those concerns, born of the miasma theory of disease, were mixed with urbanistic concerns for the management of populations, which Foucault designated as the concept of "biopower". The German conceptualized this in the Polizeiwissenschaft ("Science of police").
The science of epidemiology was founded by John Snow's identification of a polluted public water well as the source of an 1854 cholera outbreak in London. Dr. Snow believed in the germ theory of disease as opposed to the prevailing miasma theory. Although miasma theory correctly teaches that disease is a result of poor sanitation, it was based upon the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation. Germ theory developed slowly: despite Anton van Leeuwenhoek's observations of Microorganisms, (which are now known to cause many of the most common infectious diseases) in the year 1680, the modern era of public health did not begin until the 1880s, with Robert Koch's germ theory and Louis Pasteur's production of artificial vaccines.
Other public health interventions include latrinization, the building of sewers, the regular collection of garbage followed by incineration or disposal in a landfill, providing clean water and draining standing water to prevent the breeding of mosquitos.
[edit] Modern public health
As the prevalence of infectious diseases in the developed world decreased through the 20th century, public health began to put more focus on chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. An emphasis on physical exercise was reintroduced.
In America, public health worker Dr. Sara Josephine Baker lowered the infant mortality rate using preventative methods. She established many programs to help the poor in New York City keep their infants healthy. Dr. Baker led teams of nurses into the crowded neighborhoods of Hell's Kitchen and taught mothers how to dress, feed, and bathe their babies. After World War I many states and countries followed her example in order to lower infant mortality rates.
During the 20th century, the dramatic increase in average life span is widely credited to public health achievements, such as vaccination programs and control of infectious diseases, effective safety policies such as motor-vehicle and occupational safety, improved family planning, fluoridation of drinking water, anti-smoking measures, and programs designed to decrease chronic disease.
Meanwhile, the developing world remained plagued by largely preventable infectious diseases, exacerbated by malnutrition and poverty. Front-page headlines continue to present society with public health issues on a daily basis: emerging infectious diseases such as SARS, making its way from China to Canada and the United States; prescription drug benefits under public programs such as Medicare; the increase of HIV-AIDS among young heterosexual women and its spread in South Africa; the increase of childhood obesity and the concomitant increase in type II diabetes among children; the impact of adolescent pregnancy; and the ongoing social, economic and health disasters related to the 2005 Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina in 2006. These are all ongoing public health challenges.
Since the 1980s, the growing field of population health has broadened the focus of public health from individual behaviors and risk factors to population-level issues such as inequality, poverty, and education. Modern public health is often concerned with addressing determinants of health across a population, rather than advocating for individual behaviour change. There is a recognition that our health is affected by many factors including where we live, genetics, our income, our educational status and our social relationships - these are known as "social determinants of health." A social gradient in health runs through society, with those that are poorest generally suffering the worst health. However even those in the middle classes will generally have worse health outcomes than those of a higher social stratum (WHO, 2003). The new public health seeks to address these health inequalities by advocating for population-based policies that improve the health of the whole population in an equitable fashion.
The burden of treating conditions caused by unemployment, poverty, unfit housing and environmental pollution have been calculated to account for between 16-22% of the clinical budget of the British National Health Service. [2]
UK Public health functions include:
* Health surveillance, monitoring and analysis
* Investigation of disease outbreaks, epidemics and risk to health
* Establishing, designing and managing health promotion and disease prevention programmes
* Enabling and empowering communities to promote health and reduce inequalities
* Creating and sustaining cross-Government and intersectoral partnerships to improve health and reduce inequalities
* Ensuring compliance with regulations and laws to protect and promote health
* Developing and maintaining a well-educated and trained, multi-disciplinary public health workforce
* Ensuring the effective performance of NHS services to meet goals in improving health, preventing disease and reducing inequalities
* Research, development, evaluation and innovation
* Quality assuring the public health function
[edit] Public health programs
This 1963 poster featured CDC’s national symbol of public health, the "Wellbee", encouraging the public to receive an oral polio vaccine.
This 1963 poster featured CDC’s national symbol of public health, the "Wellbee", encouraging the public to receive an oral polio vaccine.
Today, most governments recognize the importance of public health programs in reducing the incidence of disease, disability, and the effects of aging, although public health generally receives significantly less government funding compared with medicine. In recent years, public health programs providing vaccinations have made incredible strides in promoting health, including the eradication of smallpox, a disease that plagued humanity for thousands of years.
One of the most important public health issues facing the world currently is HIV/AIDS. Tuberculosis, which claimed the lives of authors Franz Kafka and Charlotte Brontë, and composer Franz Schubert, among others, is also reemerging as a major concern due to the rise of HIV/AIDS-related infections and the development of tuberculin strains that are resistant to standard antibiotics.
Another major public health concern is diabetes. In 2006, according to the World Health Organization, at least 171 million people worldwide suffered from diabetes. Its incidence is increasing rapidly, and it is estimated that by the year 2030, this number will double.
A controversial aspect of public health is the control of smoking. Many nations have implemented major initiatives to cut smoking, such as increased taxation and bans on smoking in some or all public places. Proponents argue by presenting evidence that smoking is one of the major killers in all developed countries, and that therefore governments have a duty to reduce the death rate, both through limiting passive (second-hand) smoking and by providing fewer opportunities for smokers to smoke. Opponents say that this undermines individual freedom and personal responsibility (often using the phrase nanny state in the UK), and worry that the state may be emboldened to remove more and more choice in the name of better population health overall. However, proponents counter that inflicting disease on other people via passive smoking is not a human right, and in fact smokers are still free to smoke in their own homes.
[edit] Public Hygiene
Public hygiene includes public behaviors individuals can take to improve their personal health and wellness. Topics include public transportation, food preparation and public washroom use. These are steps individuals can take themselves. Examples would include avoiding crowded subways during the flu season, using gloves when touching the handrails and opening doors in public malls as well as going to clean restaurants.
[edit] Economics of public health
The application of economics to the realm of public health has been rising in importance since the 1980s. Economic studies can show, for example, where limited public resources might best be spent to save lives or cause the greatest increase in quality of life.
[edit] Research
Public health investigates sources of disease and descriptors of health through scientific methodology. This can lead to a public health solution to an epidemic, or a community based intervention for chronic diseases. Either way, research can provide the link between cause and effect for public health issues.
[edit] Community based participatory research
Main article: Community-based participatory research
In contrast to clinical, patient oriented, or literature review research, community based participatory research (CBPR) investigates community-based etiology, involves community leaders, and overall respects the forces under which the community and its participants preside toward promoting and sustaining public health matters. As described by the WK Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program, CBPR is a
"collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community, has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities."[1]
CBPR methods have been necessary for implementation of certain public health actions. This have been difficult to accomplish because communities in poorer, less well developed areas often distrust researchers and scientists from "outside."[2]
[edit] Education and training
Schools of public health offer a variety of degrees which generally fall into two categories: professional or academic.
Professional degrees are oriented towards practice in public health settings. The Master of Public Health (MPH), Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), and Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) are examples of degrees which are geared towards people who want careers as practitioners of public health in health departments, managed care organizations, community-based organizations, hospitals, consulting firms, international agencies, state and federal agencies, among others.
Academic degrees are more oriented toward students wishing to seek a career in teaching at a college or university or conducting research at a university or other settings. Examples of academic degrees are the Master of Science (MS), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), and Doctor of Science (ScD).
The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) represents CEPH-accredited schools of public health in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. ASPH-member schools prepare people to become public health professionals. In addition to representing its member schools, ASPH provides: education and training for students and graduates of its member schools, a job search website PublicHealthJobs.net, funding opportunities, awards, Delta Omega (honorary society for graduate studies in public health), and publications such as Public Health Reports and the Friday Letter.
Distance learning has increasingly become an attractive option for working professionals or people whose other life commitments prevent them from traveling to a physical location for classes. ASPH lists distance learning programs from its member schools.
[edit] Academic Journals
* American Journal of Public Health
* Annual Review of Public Health, ISSN: 15452093 (electronic) 0163-7525 (paper), Annual Reviews
* Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, ISSN 1538–7135, Mary Ann Lieber
* Central Asia Health Review, New York based independent magazine
* International Journal of Prisoner Health, ISSN: 1744-9219 (electronic) 1744-9200 (paper), Taylor & Francis
* Journal of Health, Population and NutritionISSN: 1606 0997
* Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, ISSN: 1078-4659, Lippincott William & Wilkins
* Journal of Urban Health, ISSN: 1468-2869 (electronic) 1099-3460 (paper) , Springer
* Public Health Nutrition, ISSN: 1475-2727 (electronic) 1368-9800 (paper), Cambridge
* Public Health Reports , ISSN: 0033-3549
* Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1651-1905 (electronic) 1403-4948 (paper), Informa Healthcare
* The European Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1464-360X (electronic) 1101-1262 (paper), Oxford University Press
* The Journal of Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 0022-1899, The University of Chicago Press
[edit] See also
* Auxology
* Biological hazard
* Carl Rogers Darnall
* Central Asia Health Review
* Chief Medical Officer
* Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
* Community-led total sanitation
* Epidemiology
* Environmental health
* Environmental, Safety and Health Communication
* Food safety
* Globalization and disease
* Globalization and Health
* Health disparities
* Health economics
* Health Impact Assessment
* Health literacy
* Health reform
* Health policy analysis
* Health promotion
* Healthy diet
* Hygiene
* Infection control
* "Typhoid Mary" – an important case of the clash of individual rights and public health
* Maternal health
* Medical specialty
* Mental health
* National Health Federation
* Nutrition
* Occupational safety and health
* Patient safety
* Patient safety organization
* Pharmaceutical policy
* Pharmacovigilance
* Population health
* Preventive care
* Public health agencies
o European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
o Indian health ministry
o Public health laboratories
o Public Health - Seattle & King County
o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
o Public Health - Center for Public Health Practice
o Center for Minority Health
o Public health by country
o Public health in the People's Republic of China
* Public health education
o Health education
o Bachelor of Science in Public Health
o Master of Public Health
o Doctor of Public Health
o European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET)
* Public health laboratory
* Public Health Genomics
* Public health informatics
* Public health law
* Public Health Software
o Epi Info
o OpenEpi
* Risk management
* Reproductive health
* Samuel Crumbine
* Sara Josephine Baker
* Sewer
* Social hygiene movement
* Social medicine
* Tropical disease
* Waterborne diseases
* Water management
* World Toilet Organization
[edit] References
1. ^ Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, in Seattle, Washington.
2. ^ SYED M. AHMED, BARBRA BECK, CHERYL A. MAURANA & GAIL NEWTON Overcoming Barriers to Effective Community-Based Participatory Research in US Medical Schools. Education for Health, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2004, 141 – 151.
* WHO Definition of Health Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, 1946
* Control of Communicable Diseases Manual edited by James B. Chin, APHA, 2000
* Encyclopedia of public health edited by Lester Breslow, Macmillan Reference 2002
* The Solid Facts: Social Determinants of Health edited by Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot, WHO, 2003
* CCC. (2006), Public Health Emergency Response Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Public Health Directors. Retrieved April10, 2006, from: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/responseguide.asp
* Department of Homeland Security (2004) National Response Plan. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf
[edit] External links
The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.
* Public Health and Safety at the Open Directory Project
* Public Health and Safety at the Yahoo! Directory
* Health Affairs
* World Health Organization
* Centers for Disease Control: Public Health Information Network
* Central Asia Health Review
* Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Organization representing heads of state public health agencies.
* National Association of County and City Health Officials The national organization representing local public health officials; based in Washington, DC.
* Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative
* Association of Schools of Public Health The organization representing CEPH accredited schools of public health
* What Is Public Health
* Public Health Agency of Canada
* UK Association of Public Health Observatories
* American Public Health Association APHA is the oldest, largest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world.
* International Public Health Forum (IPHF) International, nongovernmental organization bringing public health domain and development sector workers towards creating strong global synergy and shared best-practices.
* World Federation of Public Health Associations International, nongovernmental organization bringing health workers throughout the world together for professional exchange, collaboration, and action.
* Public Health Postgraduates Germany e.V.
* Public health database: free access ; documentation base ; documents in full text ; collections ; public health thesaurus ; Web sites directory ; diary of conferences ; multilingual glossary ; employment offers
[hide]
v • d • e
Health science > Medicine
Specialties and
subspecialties
Surgery
Anesthesiology · Cardiac surgery · Cardiothoracic surgery · General surgery · Neurosurgery · Oral and maxillofacial surgery · Orthopedic surgery (Hand surgery) · Otolaryngology (ENT) · Pediatric surgery · Plastic surgery · Surgical oncology · Thoracic surgery · Transplant surgery · Trauma surgery · Urology · Vascular surgery
Internal medicine
Cardiology · Endocrinology · Gastroenterology · Hematology · Hepatology · Infectious diseases · Intensive care medicine · Nephrology · Oncology · Proctology · Pulmonology · Rheumatology
Diagnostic
Clinical laboratory sciences (Cellular pathology, Clinical chemistry, Hematology, Clinical microbiology, Clinical immunology, Transfusion medicine) · Radiology (Interventional radiology, Nuclear Medicine) · Pathology (Anatomical, Clinical) · Clinical neurophysiology
Other specialties
Allergy and immunology · Dermatology · Disaster medicine · Emergency medicine · General practice · Geriatrics · Neurology · Obstetrics and gynaecology (Fertility medicine, Reproductive medicine) · Occupational medicine · Ophthalmology · Palliative care · Pediatrics · Physical medicine and rehabilitation (Physiatry) · Preventive medicine · Psychiatry · Sleep medicine ·
Other
Epidemiology · History of medicine · Hospital medicine · Medical education · Medical genetics · Medical school · Osteopathic medicine · Pharmacy · Physician (M.D. and D.O.) · Physician Assistant · Public health · Sports medicine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Public health is the study and practice of managing threats to the health of a community. The field pays special attention to the social context of disease and health, and focuses on improving health through society-wide measures like vaccinations, the fluoridation of drinking water, or through policies like seatbelt and non-smoking laws.
The goal of public health is to improve lives through the prevention and treatment of disease. The United Nations' World Health Organization defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." In 1920, C.E.A. Winslow defined public health as "the science and art of preventing disease, prolonging life and promoting health through the organized efforts and informed choices of society, organizations, public and private, communities and individuals."
The public-health approach can be applied to a population of just a handful of people or to the whole human population. Public health is typically divided into epidemiology, biostatistics and health services. Environmental, social, behavioral, and occupational health are also important subfields.
Contents
[hide]
* 1 Objectives
* 2 History of public health
o 2.1 Early public health interventions
o 2.2 Modern public health
* 3 Public health programs
* 4 Public Hygiene
* 5 Economics of public health
* 6 Research
o 6.1 Community based participatory research
* 7 Education and training
* 8 Academic Journals
* 9 See also
* 10 References
* 11 External links
[edit] Objectives
The focus of a public health intervention is to prevent rather than treat a disease through surveillance of cases and the promotion of healthy behaviors. In addition to these activities, in many cases treating a disease can be vital to preventing its spread to others, such as during an outbreak of infectious disease or contamination of food or water supplies. Vaccination programs and distribution of condoms are examples of public health measures.
Most countries have their own government public health agencies, sometimes known as ministries of health, to respond to domestic health issues. In the United States, the frontline of public health initiatives are state and local health departments. The United States Public Health Service (PHS), led by the Surgeon General of the United States, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, headquartered in Atlanta and a part of the PHS, are involved with several international health activities, in addition to their national duties.
There is a vast discrepancy in access to healthcare and public health intiatives between developed nations and developing nations. In the developing world, public health infrastructures are still forming. There may not be enough trained health workers or monetary resources to provide even a basic level of medical care and disease prevention. As a result, a large majority of disease and mortality in the developing world results from and contributes to extreme poverty. For example, many African governments spend less than USD$10 per person per year on healthcare, while, in the United States, the federal government spent approximately USD$4,500 per capita in 2000.
Many diseases are preventable through simple, non-medical methods. For example, research has shown that the simple act of hand washing can prevent many contagious diseases.[1]
Public health plays an important role in disease prevention efforts in both the developing world and in developed countries, through local health systems and through international non-governmental organizations, like the International Public Health Forum (IPHF)
The two major postgraduate professional degrees related to this field are the Master of Public Health (MPH) or the (much rarer) Doctor of Public Health (DrPH). Many public health researchers hold PhDs in their fields of speciality, while some public health programs confer the equivalent Doctor of Science degree instead. The United States medical residency specialty is General Preventive Medicine and Public Health.
[edit] History of public health
In some ways, public health is a modern concept, although it has roots in antiquity. From the beginnings of human civilization, it was recognized that polluted water and lack of proper waste disposal spread communicable diseases (theory of miasma). Early religions attempted to regulate behavior that specifically related to health, from types of food eaten, to regulating certain indulgent behaviors, such as drinking alcohol or sexual relations. The establishment of governments placed responsibility on leaders to develop public health policies and programs in order to gain some understanding of the causes of disease and thus ensure social stability prosperity, and maintain order.
[edit] Early public health interventions
By Roman times, it was well understood that proper diversion of human waste was a necessary tenet of public health in urban areas. The Chinese developed the practice of variolation following a smallpox epidemic around 1000 BC. An individual without the disease could gain some measure of immunity against it by inhaling the dried crusts that formed around lesions of infected individuals. Also, children were protected by inoculating a scratch on their forearms with the pus from a lesion. This practice was not documented in the West until the early-1700s, and was used on a very limited basis. The practice of vaccination did not become prevalent until the 1820s, following the work of Edward Jenner to treat smallpox.
During the 14th century Black Death in Europe, it was believed that removing bodies of the dead would further prevent the spread of the bacterial infection. This did little to stem the plague, however, which was most likely spread by rodent-borne fleas. Burning parts of cities resulted in much greater benefit, since it destroyed the rodent infestations. The development of quarantine in the medieval period helped mitigate the effects of other infectious diseases. However, according to Michel Foucault, the plague model of governmentality was later controverted by the cholera model. A Cholera pandemic devastated Europe between 1829 and 1851, and was first fought by the use of what Foucault called "social medicine", which focused on flux, circulation of air, location of cemeteries, etc. All those concerns, born of the miasma theory of disease, were mixed with urbanistic concerns for the management of populations, which Foucault designated as the concept of "biopower". The German conceptualized this in the Polizeiwissenschaft ("Science of police").
The science of epidemiology was founded by John Snow's identification of a polluted public water well as the source of an 1854 cholera outbreak in London. Dr. Snow believed in the germ theory of disease as opposed to the prevailing miasma theory. Although miasma theory correctly teaches that disease is a result of poor sanitation, it was based upon the prevailing theory of spontaneous generation. Germ theory developed slowly: despite Anton van Leeuwenhoek's observations of Microorganisms, (which are now known to cause many of the most common infectious diseases) in the year 1680, the modern era of public health did not begin until the 1880s, with Robert Koch's germ theory and Louis Pasteur's production of artificial vaccines.
Other public health interventions include latrinization, the building of sewers, the regular collection of garbage followed by incineration or disposal in a landfill, providing clean water and draining standing water to prevent the breeding of mosquitos.
[edit] Modern public health
As the prevalence of infectious diseases in the developed world decreased through the 20th century, public health began to put more focus on chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. An emphasis on physical exercise was reintroduced.
In America, public health worker Dr. Sara Josephine Baker lowered the infant mortality rate using preventative methods. She established many programs to help the poor in New York City keep their infants healthy. Dr. Baker led teams of nurses into the crowded neighborhoods of Hell's Kitchen and taught mothers how to dress, feed, and bathe their babies. After World War I many states and countries followed her example in order to lower infant mortality rates.
During the 20th century, the dramatic increase in average life span is widely credited to public health achievements, such as vaccination programs and control of infectious diseases, effective safety policies such as motor-vehicle and occupational safety, improved family planning, fluoridation of drinking water, anti-smoking measures, and programs designed to decrease chronic disease.
Meanwhile, the developing world remained plagued by largely preventable infectious diseases, exacerbated by malnutrition and poverty. Front-page headlines continue to present society with public health issues on a daily basis: emerging infectious diseases such as SARS, making its way from China to Canada and the United States; prescription drug benefits under public programs such as Medicare; the increase of HIV-AIDS among young heterosexual women and its spread in South Africa; the increase of childhood obesity and the concomitant increase in type II diabetes among children; the impact of adolescent pregnancy; and the ongoing social, economic and health disasters related to the 2005 Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina in 2006. These are all ongoing public health challenges.
Since the 1980s, the growing field of population health has broadened the focus of public health from individual behaviors and risk factors to population-level issues such as inequality, poverty, and education. Modern public health is often concerned with addressing determinants of health across a population, rather than advocating for individual behaviour change. There is a recognition that our health is affected by many factors including where we live, genetics, our income, our educational status and our social relationships - these are known as "social determinants of health." A social gradient in health runs through society, with those that are poorest generally suffering the worst health. However even those in the middle classes will generally have worse health outcomes than those of a higher social stratum (WHO, 2003). The new public health seeks to address these health inequalities by advocating for population-based policies that improve the health of the whole population in an equitable fashion.
The burden of treating conditions caused by unemployment, poverty, unfit housing and environmental pollution have been calculated to account for between 16-22% of the clinical budget of the British National Health Service. [2]
UK Public health functions include:
* Health surveillance, monitoring and analysis
* Investigation of disease outbreaks, epidemics and risk to health
* Establishing, designing and managing health promotion and disease prevention programmes
* Enabling and empowering communities to promote health and reduce inequalities
* Creating and sustaining cross-Government and intersectoral partnerships to improve health and reduce inequalities
* Ensuring compliance with regulations and laws to protect and promote health
* Developing and maintaining a well-educated and trained, multi-disciplinary public health workforce
* Ensuring the effective performance of NHS services to meet goals in improving health, preventing disease and reducing inequalities
* Research, development, evaluation and innovation
* Quality assuring the public health function
[edit] Public health programs
This 1963 poster featured CDC’s national symbol of public health, the "Wellbee", encouraging the public to receive an oral polio vaccine.
This 1963 poster featured CDC’s national symbol of public health, the "Wellbee", encouraging the public to receive an oral polio vaccine.
Today, most governments recognize the importance of public health programs in reducing the incidence of disease, disability, and the effects of aging, although public health generally receives significantly less government funding compared with medicine. In recent years, public health programs providing vaccinations have made incredible strides in promoting health, including the eradication of smallpox, a disease that plagued humanity for thousands of years.
One of the most important public health issues facing the world currently is HIV/AIDS. Tuberculosis, which claimed the lives of authors Franz Kafka and Charlotte Brontë, and composer Franz Schubert, among others, is also reemerging as a major concern due to the rise of HIV/AIDS-related infections and the development of tuberculin strains that are resistant to standard antibiotics.
Another major public health concern is diabetes. In 2006, according to the World Health Organization, at least 171 million people worldwide suffered from diabetes. Its incidence is increasing rapidly, and it is estimated that by the year 2030, this number will double.
A controversial aspect of public health is the control of smoking. Many nations have implemented major initiatives to cut smoking, such as increased taxation and bans on smoking in some or all public places. Proponents argue by presenting evidence that smoking is one of the major killers in all developed countries, and that therefore governments have a duty to reduce the death rate, both through limiting passive (second-hand) smoking and by providing fewer opportunities for smokers to smoke. Opponents say that this undermines individual freedom and personal responsibility (often using the phrase nanny state in the UK), and worry that the state may be emboldened to remove more and more choice in the name of better population health overall. However, proponents counter that inflicting disease on other people via passive smoking is not a human right, and in fact smokers are still free to smoke in their own homes.
[edit] Public Hygiene
Public hygiene includes public behaviors individuals can take to improve their personal health and wellness. Topics include public transportation, food preparation and public washroom use. These are steps individuals can take themselves. Examples would include avoiding crowded subways during the flu season, using gloves when touching the handrails and opening doors in public malls as well as going to clean restaurants.
[edit] Economics of public health
The application of economics to the realm of public health has been rising in importance since the 1980s. Economic studies can show, for example, where limited public resources might best be spent to save lives or cause the greatest increase in quality of life.
[edit] Research
Public health investigates sources of disease and descriptors of health through scientific methodology. This can lead to a public health solution to an epidemic, or a community based intervention for chronic diseases. Either way, research can provide the link between cause and effect for public health issues.
[edit] Community based participatory research
Main article: Community-based participatory research
In contrast to clinical, patient oriented, or literature review research, community based participatory research (CBPR) investigates community-based etiology, involves community leaders, and overall respects the forces under which the community and its participants preside toward promoting and sustaining public health matters. As described by the WK Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program, CBPR is a
"collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community, has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities."[1]
CBPR methods have been necessary for implementation of certain public health actions. This have been difficult to accomplish because communities in poorer, less well developed areas often distrust researchers and scientists from "outside."[2]
[edit] Education and training
Schools of public health offer a variety of degrees which generally fall into two categories: professional or academic.
Professional degrees are oriented towards practice in public health settings. The Master of Public Health (MPH), Doctor of Public Health (DrPH), and Master of Healthcare Administration (MHA) are examples of degrees which are geared towards people who want careers as practitioners of public health in health departments, managed care organizations, community-based organizations, hospitals, consulting firms, international agencies, state and federal agencies, among others.
Academic degrees are more oriented toward students wishing to seek a career in teaching at a college or university or conducting research at a university or other settings. Examples of academic degrees are the Master of Science (MS), Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), and Doctor of Science (ScD).
The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) represents CEPH-accredited schools of public health in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Mexico. ASPH-member schools prepare people to become public health professionals. In addition to representing its member schools, ASPH provides: education and training for students and graduates of its member schools, a job search website PublicHealthJobs.net, funding opportunities, awards, Delta Omega (honorary society for graduate studies in public health), and publications such as Public Health Reports and the Friday Letter.
Distance learning has increasingly become an attractive option for working professionals or people whose other life commitments prevent them from traveling to a physical location for classes. ASPH lists distance learning programs from its member schools.
[edit] Academic Journals
* American Journal of Public Health
* Annual Review of Public Health, ISSN: 15452093 (electronic) 0163-7525 (paper), Annual Reviews
* Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, ISSN 1538–7135, Mary Ann Lieber
* Central Asia Health Review, New York based independent magazine
* International Journal of Prisoner Health, ISSN: 1744-9219 (electronic) 1744-9200 (paper), Taylor & Francis
* Journal of Health, Population and NutritionISSN: 1606 0997
* Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, ISSN: 1078-4659, Lippincott William & Wilkins
* Journal of Urban Health, ISSN: 1468-2869 (electronic) 1099-3460 (paper) , Springer
* Public Health Nutrition, ISSN: 1475-2727 (electronic) 1368-9800 (paper), Cambridge
* Public Health Reports , ISSN: 0033-3549
* Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1651-1905 (electronic) 1403-4948 (paper), Informa Healthcare
* The European Journal of Public Health, ISSN: 1464-360X (electronic) 1101-1262 (paper), Oxford University Press
* The Journal of Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 0022-1899, The University of Chicago Press
[edit] See also
* Auxology
* Biological hazard
* Carl Rogers Darnall
* Central Asia Health Review
* Chief Medical Officer
* Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
* Community-led total sanitation
* Epidemiology
* Environmental health
* Environmental, Safety and Health Communication
* Food safety
* Globalization and disease
* Globalization and Health
* Health disparities
* Health economics
* Health Impact Assessment
* Health literacy
* Health reform
* Health policy analysis
* Health promotion
* Healthy diet
* Hygiene
* Infection control
* "Typhoid Mary" – an important case of the clash of individual rights and public health
* Maternal health
* Medical specialty
* Mental health
* National Health Federation
* Nutrition
* Occupational safety and health
* Patient safety
* Patient safety organization
* Pharmaceutical policy
* Pharmacovigilance
* Population health
* Preventive care
* Public health agencies
o European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
o Indian health ministry
o Public health laboratories
o Public Health - Seattle & King County
o Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
o Public Health - Center for Public Health Practice
o Center for Minority Health
o Public health by country
o Public health in the People's Republic of China
* Public health education
o Health education
o Bachelor of Science in Public Health
o Master of Public Health
o Doctor of Public Health
o European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training (EPIET)
* Public health laboratory
* Public Health Genomics
* Public health informatics
* Public health law
* Public Health Software
o Epi Info
o OpenEpi
* Risk management
* Reproductive health
* Samuel Crumbine
* Sara Josephine Baker
* Sewer
* Social hygiene movement
* Social medicine
* Tropical disease
* Waterborne diseases
* Water management
* World Toilet Organization
[edit] References
1. ^ Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, in Seattle, Washington.
2. ^ SYED M. AHMED, BARBRA BECK, CHERYL A. MAURANA & GAIL NEWTON Overcoming Barriers to Effective Community-Based Participatory Research in US Medical Schools. Education for Health, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2004, 141 – 151.
* WHO Definition of Health Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health Conference, 1946
* Control of Communicable Diseases Manual edited by James B. Chin, APHA, 2000
* Encyclopedia of public health edited by Lester Breslow, Macmillan Reference 2002
* The Solid Facts: Social Determinants of Health edited by Richard Wilkinson and Michael Marmot, WHO, 2003
* CCC. (2006), Public Health Emergency Response Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Public Health Directors. Retrieved April10, 2006, from: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/responseguide.asp
* Department of Homeland Security (2004) National Response Plan. Retrieved April 11, 2006, from http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf
[edit] External links
The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.
* Public Health and Safety at the Open Directory Project
* Public Health and Safety at the Yahoo! Directory
* Health Affairs
* World Health Organization
* Centers for Disease Control: Public Health Information Network
* Central Asia Health Review
* Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Organization representing heads of state public health agencies.
* National Association of County and City Health Officials The national organization representing local public health officials; based in Washington, DC.
* Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative
* Association of Schools of Public Health The organization representing CEPH accredited schools of public health
* What Is Public Health
* Public Health Agency of Canada
* UK Association of Public Health Observatories
* American Public Health Association APHA is the oldest, largest and most diverse organization of public health professionals in the world.
* International Public Health Forum (IPHF) International, nongovernmental organization bringing public health domain and development sector workers towards creating strong global synergy and shared best-practices.
* World Federation of Public Health Associations International, nongovernmental organization bringing health workers throughout the world together for professional exchange, collaboration, and action.
* Public Health Postgraduates Germany e.V.
* Public health database: free access ; documentation base ; documents in full text ; collections ; public health thesaurus ; Web sites directory ; diary of conferences ; multilingual glossary ; employment offers
[hide]
v • d • e
Health science > Medicine
Specialties and
subspecialties
Surgery
Anesthesiology · Cardiac surgery · Cardiothoracic surgery · General surgery · Neurosurgery · Oral and maxillofacial surgery · Orthopedic surgery (Hand surgery) · Otolaryngology (ENT) · Pediatric surgery · Plastic surgery · Surgical oncology · Thoracic surgery · Transplant surgery · Trauma surgery · Urology · Vascular surgery
Internal medicine
Cardiology · Endocrinology · Gastroenterology · Hematology · Hepatology · Infectious diseases · Intensive care medicine · Nephrology · Oncology · Proctology · Pulmonology · Rheumatology
Diagnostic
Clinical laboratory sciences (Cellular pathology, Clinical chemistry, Hematology, Clinical microbiology, Clinical immunology, Transfusion medicine) · Radiology (Interventional radiology, Nuclear Medicine) · Pathology (Anatomical, Clinical) · Clinical neurophysiology
Other specialties
Allergy and immunology · Dermatology · Disaster medicine · Emergency medicine · General practice · Geriatrics · Neurology · Obstetrics and gynaecology (Fertility medicine, Reproductive medicine) · Occupational medicine · Ophthalmology · Palliative care · Pediatrics · Physical medicine and rehabilitation (Physiatry) · Preventive medicine · Psychiatry · Sleep medicine ·
Other
Epidemiology · History of medicine · Hospital medicine · Medical education · Medical genetics · Medical school · Osteopathic medicine · Pharmacy · Physician (M.D. and D.O.) · Physician Assistant · Public health · Sports medicine
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Abusing Iran prior to and after WW II
Abusing Iran prior to and after WW II
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
May 14, 2008, 00:22
Email this article
Printer friendly page
In the din of anti-Iranian agit-prop, with the neocons waving their swords at Iran, oh icon of evil, I remember that oil-smudged page of history, the invasion of Iran by Great Britain and the Soviet Union, following the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
Of course, the invasion of Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, was for one reason only, to lock up Iranian oil fields and insure supply lines to the Soviets as they battled Germany on the Eastern Front. By today�s standards, that seems like a noble effort.
Yet it�s another one of those easy to overlook violations of Iran, which was a neutral nation, even though Reza Shah Pahlavi had moved closer to Germany. Part of that resistance was that the British had already sunk their teeth in Iranian oil via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which owned the Abadan Oil Refinery, conceivably a trophy for the oil-thirsty Germans. The refinery in fact knocked out 8 million tons of oil in 1940 and could make or break the Allied effort. Obviously, the Soviets shared the strategic lust for Iran�s oil, as well.
As it was, the German Army was cutting through the Soviet Union and the Allies were searching for a way to get sorely needed American Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviets. Both Allies leaned on the Shah and Iran, which only aggravated the situation, causing pro-German rallies in Tehran. Perhaps as further payback to the Brits, the Reza Shah would not kick out the abundance of German nationals living in Iran, while nixing use of the railway to the Allies. And so, this triggered the Allied invasion of Iran, less than five months before Pearl Harbor.
The British force rose up from the south and the Soviets descended from the north to make short order of the nine Iranian infantry divisions. Despite Reza Shah�s appeal to FDR to invoke the Atlantic Charter on behalf of his �pacific country,� Roosevelt reminded him of the obvious disaster to the world that Hitler�s brutal march for world domination presented. Roosevelt also assured the Shah that the British and Soviet governments had no designs on Iran�s independence or territorial integrity, which would turn out to be a half-truth.
The Soviets would go on later to back separatist states to the north. Still later, the US and UK would support the overthrow of the popular and democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, with the help of Kermit Roosevelt, the FDR's nephew, and the CIA. Flashing back to 1941, Brit forces pulled out of Tehran on October 17, after the Germans had been flushed out. Yet Iran was for all purposes split between Britain and the Soviet Union for the balance of the war.
The creation of the Persian Corridor
Through this new supply lifeline, deemed the Persian Corridor, open to the Soviet Union, some 5 million tons of war goods flowed. The British in the Middle East received their share of the booty as well. Forced to abdicate and exiled to South Africa, Reza Shah Pahlavi was replaced on the throne by his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The new Shah signed the tri-partite treaty of alliance with Britain and the Soviet Union in January 1942. It provided for nonmilitary assistance from Iran to the Allied war effort and stated that the Allies would leave Iran �not more than six months after the cessation of hostilities.�
In response, Iran went one step further and declared war on Germany in September 1943, qualifying for membership in the United Nations, a valuable quid pro quid for the new Shah. At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, FDR, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and bad old General Secretary Joe Stalin reaffirmed their commitment to Iran�s independence and territorial integrity and even extended economic help to Iran. After all, the young Shah had saved their derrieres with his mega gas station.
Yet at the end of the war, as Britain pulled out, the Soviet troops in northwestern Iran refused to go and backed revolts for short-lived, pro-Soviet separatist regimes in the northern provinces of Iranian Azerbaijan, the People�s Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People�s Republic in late 1945. Both were patently Soviet puppet states. Soviet troops did not get out of Iran completely until May 1946, and only after receiving a promise of oil concessions. After they were gone, the Soviet republics in the north were overthrown by Iranian fighters and the oil concessions were revoked. And Iran was left with a bitter taste its mouth for the Allies.
This was exacerbated, again, in 1953 by the overthrow of the duly elected Mohammed Mossadegh, who was thrown in jail for the rest of his life. This as the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his aristocratic band of thieves were brought back to shore up the lion�s share of its wealth. This left the lion�s share of the populous land-poor and impoverished. This led eventually to the Iranian Revolution in December 1979 and the deposing of the Shah, with the subsequent return of the Ayatollah Khomeini from exile in France.
From hostage crisis to Iran-Contra
Three decades of Iran being bandied about by Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States finally exploded in our faces in the form of the Iran hostage crisis, in which 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days, from November 4, 1979 to January 20. 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.
The crisis reached a climax when the US military attempted a disastrous rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw, on April 24, 1980, resulting in an aborted mission and the deaths of eight American military men. The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19. 1981. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day, just minutes after the new American president, Ronald Reagan, was sworn in.
In America, the unresolved hostage crisis was really the basis for President Jimmy Carter�s defeat in the November 1980 presidential election. The crisis� lack of resolution was brought about by presidential candidate Ronald Reagan and his vice presidential running mate, ex-CIA chief George H.W. Bush, who were conducting treasonous negotiations behind Carter�s back for release of the hostages soon after the election, offering them more money, weapons and spare parts than Carter had put on the table.
Of course, these monies and munitions we would later find out were obtained through the scandalous Iran-Contra affair. That is, the funding had been produced via an exchange of arms to the Nicaraguan (Counter-Revolutionary) Contras in exchange for drugs and cash, not quite a cricket way to win an election or resolve an international crisis.
The black operation was discovered only after an airlift of guns was downed over Nicaragua on October 5. 1986. The Iranian government confirmed an Iranian newspaper story with all the embarrassing details. Ten days after the story was first published, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television from the Oval Office. In his speech on November 13, Reagan confirmed the transactions and stated the hard-to-swallow reasons for them.
"My purpose was . . . to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship . . . At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there," Reagan said.
Salt was poured into the wounds of the scandal when Oliver North, who rode herd on the Contra op, destroyed or hid pertinent documents between November 21 and November 25, 1986, revealing their activities. During North's trial in 1989, his secretary, Fawn Hall, testified extensively about helping her boss to alter, shred, and remove official United States National Security Council (NSC) documents from the White House.
According to the New York Times, enough documents were put into a government shredder to choke it. North's thin explanation for destroying the documents was to protect the lives of individuals involved in Iran and Contra operations. North claimed that he gathered documents to prove that he had sufficient authority for his actions. What authority provided him the authority to usurp one nation�s revolution to support another nation�s, except the Republican imperative to win the election?
In fact, North took more than a dozen notebooks containing 2,617 pages of names, phone conversations, meetings, lists of action items, and details on operations, including highly classified information. It wasn't until years after the trial that North's notebooks were made public, and only after the National Security Archive and Public Citizen sued the Office of the Independent Council under the Freedom of Information Act.
The cherry on the cake: the Iran-Iraq War
And to top it all off, our sometimes friend Saddam Hussein, after his long run in the early 1970s heading up Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company (which held a monopoly on the country's oil), became president in 1979. By 1980, with some encouragement from the Carter administration, Hussein exploited age-old hostilities between the two nations and declared war on Iran. After some initial setbacks, Iran fought back and gained control over the war, albeit with the US, Soviets, and Europeans lending aid to both sides. The war went on for eight bloody years, yielding one million Iraqi deaths and even more Iranian deaths. They couldn�t have done it without a little help from their friends, including the Reagan bunch.
Now, given this backstory, is it any wonder that Iran is suspicious of the West and particularly the United States? As we rant about their nuclear energy projects, even if they include arms development, tiny Israel has become one of the world�s largest nuclear powers, building its arsenal since its inception in 1948. And we worked as hard as Israel to keep it a secret.
Thus Iran has wakened one more time to defend itself, rejecting nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them. Read the AP story of May 5, 2008 for details.
So once again, interference in other nations� business, subterfuge, CIA meddling and blowback, have steered us gradually into havoc. The question is when will we learn to play it straight, Sam, with Iran and everyone else? Or is that not in the political playbook?
Jerry Mazza is a free-lance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor
May 14, 2008, 00:22
Email this article
Printer friendly page
In the din of anti-Iranian agit-prop, with the neocons waving their swords at Iran, oh icon of evil, I remember that oil-smudged page of history, the invasion of Iran by Great Britain and the Soviet Union, following the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
Of course, the invasion of Iran from August 25 to September 17, 1941, was for one reason only, to lock up Iranian oil fields and insure supply lines to the Soviets as they battled Germany on the Eastern Front. By today�s standards, that seems like a noble effort.
Yet it�s another one of those easy to overlook violations of Iran, which was a neutral nation, even though Reza Shah Pahlavi had moved closer to Germany. Part of that resistance was that the British had already sunk their teeth in Iranian oil via the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which owned the Abadan Oil Refinery, conceivably a trophy for the oil-thirsty Germans. The refinery in fact knocked out 8 million tons of oil in 1940 and could make or break the Allied effort. Obviously, the Soviets shared the strategic lust for Iran�s oil, as well.
As it was, the German Army was cutting through the Soviet Union and the Allies were searching for a way to get sorely needed American Lend-Lease supplies to the Soviets. Both Allies leaned on the Shah and Iran, which only aggravated the situation, causing pro-German rallies in Tehran. Perhaps as further payback to the Brits, the Reza Shah would not kick out the abundance of German nationals living in Iran, while nixing use of the railway to the Allies. And so, this triggered the Allied invasion of Iran, less than five months before Pearl Harbor.
The British force rose up from the south and the Soviets descended from the north to make short order of the nine Iranian infantry divisions. Despite Reza Shah�s appeal to FDR to invoke the Atlantic Charter on behalf of his �pacific country,� Roosevelt reminded him of the obvious disaster to the world that Hitler�s brutal march for world domination presented. Roosevelt also assured the Shah that the British and Soviet governments had no designs on Iran�s independence or territorial integrity, which would turn out to be a half-truth.
The Soviets would go on later to back separatist states to the north. Still later, the US and UK would support the overthrow of the popular and democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, with the help of Kermit Roosevelt, the FDR's nephew, and the CIA. Flashing back to 1941, Brit forces pulled out of Tehran on October 17, after the Germans had been flushed out. Yet Iran was for all purposes split between Britain and the Soviet Union for the balance of the war.
The creation of the Persian Corridor
Through this new supply lifeline, deemed the Persian Corridor, open to the Soviet Union, some 5 million tons of war goods flowed. The British in the Middle East received their share of the booty as well. Forced to abdicate and exiled to South Africa, Reza Shah Pahlavi was replaced on the throne by his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. The new Shah signed the tri-partite treaty of alliance with Britain and the Soviet Union in January 1942. It provided for nonmilitary assistance from Iran to the Allied war effort and stated that the Allies would leave Iran �not more than six months after the cessation of hostilities.�
In response, Iran went one step further and declared war on Germany in September 1943, qualifying for membership in the United Nations, a valuable quid pro quid for the new Shah. At the Tehran Conference in November 1943, FDR, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and bad old General Secretary Joe Stalin reaffirmed their commitment to Iran�s independence and territorial integrity and even extended economic help to Iran. After all, the young Shah had saved their derrieres with his mega gas station.
Yet at the end of the war, as Britain pulled out, the Soviet troops in northwestern Iran refused to go and backed revolts for short-lived, pro-Soviet separatist regimes in the northern provinces of Iranian Azerbaijan, the People�s Republic of Azerbaijan and the Kurdish People�s Republic in late 1945. Both were patently Soviet puppet states. Soviet troops did not get out of Iran completely until May 1946, and only after receiving a promise of oil concessions. After they were gone, the Soviet republics in the north were overthrown by Iranian fighters and the oil concessions were revoked. And Iran was left with a bitter taste its mouth for the Allies.
This was exacerbated, again, in 1953 by the overthrow of the duly elected Mohammed Mossadegh, who was thrown in jail for the rest of his life. This as the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his aristocratic band of thieves were brought back to shore up the lion�s share of its wealth. This left the lion�s share of the populous land-poor and impoverished. This led eventually to the Iranian Revolution in December 1979 and the deposing of the Shah, with the subsequent return of the Ayatollah Khomeini from exile in France.
From hostage crisis to Iran-Contra
Three decades of Iran being bandied about by Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States finally exploded in our faces in the form of the Iran hostage crisis, in which 53 U.S. diplomats were held hostage for 444 days, from November 4, 1979 to January 20. 1981, after a group of students took over the American embassy in support of Iran's revolution.
The crisis reached a climax when the US military attempted a disastrous rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw, on April 24, 1980, resulting in an aborted mission and the deaths of eight American military men. The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19. 1981. The hostages were formally released into United States custody the following day, just minutes after the new American president, Ronald Reagan, was sworn in.
In America, the unresolved hostage crisis was really the basis for President Jimmy Carter�s defeat in the November 1980 presidential election. The crisis� lack of resolution was brought about by presidential candidate Ronald Reagan and his vice presidential running mate, ex-CIA chief George H.W. Bush, who were conducting treasonous negotiations behind Carter�s back for release of the hostages soon after the election, offering them more money, weapons and spare parts than Carter had put on the table.
Of course, these monies and munitions we would later find out were obtained through the scandalous Iran-Contra affair. That is, the funding had been produced via an exchange of arms to the Nicaraguan (Counter-Revolutionary) Contras in exchange for drugs and cash, not quite a cricket way to win an election or resolve an international crisis.
The black operation was discovered only after an airlift of guns was downed over Nicaragua on October 5. 1986. The Iranian government confirmed an Iranian newspaper story with all the embarrassing details. Ten days after the story was first published, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television from the Oval Office. In his speech on November 13, Reagan confirmed the transactions and stated the hard-to-swallow reasons for them.
"My purpose was . . . to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the U.S. and Iran] with a new relationship . . . At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there," Reagan said.
Salt was poured into the wounds of the scandal when Oliver North, who rode herd on the Contra op, destroyed or hid pertinent documents between November 21 and November 25, 1986, revealing their activities. During North's trial in 1989, his secretary, Fawn Hall, testified extensively about helping her boss to alter, shred, and remove official United States National Security Council (NSC) documents from the White House.
According to the New York Times, enough documents were put into a government shredder to choke it. North's thin explanation for destroying the documents was to protect the lives of individuals involved in Iran and Contra operations. North claimed that he gathered documents to prove that he had sufficient authority for his actions. What authority provided him the authority to usurp one nation�s revolution to support another nation�s, except the Republican imperative to win the election?
In fact, North took more than a dozen notebooks containing 2,617 pages of names, phone conversations, meetings, lists of action items, and details on operations, including highly classified information. It wasn't until years after the trial that North's notebooks were made public, and only after the National Security Archive and Public Citizen sued the Office of the Independent Council under the Freedom of Information Act.
The cherry on the cake: the Iran-Iraq War
And to top it all off, our sometimes friend Saddam Hussein, after his long run in the early 1970s heading up Iraq's nationalization of the Western-owned Iraq Petroleum Company (which held a monopoly on the country's oil), became president in 1979. By 1980, with some encouragement from the Carter administration, Hussein exploited age-old hostilities between the two nations and declared war on Iran. After some initial setbacks, Iran fought back and gained control over the war, albeit with the US, Soviets, and Europeans lending aid to both sides. The war went on for eight bloody years, yielding one million Iraqi deaths and even more Iranian deaths. They couldn�t have done it without a little help from their friends, including the Reagan bunch.
Now, given this backstory, is it any wonder that Iran is suspicious of the West and particularly the United States? As we rant about their nuclear energy projects, even if they include arms development, tiny Israel has become one of the world�s largest nuclear powers, building its arsenal since its inception in 1948. And we worked as hard as Israel to keep it a secret.
Thus Iran has wakened one more time to defend itself, rejecting nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them. Read the AP story of May 5, 2008 for details.
So once again, interference in other nations� business, subterfuge, CIA meddling and blowback, have steered us gradually into havoc. The question is when will we learn to play it straight, Sam, with Iran and everyone else? Or is that not in the political playbook?
Jerry Mazza is a free-lance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Iran Leader Says U.S. Abusing U.N. Power
Iran Leader Says U.S. Abusing U.N. Power
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon on Tuesday, and accused Washington of abusing its power in the U.N. Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.
He addressed the annual U.N. General Assembly hours after President Bush spoke to the same forum. But while Ahmadinejad harshly criticized the United States, Bush directed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the hard-line government.
In his speech, Bush pointed to the Iranian government's rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face sanctions.
"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,"the U.S. leader said.
"Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,"he said."Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."
He also said he hoped to see"the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."
(Story continues below)
Advertise Here
Advertisements
Ahmadinejad insisted that his nation's nuclear activities are"transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye"of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
But even though the two leaders were addressing the same forum, they skipped each other's speeches and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.
Ahmadinejad also accused the United States and Britain of using their veto power on the Security Council to further their own interests and he said it had become an"instrument of threat and coercion."
"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council,"and assign themselves the roles of"prosecutor, judge and executioner,"Ahmadinejad said."Is this a just order?"
The U.S. and Britain played central roles in helping craft a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused. Tehran made clear even before the deadline expired that it had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.
The IAEA last week rejected a recent American report on Iran's nuclear capability, saying the Islamic republic has produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
Ahmadinejad also criticized the Security Council for failing to call for an immediate cease-fire after war broke out between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. A truce was only reached on Aug. 14 to end the 34-day conflict.
"The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese ... Why?"asked Ahmadinejad, whose government is one of Hezbollah's main backers.
He said the answer is self-evident:"When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities."
The United States and Britain refused to call for a cease-fire during the monthlong war between Israel and Hezbollah, declaring it part of war on terror. Only after Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah and the deaths of nearly 1,000 Lebanese civilians did Washington and London agree to push for a truce by the U.N. Security Council.
The Iranian leader had harsh words about U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying"the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq"and every day hundreds of people get killed"in cold blood."
Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were"let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."
Domestically, Ahmadinejad, who doesn't enjoy widespread popularity among his people, has been able to use America's uncompromising stand against Iran's nuclear program to his own benefit. Many Iranians, including those who are against the president's domestic policies, support him in his showdown with the United States on the nuclear issue.
In an interview with"NBC Nightly News,"Ahmadinejad was asked about Bush's appeal to the Iranian people.
"We have the same desire ... to be together for the cause of world peace,"he said through a translator.
"We think that the American people are like our people. They're good people, they support peace, equality and brotherhood,"he said.
He said his issue was with the U.S. administration.
"I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world because these policies are movingthe world toward war,"he said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon on Tuesday, and accused Washington of abusing its power in the U.N. Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.
He addressed the annual U.N. General Assembly hours after President Bush spoke to the same forum. But while Ahmadinejad harshly criticized the United States, Bush directed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the hard-line government.
In his speech, Bush pointed to the Iranian government's rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face sanctions.
"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,"the U.S. leader said.
"Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,"he said."Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."
He also said he hoped to see"the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."
(Story continues below)
Advertise Here
Advertisements
Ahmadinejad insisted that his nation's nuclear activities are"transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye"of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
But even though the two leaders were addressing the same forum, they skipped each other's speeches and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.
Ahmadinejad also accused the United States and Britain of using their veto power on the Security Council to further their own interests and he said it had become an"instrument of threat and coercion."
"If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council,"and assign themselves the roles of"prosecutor, judge and executioner,"Ahmadinejad said."Is this a just order?"
The U.S. and Britain played central roles in helping craft a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused. Tehran made clear even before the deadline expired that it had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.
The IAEA last week rejected a recent American report on Iran's nuclear capability, saying the Islamic republic has produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.
Ahmadinejad also criticized the Security Council for failing to call for an immediate cease-fire after war broke out between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. A truce was only reached on Aug. 14 to end the 34-day conflict.
"The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese ... Why?"asked Ahmadinejad, whose government is one of Hezbollah's main backers.
He said the answer is self-evident:"When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities."
The United States and Britain refused to call for a cease-fire during the monthlong war between Israel and Hezbollah, declaring it part of war on terror. Only after Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah and the deaths of nearly 1,000 Lebanese civilians did Washington and London agree to push for a truce by the U.N. Security Council.
The Iranian leader had harsh words about U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying"the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq"and every day hundreds of people get killed"in cold blood."
Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were"let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers."
Domestically, Ahmadinejad, who doesn't enjoy widespread popularity among his people, has been able to use America's uncompromising stand against Iran's nuclear program to his own benefit. Many Iranians, including those who are against the president's domestic policies, support him in his showdown with the United States on the nuclear issue.
In an interview with"NBC Nightly News,"Ahmadinejad was asked about Bush's appeal to the Iranian people.
"We have the same desire ... to be together for the cause of world peace,"he said through a translator.
"We think that the American people are like our people. They're good people, they support peace, equality and brotherhood,"he said.
He said his issue was with the U.S. administration.
"I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world because these policies are movingthe world toward war,"he said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
USA Basketball
USA Men's Senior National Team Quote(s) of the Day
...
USA Basketball Men’s Senior National Team
July 22, 2008 • Las Vegas, Nevada
Check out today's photo gallery! (coming soon)
Coach KUSA head coach Mike Krzyzewski, Duke University
Guys who play in the NBA and all the games they play, nobody is going to be 100 percent. Are you concerned with any nagging injuries in Beijing?
These guys are never 100 percent. And you know what? Neither are the guys we’re playing against. They’re either in the NBA or they’re playing in the top league in Europe. So I think that equals out. For us to even talk about it I think it shows a little weakness on our part. Although we’re not making any excuses, if we’re always talking about injury or recovering from injury, ‘oh feel sorry for us.’ But that’s the way it is. A lot of people go to work sick and aching.
"It’s an honor to wear the USA across my chest, have a chance to compete for a gold medal, a chance to be in the Olympics. That’s something a lot of people don’t get to do. It’s a great experience for me, it’s a great experience for the rest of the guys, it’s something I’m going to cherish for the rest of my life."
~ Deron Williams
How’s Dwyane Wade looking?
Dwyane has been terrific. The stuff he and Tim Grover have done in coming back shows that he’s made an amazing commitment to being in top-flight shape and getting over his injury. He’s been the most pleasant surprise of our three days because you didn’t know what to expect because he was out the last portion of the season.
You said he might actually be healthier now than he was in 2006:
He wasn’t healthy when he played in ’06, but he can speak to that. But he looks great. It’s interesting you say that because I told the staff that he won an NBA championship in 2006, but he was beat up afterwards. I think he’s better (now). He looks better right now than when we played in the World Championships.
What should the fans expect against Canada on Friday night?
The fans should expect to see us playing real hard. It’s our first time for this entire 12 guys. It’s the first step on a journey, the first of five exhibition games. I haven’t seen Canada yet, but it’s not so much about who you’re playing. It’s about what you’re doing and I know our guys will be excited, really excited to play.
On LeBron James today:
Our focus wasn’t on LeBron today because he wasn’t ready to practice. We’re just cautiously giving him time to come back after his injury. But he’s doing well. He shot afterwards. He’s walking well and I would think that if the gold medal game was tomorrow, he’d play. But we’re not playing the gold medal game or a medal round game right now. We’d rather be cautious right now.
What kind of instructions, if any, have you given the players over any possible off-court issues that might come up in China?
They should speak on it however they want. Our country allows you to say whatever you want to say. The fact is, though, is that we look at the Olympics as sport and not a political forum. But that doesn’t mean our guys don’t have the right to speak about any issue. That’s what makes our country a pretty nice place to live in.
Chris BoshChris Bosh (Toronto Raptors)
Would you be able to live and play overseas?
I think I could. I’ve always wanted to travel the world and experience another culture. That would be pretty interesting. You might want to come home after it. But I’m sure these guys who go over and after they’re done they look back at it and had a lot of fun.
How tough was it not playing last year on the team?
When you sit on the sidelines and watch these guys play, all this talent in the room. First of all you feel like you’re missing out on getting better for your respective team. Then, it seems like a lot of fun. I like playing basketball and everything and to see how these guys hoop every day, push each other, make each other better, it’s great.
On not playing last summer:
I was very excited to come back and be a part of this. I waited my summer. Even thought I wanted to play, I tried to push myself but the doctors said it was wise to sit it out. I talked with Jerry (Colangelo) and coach K and I told them how badly I wanted to play.
We’ve heard about America not having too many big men anymore. What are your thoughts on that?
I don’t know where it’s coming from. If you look at our team we have big guys. If you match our big guys up with the big guys from Greece or Spain or Argentina, I think we match up pretty well.
Kobe Bryant said that he held an Olympic gold medal as a higher honor than an NBA title. Do you feel the same?
I kind of feel the same way. The Olympics have been going on for over a hundred years now so I think a gold medal is a little more prestigious than an NBA championship because it only comes once every four years.
What did you take away from the Olympic Ambassador Program?
A sense of pride that past Olympians have had, how other people see it and how important it is. Not only from a competition standpoint, but it’s the spirit of representing your country. That’s mainly what I got from it and that’s what I heard everyone mostly talk about afterwards.
Brandi Chastain brought her gold medal. Does that give you something to visualize when you’re thinking about your goal this summer?
Yeah. You have to visualize it before you get it. To be able to hold it, see what it looks like, how much it weighs … I wanted to bite it to see if it was real gold (laughs). But I think it’s real important and for her to share that with us is pretty awesome.
Kobe BryantKobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers)
During the regular season you all are rivals, how do you make the switch to teammates?
It’s easy. There’s always a great deal of respect amongst each other when we face each other. There’s always that undercurrent in the game that we admire each other, respect one another. So when you come here you have the opportunity to learn from each other a little bit. We enjoy each other’s company.
Do you worry about playing time?
No, I’m not worried about it at all. They’re doing a great job, trying to put together the right combination of players and we all take this extremely seriously.
How much fun are you having playing with this group?
It’s fun because we’re all working hard. That’s where the enjoyment comes from, we’re communicating with one another. We understand that there are a lot of improvements to be made and that’s what makes the process more enjoyable, because you have something to strive for, something to work towards. That’s why it’s fun.
With the chemistry and team play you’ve developed, do you think the international teams are a little more fearful of you this summer?
No, I don’t. I think they’re sitting over there and saying ‘when push comes to shove we’re going to play more as a team than they are.’ I don’t think what they’re reading or what they’re seeing (about this team) is going to change their minds one bit.
What’s the difference in your defensive role on this team?
My role is different with this team because you don’t have to score 30-something points. You can really focus on the other team’s top scorer and make him have as difficult game as I possibly can.
LeBron JamesLeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers)
Brandi Chastain spoke with the team yesterday and brought one of her gold medals. Did that help you guys visualize your goal a little bit more?
No, but it was more of a congratulations to her. For us, we don’t want to visualize or do anything like that, we just want to go out there and take it. That’s her medal. We want to be in the position where it’s our medal and we can show our gold to her. She has one and we’re going to try to get one. We’re going to do the best job we can to try to get one.
You sat out today, was it just precautionary?
Oh no, it wasn’t precautionary. If I could practice I would. The ankle’s not ready to go out there yet. As hard as we go out on the court, it’s not ready for it.
The other day Kobe Bryant said his ultimate goal in basketball would be a gold medal. Would you agree with that?
Right now, the only thing I can think about is a gold medal. It’s hard to assess. I think it’s equal. It’s the ultimate to be in the NBA and win an NBA championship. But being an Olympian, it’s the ultimate to win a gold medal. I’m both so I think one could be as rewarding as the other. I want them both.
Is it good to play with a group of guys like this?
Absolutely. To have the opportunity to play with these guys you dream about having on your team throughout the regular season. So it’s definitely something great.
Tayshaun PrinceTayshaun Prince (Detroit Pistons)
On the Olympic Ambassador Program the USA team went through on July 22:
I thought it was a great experience to have the opportunity to have them speak to us about the Olympic experience. Obviously Brandi (Chastain, soccer) had the opportunity to win several gold medals. By her bringing one of her gold medals and letting everybody experience it. By seeing it and sharing her thoughts with us, I think it gave us the opportunity to put it in our minds, think about what the possibility would be if we could go out there and take care of business. Then the other speakers, they had the opportunity to talk to us and remind us that the whole world would be watching, go out there and give it your all. You’re representing everybody and they’re pulling for you. Those are nice things to hear when you have the opportunity to represent your country and go overseas and have the USA across your chest and to be able to represent the best you can.
Do you get more of a national feel when you hear from Olympians from other sports?
It represents more of a unity. What I mean by that is that whenever we can bring soccer players, track and field, swimming, whatever it may be, and we interact with one another, it gives us an opportunity to meet them and bring all the athletes together, all the great athletes in the world. It also gives us the chance to represent our country the best way we can in uniting together. Whether it’s Brandi (Chastain) coming, or another person, it gives us the opportunity to interact with one another and share our different experiences.
Are there any other sports you’d like to see at the Olympics?
I would love to see some track and field. That’s one of my favorites to watch, I’m not good at it but I like to watch. I like swimming and diving as well, those things. I think it’ll be a great atmosphere.
Deron WilliamsDeron Williams (Utah Jazz)
On being on the 2008 USA team:
It’s been great. It’s an honor to wear the USA across my chest, have a chance to compete for a gold medal, a chance to be in the Olympics. That’s something a lot of people don’t get to do. It’s a great experience for me, it’s a great experience for the rest of the guys, it’s something I’m going to cherish for the rest of my life.
What was the reaction from everyone yesterday when LeBron James sprained his ankle?
When he went down I don’t think anyone said anything in the gym. I saw the trainers get up and go over to him. He’s alright though, he’s out there shooting right now. So that’s pretty good.
What’s it like having your Jazz teammate Carlos Boozer on this team?
It’s been great. It’s good for us as teammates to have this time to work together and get to know each other even better not just on the court but off the court as well. It’s going to help us a lot.
...
USA Basketball Men’s Senior National Team
July 22, 2008 • Las Vegas, Nevada
Check out today's photo gallery! (coming soon)
Coach KUSA head coach Mike Krzyzewski, Duke University
Guys who play in the NBA and all the games they play, nobody is going to be 100 percent. Are you concerned with any nagging injuries in Beijing?
These guys are never 100 percent. And you know what? Neither are the guys we’re playing against. They’re either in the NBA or they’re playing in the top league in Europe. So I think that equals out. For us to even talk about it I think it shows a little weakness on our part. Although we’re not making any excuses, if we’re always talking about injury or recovering from injury, ‘oh feel sorry for us.’ But that’s the way it is. A lot of people go to work sick and aching.
"It’s an honor to wear the USA across my chest, have a chance to compete for a gold medal, a chance to be in the Olympics. That’s something a lot of people don’t get to do. It’s a great experience for me, it’s a great experience for the rest of the guys, it’s something I’m going to cherish for the rest of my life."
~ Deron Williams
How’s Dwyane Wade looking?
Dwyane has been terrific. The stuff he and Tim Grover have done in coming back shows that he’s made an amazing commitment to being in top-flight shape and getting over his injury. He’s been the most pleasant surprise of our three days because you didn’t know what to expect because he was out the last portion of the season.
You said he might actually be healthier now than he was in 2006:
He wasn’t healthy when he played in ’06, but he can speak to that. But he looks great. It’s interesting you say that because I told the staff that he won an NBA championship in 2006, but he was beat up afterwards. I think he’s better (now). He looks better right now than when we played in the World Championships.
What should the fans expect against Canada on Friday night?
The fans should expect to see us playing real hard. It’s our first time for this entire 12 guys. It’s the first step on a journey, the first of five exhibition games. I haven’t seen Canada yet, but it’s not so much about who you’re playing. It’s about what you’re doing and I know our guys will be excited, really excited to play.
On LeBron James today:
Our focus wasn’t on LeBron today because he wasn’t ready to practice. We’re just cautiously giving him time to come back after his injury. But he’s doing well. He shot afterwards. He’s walking well and I would think that if the gold medal game was tomorrow, he’d play. But we’re not playing the gold medal game or a medal round game right now. We’d rather be cautious right now.
What kind of instructions, if any, have you given the players over any possible off-court issues that might come up in China?
They should speak on it however they want. Our country allows you to say whatever you want to say. The fact is, though, is that we look at the Olympics as sport and not a political forum. But that doesn’t mean our guys don’t have the right to speak about any issue. That’s what makes our country a pretty nice place to live in.
Chris BoshChris Bosh (Toronto Raptors)
Would you be able to live and play overseas?
I think I could. I’ve always wanted to travel the world and experience another culture. That would be pretty interesting. You might want to come home after it. But I’m sure these guys who go over and after they’re done they look back at it and had a lot of fun.
How tough was it not playing last year on the team?
When you sit on the sidelines and watch these guys play, all this talent in the room. First of all you feel like you’re missing out on getting better for your respective team. Then, it seems like a lot of fun. I like playing basketball and everything and to see how these guys hoop every day, push each other, make each other better, it’s great.
On not playing last summer:
I was very excited to come back and be a part of this. I waited my summer. Even thought I wanted to play, I tried to push myself but the doctors said it was wise to sit it out. I talked with Jerry (Colangelo) and coach K and I told them how badly I wanted to play.
We’ve heard about America not having too many big men anymore. What are your thoughts on that?
I don’t know where it’s coming from. If you look at our team we have big guys. If you match our big guys up with the big guys from Greece or Spain or Argentina, I think we match up pretty well.
Kobe Bryant said that he held an Olympic gold medal as a higher honor than an NBA title. Do you feel the same?
I kind of feel the same way. The Olympics have been going on for over a hundred years now so I think a gold medal is a little more prestigious than an NBA championship because it only comes once every four years.
What did you take away from the Olympic Ambassador Program?
A sense of pride that past Olympians have had, how other people see it and how important it is. Not only from a competition standpoint, but it’s the spirit of representing your country. That’s mainly what I got from it and that’s what I heard everyone mostly talk about afterwards.
Brandi Chastain brought her gold medal. Does that give you something to visualize when you’re thinking about your goal this summer?
Yeah. You have to visualize it before you get it. To be able to hold it, see what it looks like, how much it weighs … I wanted to bite it to see if it was real gold (laughs). But I think it’s real important and for her to share that with us is pretty awesome.
Kobe BryantKobe Bryant (Los Angeles Lakers)
During the regular season you all are rivals, how do you make the switch to teammates?
It’s easy. There’s always a great deal of respect amongst each other when we face each other. There’s always that undercurrent in the game that we admire each other, respect one another. So when you come here you have the opportunity to learn from each other a little bit. We enjoy each other’s company.
Do you worry about playing time?
No, I’m not worried about it at all. They’re doing a great job, trying to put together the right combination of players and we all take this extremely seriously.
How much fun are you having playing with this group?
It’s fun because we’re all working hard. That’s where the enjoyment comes from, we’re communicating with one another. We understand that there are a lot of improvements to be made and that’s what makes the process more enjoyable, because you have something to strive for, something to work towards. That’s why it’s fun.
With the chemistry and team play you’ve developed, do you think the international teams are a little more fearful of you this summer?
No, I don’t. I think they’re sitting over there and saying ‘when push comes to shove we’re going to play more as a team than they are.’ I don’t think what they’re reading or what they’re seeing (about this team) is going to change their minds one bit.
What’s the difference in your defensive role on this team?
My role is different with this team because you don’t have to score 30-something points. You can really focus on the other team’s top scorer and make him have as difficult game as I possibly can.
LeBron JamesLeBron James (Cleveland Cavaliers)
Brandi Chastain spoke with the team yesterday and brought one of her gold medals. Did that help you guys visualize your goal a little bit more?
No, but it was more of a congratulations to her. For us, we don’t want to visualize or do anything like that, we just want to go out there and take it. That’s her medal. We want to be in the position where it’s our medal and we can show our gold to her. She has one and we’re going to try to get one. We’re going to do the best job we can to try to get one.
You sat out today, was it just precautionary?
Oh no, it wasn’t precautionary. If I could practice I would. The ankle’s not ready to go out there yet. As hard as we go out on the court, it’s not ready for it.
The other day Kobe Bryant said his ultimate goal in basketball would be a gold medal. Would you agree with that?
Right now, the only thing I can think about is a gold medal. It’s hard to assess. I think it’s equal. It’s the ultimate to be in the NBA and win an NBA championship. But being an Olympian, it’s the ultimate to win a gold medal. I’m both so I think one could be as rewarding as the other. I want them both.
Is it good to play with a group of guys like this?
Absolutely. To have the opportunity to play with these guys you dream about having on your team throughout the regular season. So it’s definitely something great.
Tayshaun PrinceTayshaun Prince (Detroit Pistons)
On the Olympic Ambassador Program the USA team went through on July 22:
I thought it was a great experience to have the opportunity to have them speak to us about the Olympic experience. Obviously Brandi (Chastain, soccer) had the opportunity to win several gold medals. By her bringing one of her gold medals and letting everybody experience it. By seeing it and sharing her thoughts with us, I think it gave us the opportunity to put it in our minds, think about what the possibility would be if we could go out there and take care of business. Then the other speakers, they had the opportunity to talk to us and remind us that the whole world would be watching, go out there and give it your all. You’re representing everybody and they’re pulling for you. Those are nice things to hear when you have the opportunity to represent your country and go overseas and have the USA across your chest and to be able to represent the best you can.
Do you get more of a national feel when you hear from Olympians from other sports?
It represents more of a unity. What I mean by that is that whenever we can bring soccer players, track and field, swimming, whatever it may be, and we interact with one another, it gives us an opportunity to meet them and bring all the athletes together, all the great athletes in the world. It also gives us the chance to represent our country the best way we can in uniting together. Whether it’s Brandi (Chastain) coming, or another person, it gives us the opportunity to interact with one another and share our different experiences.
Are there any other sports you’d like to see at the Olympics?
I would love to see some track and field. That’s one of my favorites to watch, I’m not good at it but I like to watch. I like swimming and diving as well, those things. I think it’ll be a great atmosphere.
Deron WilliamsDeron Williams (Utah Jazz)
On being on the 2008 USA team:
It’s been great. It’s an honor to wear the USA across my chest, have a chance to compete for a gold medal, a chance to be in the Olympics. That’s something a lot of people don’t get to do. It’s a great experience for me, it’s a great experience for the rest of the guys, it’s something I’m going to cherish for the rest of my life.
What was the reaction from everyone yesterday when LeBron James sprained his ankle?
When he went down I don’t think anyone said anything in the gym. I saw the trainers get up and go over to him. He’s alright though, he’s out there shooting right now. So that’s pretty good.
What’s it like having your Jazz teammate Carlos Boozer on this team?
It’s been great. It’s good for us as teammates to have this time to work together and get to know each other even better not just on the court but off the court as well. It’s going to help us a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
