January 21, 2016


News Clips For The Day


http://news.yahoo.com/uk-judge-rule-russian-involvement-litvinenko-death-085113520.html

UK judge: Putin probably approved plan to poison ex-spy
Associated Press
January 21, 2016


LONDON (AP) — President Vladimir Putin probably approved a plan by Russia's FSB security service to kill a former agent-turned-Kremlin critic who died after drinking tea laced with radioactive poison, a British judge said Thursday in a strongly worded report that led Moscow to accuse Britain of a politically motivated attack.

Judge Robert Owen, who led a public inquiry into the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko, said he was certain that two Russian men had given Litvinenko tea containing a fatal dose of polonium-210 during a meeting at a London hotel.

He said there was a "strong probability" that Russia's FSB, successor to the Soviet Union's KGB spy agency, directed the killing and that the operation was "probably approved" by Putin, then as now the president of Russia.

On his deathbed, Litvinenko accused Putin of ordering his killing, but this is the first public official statement linking the Russian president to the crime, and it sent a chilling jolt through U.K.-Russia relations.

Britain summoned the Russian ambassador for a dressing-down Thursday and imposed an asset freeze on the two main Russian suspects: Andrei Lugovoi, now a Russian lawmaker, and Dmitry Kovtun.

Moscow has always strongly denied being involved in Litvinenko's death, and Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zhakarova said the Russian government did not consider Owen's conclusions objective or impartial.

"There was one goal from the beginning: slander Russia and slander its officials," Zhakarova told journalists Thursday in Moscow. She repeated several times that the Litvinenko inquiry was neither public nor transparent, claiming it had turned into a "shadow puppet theater."

Litvinenko, a former FSB agent, fled to Britain in 2000 and became a vocal critic of Russia's security service and of Putin, whom he accused of links to organized crime. Owen said Litvinenko "was regarded as having betrayed the FSB" with his actions, and said "there were powerful motives for organizations and individuals within the Russian state" to kill him.

Marina Litvinenko, the spy's widow, said she was "very pleased that the words my husband spoke on his deathbed when he accused Mr. Putin have been proved by an English court."

She also called for tougher action, urging British Prime Minister David Cameron to expel Russian intelligence agents operating in Britain and impose economic sanctions and travel bans on Putin and other officials linked to what her lawyer, Ben Emmerson, called "a mini-act of nuclear terrorism on the streets of London."

"It's unthinkable that the prime minister would do nothing in the face of the damning findings," Marina Litvinenko told reporters.

Britain responded to the report with strong words — though its scope for strong action is limited.

U.K.-Russian relations have remained chilly since the killing of Litvinenko, who was granted British citizenship shortly before his death, and worsened with Russia's involvement in the separatist fighting in Ukraine. But the inquiry's report comes as the two countries are cautiously trying to work together against the Islamic State group in Syria, and neither wants a major new rift.

British Home Secretary Theresa May said the involvement of the Russian state was "a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and civilized behavior" — but not a surprise. She announced asset freezes against suspects Lugovoi and Kovtun, and said Interpol had issued notices calling for their arrest if they traveled abroad. Russia refuses to extradite the two men.

Lugovoi is now a member of the Russian parliament, which means he is immune from prosecution in his country. In an interview Thursday with the Associated Press, he called the British investigation a "spectacle."

"I think that — yet again — Great Britain has shown that anything that involves their political interests, they'll make a top priority," he said. "These announcements from the British Parliament completely discredit the British legal system — completely — in the eyes of any sensible, normal person."

Lugovoi also claimed he would have liked to testify at the inquiry but "was not allowed." The judge said both Lugovoi and Kovtun declined to give evidence.




‘U.K.-Russian relations have remained chilly since the killing of Litvinenko, who was granted British citizenship shortly before his death, and worsened with Russia's involvement in the separatist fighting in Ukraine. But the inquiry's report comes as the two countries are cautiously trying to work together against the Islamic State group in Syria, and neither wants a major new rift. …. She announced asset freezes against suspects Lugovoi and Kovtun, and said Interpol had issued notices calling for their arrest if they traveled abroad. Russia refuses to extradite the two men. Lugovoi is now a member of the Russian parliament, which means he is immune from prosecution in his country. …. Lugovoi also claimed he would have liked to testify at the inquiry but "was not allowed." The judge said both Lugovoi and Kovtun declined to give evidence.”


It may be expensive or difficult to indict an American member of the legislature, but it is not illegal, and once that snowball starts rolling down the hill there is usually action against the miscreant. Russia in all ways goes by the code of preservation of power to reach their judgments. America will make claims of innocence loudly when they get their hand caught in the honey jar, but if proof comes out in our legally protected free press, they eventually have to back down and charge the named wrongdoer.

At least that’s true with ordinary corruption situations. There are numerous stories of our government entities stifling a story, of course, and even killing a citizen for his activities against the powers that be. That makes great adventure stories, but I am sure it is less common in reality. I think illegal and unethical acts, either with or without orders from a high level government department, occur in the US as well as in other nations, but doing such things without due punishment if it is in fact discovered, is less common here than in non-democratic governments. I know they have a parliament in Russia, but they seem to continue the hard core rule from the top. If that is an untrue statement, I apologize. I may be wrong, but I do think that Putin specifically is an extremely corrupt and hardline head of state, and the Russian (non-free) press is powerless to do anything about it. So it’s no surprise that Russia “refuses to extradite” the criminals.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kerry-some-iran-sanctions-relief-likely-to-go-to-terrorists/

John Kerry: Some Iran sanctions relief likely to go to terrorists
AP January 21, 2016

Photograph -- US Secretary of State John Kerry arrives for a meeting with the Iraqi prime minister at the 2016 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, on January 21, 2016. JACQUELYN MARTIN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Play VIDEO -- Kerry addresses Iran nuclear deal, prisoner exchange




DAVOS, Switzerland -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday it is likely that some of the billions of dollars in sanctions relief granted to Iran under a landmark nuclear deal will go to groups deemed terrorists.

Kerry said on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum that there is little the United States or others could do to prevent the now-unfrozen assets from getting into the hands of the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps or "other entities" that Iran has supported in the past. But since nuclear-related sanctions were lifted on Iran last weekend, Kerry said there was no evidence yet to suggest such transfers had occurred.

"I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," he told CNBC television in an interview. "You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented. But I can tell you this, right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time."

Kerry also said that many critics of the Iran deal were inflating the amount of money that Iran now has access to. He said estimates of $100 billion to $150 billion were incorrect - $55 billion was more accurate, he said - because large chunks of that money is obligated to satisfy foreign debt.

In addition, he said Iran has more than $500 billion in infrastructure and development needs and must invest at least $100 billion to modernize its energy sector.

Earlier Thursday, Kerry rejected Iranian criticism of Washington's use of economic sanctions, saying they are imposed when appropriate.

Kerry said U.S. penalties against Iran and other nations have been "used judiciously and effectively" and will continue to be used in the future.

"We have made it very clear that we use sanctions when we think they are appropriate in order to counter behavior that we believe has broken the law or has challenged the United Nations Security Council or threatened the United States and we stand by our sanctions," Kerry told reporters.

"We think they have been used judiciously and effectively and we are looking to move on now to put to test the willingness of Iran and other countries in the region to try to reduce tensions and move in a different direction."

His comments came in response to a complaint lodged a day earlier by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who told The Associated Press in an interview that new U.S. sanctions over Iran's ballistic missile testing are "illegal" and an example of an American "addiction to coercion." The penalties were imposed Sunday, a day after the U.S. and other nations lifted sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.

"It shows that the United States has an addiction which has been very difficult for it to overcome," Zarif said. Washington, he said, suffers from an "addiction to pressure, addiction to coercion, addiction to sanctions."

U.S. officials say Iran's missile test in October violated U.N. Security Council restrictions on such activity.




“U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday it is likely that some of the billions of dollars in sanctions relief granted to Iran under a landmark nuclear deal will go to groups deemed terrorists. …. "I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists," he told CNBC television in an interview. "You know, to some degree, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented. But I can tell you this, right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time." Kerry also said that many critics of the Iran deal were inflating the amount of money that Iran now has access to. He said estimates of $100 billion to $150 billion were incorrect - $55 billion was more accurate, he said - because large chunks of that money is obligated to satisfy foreign debt. …. "We have made it very clear that we use sanctions when we think they are appropriate in order to counter behavior that we believe has broken the law or has challenged the United Nations Security Council or threatened the United States and we stand by our sanctions," Kerry told reporters. …. His comments came in response to a complaint lodged a day earlier by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif who told The Associated Press in an interview that new U.S. sanctions over Iran's ballistic missile testing are "illegal" and an example of an American "addiction to coercion." …. U.S. officials say Iran's missile test in October violated U.N. Security Council restrictions on such activity.”


The ”facts” seem to be that an Iranian missile test in October was against UN restrictions, and from Iran’s side, the US sanctions are ”illegal” and show “an addiction to coercion.” We would have to see exactly what the UN restrictions are to be sure whether or not Iran has, as they seem to be saying, a perfect right to test any kind of rocket anywhere and anytime. The trick with these rockets, if I remember correctly, is that they are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. That does smell a little fishy. As for the characterization of our placing sanctions on them as being “illegal,” it may be unfriendly but the article doesn’t say what international law may have been violated. Are nations not free to place sanctions on each other? It’s done all the time.

All in all, this is the kind of tit for tat that I have seen in the world since I began looking at the news in my high school years. I do tend to agree with the Iranians that the US does have “an addiction to coercion.” That’s partly because so many Republicans have dominated the House and Senate since Obama was elected and before, and their constituency wants to hear as much hostile talk as possible. Even now they have lambasted Obama from being too soft on Iran. I’ll bet that no action of any kind will come of this verbal conflict between nations, however. “Heap big smoke, but no fire!”




FLINT, MICHIGAN -- FOUR ARTICLES


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flint-lead-water-crisis-michigan-governor-rick-snyder-e-mails-reveal-details/

Michigan governor under fire over emails about water crisis
CBS NEWS
January 21, 2016

Play VIDEO -- Obama to Flint residents: The White House has your back
Play VIDEO -- Gov. Snyder: I take responsibility for Flint water crisis


Michigan's governor is under fire over newly released emails about the lead water crisis in Flint.

Under pressure, Gov. Rick Snyder's office voluntarily made public 273 pages of e-mails and documents Wednesday afternoon. One email reveals his chief of staff believed Flint's poisoned water - containing elevated lead levels and left residents without easy access to clean water - was not the state's responsibility. That aide also mentioned state health officials who worried that the issue could turn into a "political football," reports CBS News correspondent Adriana Diaz.

In a Sept. 25 email to Gov. Snyder, his chief of staff wrote "the real responsibility rests with the county, city and KWA," referring to an area water authority.

Dennis Muchmore continued, "But since the issue here is the health of citizens and their children, we're taking a pro-active approach...."

Muchmore retired on Tuesday.

Just days later, the governor announced the severity of the city's water problem, after he said he received confirmation of the lead contamination.

Michigan governor appeals Obama's denial of disaster aid for Flint

Flint's former Mayor Dayne Walling -- who lost re-election in November -- said the e-mails were not enough.

"There's too little here to tell," Walling said. "This is missing a whole year and it's missing all the key public officials at the state level who are involved."

When Flint moved its water supply to the Flint River in 2014, the improperly treated water stripped lead from pipes.

The city stopped tapping into the Flint River in October and lead levels have decreased, but during an interview Wednesday with "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley, Gov. Snyder couldn't say what the current lead levels are.

"I don't have my number at the top of my head of the very latest data. And that varies by parts of the city," Snyder said. "Until they're in a range that is considered safe, I don't actually want to get into the issue..."

President Obama addressed the crisis in an interview with "CBS Sunday Morning," saying, "Once people figured out that there was a problem there and there was lead in the water, the notion that immediately families weren't notified, things weren't shut down -- that shouldn't happen anywhere."

The corrosive river water broken down the protective lining inside of lead pipes. The properly treated water now flowing through the pipes is rebuilding that coating, but some say it could take four to six months.

Everyone in Flint that has spoken to CBS News said they want new pipes and until then, they won't drink the water.



“Michigan's governor is under fire over newly released emails about the lead water crisis in Flint. Under pressure, Gov. Rick Snyder's office voluntarily made public 273 pages of e-mails and documents Wednesday afternoon. One email reveals his chief of staff believed Flint's poisoned water - containing elevated lead levels and left residents without easy access to clean water - was not the state's responsibility. That aide also mentioned state health officials who worried that the issue could turn into a "political football," reports CBS News correspondent Adriana Diaz. …. his chief of staff wrote "the real responsibility rests with the county, city and KWA," referring to an area water authority. Dennis Muchmore continued, "But since the issue here is the health of citizens and their children, we're taking a pro-active approach...." Muchmore retired on Tuesday. …. Flint's former Mayor Dayne Walling -- who lost re-election in November -- said the e-mails were not enough. "There's too little here to tell," Walling said. "This is missing a whole year and it's missing all the key public officials at the state level who are involved." …. The city stopped tapping into the Flint River in October and lead levels have decreased, but during an interview Wednesday with "CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley, Gov. Snyder couldn't say what the current lead levels are. …. "Until they're in a range that is considered safe, I don't actually want to get into the issue...".


The Governor’s last comment is amazing – “Until they’re in a range that is considered safe….” That sounds like true whining to me, not taking responsibility. The following Reuters article of January 20 states: “The governor has a business agenda and his business agenda was to take over the water to profit in it," said Lila Cabbil, a demonstrator from Detroit. Several lawsuits have been filed. The latest on Tuesday asks a judge to stop Flint from issuing shutoff notices to residents, who are still receiving bills for water declared undrinkable.”

The governor’s top official blamed the whole matter on a decision made at local levels. (See what Huffington Post has to say below on a truly shameful list of dropped balls, by everybody from the most local authorities to the prestigious EPA. Their employee who was one of the first to report a crisis in the water supply was ignored by his higher ups, luckily not fired, but defamed. Finally a hospital declared a health emergency and an honest and courageous university professor did a test on the water, publishing the results. That was in October.

“Everyone in Flint that has spoken to CBS News said they want new pipes and until then, they won't drink the water.” First, I would like to say that it is more than a little disgusting that the health official made a comment about his fear of the matter turning into “a political football,” rather than issuing a call for aid to change the situation of imminent danger to the citizens as he should have. That was his/her job, after all. Instead he’s worrying about who loses power over the scandal.

Embarrassingly, many of these Flint officials are Democrats and not Republicans. There have always been stories about small towns in the Deep South having corrupt and downright evil political doings, but this is in the North. Clearly little communities with only one or two sources of income are in danger of playing dirty wherever they are. When a problem does erupt, too often there is a cover up, and I think the blame game and missing emails mentioned above is evidence of one here.

Second, at this point, the state is only looking at how long the addition of the neutralizing phosphate ingredient that protects the pipes will take before the lead leaching fully stops. That sounds like an easier solution than replacing the pipes, but the leaching will go on for months until the pipes develop a protective layer again against corrosion. I agree with the consensus of those who need the water for their daily use -- that what the city actually needs to do is replace the aged and damaged pipes. That is, of course, a very expensive task, but I wonder what paying the medical costs of every citizen in Flint will be? Even if the Federal government does supply bottled water and filters, that’s a lot of trouble for the half year or so to come before the pipes are replaced or the protective chemical fully takes effect.

I agree with President Obama, that as soon as the problem was discovered the water use should have been stopped immediately. Besides, the crucial decision was one made by an unnamed official, when Mr. Anonymous failed to use a crucial phosphate chemical, which was recommended to stop such corrosion. Again the chemical was no longer being used due to economic concerns. That does imply that the city knew that local water was corrosive and contaminated with lead to begin with and never should have been tapped for drinking.

The water up there is probably like the river in that wonderful movie, Erin Brockovich. For a summary of it, go to Wikipedia. In that movie, the river water is full of chromium which is a carcinogen. There’s nothing like over-industrialization and a lack of health and safety rules.




http://news.yahoo.com/michigan-governor-apologizes-flint-water-crisis-011713769--finance.html

Michigan governor apologizes for Flint water crisis
Reuters
By Serena Maria Daniels
January 20, 2016


LANSING, Mich (Reuters) - Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, facing protests, lawsuits and calls for his resignation over drinking water contamination in Flint, on Tuesday apologized to the city's residents and called for the state to spend $28 million on fixes.

"To you, the people of Flint, I say tonight as I have before, I am sorry and I will fix it," Snyder said in his annual speech to lawmakers, adding that federal, state and local leaders had failed residents.

Snyder, a Republican, asked lawmakers to authorize $28 million in spending on diagnostic tests, health treatment for children and adolescents, replacement of old fixtures in Flint schools and day care centers and a study of the city's water pipes. He also said additional funding would be needed.

Some people have reported rashes, hair loss and other problems since Flint, under a state-appointed emergency manager, switched to Flint River water in April 2014 from a Detroit-run water system to save money, attorneys for the residents said.

Complaints about the water began within a month of the switch, but Flint did not return to Detroit water until October 2015 after tests showed elevated levels of lead in Flint tap water and in some children.

The corrosive river water caused more lead to leach from Flint pipes than Detroit water did, increasing contaminants in the tap water.

President Barack Obama met on Tuesday with recently elected Flint Mayor Karen Weaver over the crisis, which has become part of the U.S. presidential debate with candidates on both sides questioning the slow response.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it acted too slowly to address the situation in Flint.

Snyder promised to release his Flint-related emails from 2014 and 2015 on Wednesday. He has rejected calls for his resignation by some protesters.

"Lansing failed in one of its most basic functions, ensuring the well-being and health of our citizens," state House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel said after the speech.

At least 1,000 people protested at the Capitol on Tuesday, some holding baby bottles filled with brown water.

"The governor has a business agenda and his business agenda was to take over the water to profit in it," said Lila Cabbil, a demonstrator from Detroit.

Several lawsuits have been filed. The latest on Tuesday asks a judge to stop Flint from issuing shutoff notices to residents, who are still receiving bills for water declared undrinkable.

Attorney Cary McGehee said lawyers have heard from more than 500 people reporting health problems and financial hardships.



“Some people have reported rashes, hair loss and other problems since Flint, under a state-appointed emergency manager, switched to Flint River water in April 2014 from a Detroit-run water system to save money, attorneys for the residents said. Complaints about the water began within a month of the switch, but Flint did not return to Detroit water until October 2015 after tests showed elevated levels of lead in Flint tap water and in some children. …. "The governor has a business agenda and his business agenda was to take over the water to profit in it," said Lila Cabbil, a demonstrator from Detroit. Several lawsuits have been filed. The latest on Tuesday asks a judge to stop Flint from issuing shutoff notices to residents, who are still receiving bills for water declared undrinkable.”


This selection shows who (though he is unnamed) actually officiated over the substitution of the toxic river water for the more expensive Detroit water. Whoever he is, and even if he does turn out to be a Democrat, he did it save money, and he should certainly have tested the river water before tapping into it for human use. For the most extensive and concrete information, see Huffington Post below. I really love the Huffington Post! Even though the basic information is repetitive, the details are for the most part new. Scan it and note the new information.




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-flint-water-got-poisonous_us_569907f5e4b0b4eb759e1426

How Flint's Water Got Poisonous
The government missed a LOT of red flags.
Arthur Delaney, Senior Reporter, The Huffington Post
01/19/2016

Photograph -- Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) has been blamed for Flint's water crisis, but it took a lot of people working together to create this mess.


The Obama administration has declared a state of emergency in Flint, Michigan, a city of nearly 100,000 people who can't drink their tap water because it's poisonous.

Officials denied the water's danger right up until a local pediatrician documented high lead levels in Flint kids' blood last fall. Lead is a deadly neurotoxin that can cause stunted growth and brain damage in young children.

Here is a list of some of the mistakes that local, state and national officials made.

It all started with a decision to change Flint's water source.

For decades, Flint bought its water from the Detroit Water And Sewerage Department. In 2013, the Flint city council voted to join the Karegnondi Water Authority, a new system that would pump water from Lake Huron. But Flint couldn't connect until 2016, so the city, operating under the control of emergency managers appointed by Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), opted to save money by using the Flint River in the meantime.

Local leaders in Flint, including then-mayor Dayne Walling (D), literally toasted the decision by drinking glasses of the new water at a ceremony in April 2014. “It’s a historic moment for the city of Flint to return to its roots and use our own river as our drinking water supply," Walling said at the time.

Pretty much immediately, Flint residents complained that their water looked and tasted funny. In January 2015, the city warned residents that the water had high levels of disinfection byproducts.

The city wasn't vigilant about its water.

Employees of public water systems are supposed to monitor water lead levels by testing the water in homes that are connected to water mains via lead service lines, but Flint failed to do so, according to an investigation by The Flint Journal. Avoiding high-risk testing sites can mask the extent of a lead problem and delay measures to fix it.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality failed to ensure the water was treated for its corrosiveness.

The Flint River water turned out to be more corrosive than the water Flint received from Detroit -- so corrosive, in fact, that in October 2014, General Motors opted to quit using it to avoid corroding parts in its engine plant. Corrosiveness is a problem because Flint, like many American cities, has water pipes that are made from lead, which can leach into the water and poison people who drink it.

Back in 2011, Flint had commissioned an evaluation of Flint River water, the results of which indicated it would need to be treated with phosphates to reduce its corrosiveness. Two years later, according to the Detroit Free Press, a Flint official forwarded that information to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, which is responsible for ensuring that Flint follows the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. But the MDEQ didn't do its job.

As Miguel Del Toral, an expert with the Environmental Protection Agency who was investigating local complaints about the water, explained in a June 2015 memo: "Recent drinking water sample results indicate the presence of high lead results in the drinking water, which is to be expected in a public water system that is not providing corrosion control treatment. The lack of any mitigating treatment for lead is of serious concern for residents that live in homes with lead service lines or partial lead service lines, which are common throughout the City of Flint."

In October, the MDEQ admitted it failed to follow the correct protocol for corrosion. In December, the agency's director and spokesman both resigned after a task force appointed by Snyder blamed the MDEQ above all other agencies for failing to ensure the safety of Flint's water.

The EPA stood by as state officials dismissed its investigation.

Facing questions about Del Toral's alarming memo, the EPA's regional administrator, Susan Hedman, told city and state officials that it was a draft report that should not have been released. City and state officials took that assurance and ran with it, telling residents and reporters not to worry, and went as far to say that Del Toral was a "rogue employee."

In a recent interview, Hedman told The Huffington Post that the agency couldn't talk publicly about the memo because it contained identifying information about a private citizen, Lee Ann Walters, whose children were exposed to high lead levels. For much of last year, Walters worked to publicize the problem and even petitioned the EPA to take emergency measures.

The corrosion never got controlled.

Hedman told HuffPost that while the EPA didn't publicize its corrosion concerns, the agency was busy behind the scenes pressuring the MDEQ to get its act together. But even though MDEQ agreed to implement corrosion control in July, an MDEQ spokeswoman told HuffPost that no corrosion control occurred before Flint switched back to Detroit's water system in October.

EPA spokeswoman Monica Lee said that under the Safe Drinking Water Act, it was up to the state of Michigan to make sure its water was safe.

"While EPA worked within the framework of the law to repeatedly and urgently communicate the steps the state needed to take to properly treat its water, those necessary actions were not taken as quickly as they should have been," Lee said in an email, adding that the EPA will consider what it could have done differently.

"The situation in Flint -- of a large system switching from purchasing treated water to untreated water -- is highly unusual," Lee said. "EPA's ability to oversee MDEQ’s management of that situation was impacted by failures and resistance at the state and local levels to work with us in a forthright, transparent and proactive manner consistent with the seriousness of the risks to public health. We must ensure this situation never happens again."

State agencies ignored red flags.

In July, an internal report from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services warned that blood lead levels "were higher than usual for children under age 16 living in the City of Flint during the months of July, August and September, 2014." But the department convinced itself that the numbers were the result of normal seasonal variation in blood lead levels, a message it also relayed to a top Snyder aide who expressed concern about the water situation in a July email.

Officials also dismissed reports last September that the city's water contained high levels of lead after Virginia Tech civil engineering professor Marc Edwards and his research team sampled water in Flint. Edwards wound up filing Freedom of Information Act requests that exposed the state's knowledge of high lead levels in locals' blood, among other things.

Officials stopped denying the problem at the beginning of October, shortly after Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, director of the pediatric residency program at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint, reported that the number of local children with high amounts of lead in their blood had doubled.

"This poisoning of an entire population was entirely preventable," Hanna-Attisha told HuffPost.

Though the city has switched back to Detroit's water system, it's not clear when Flint's water will be safe to drink again. Michigan state police and the members of the National Guard are assisting with door-to-door delivery of bottled water and filters.

This story has been updated to include comment from the Environmental Protection Agency.



FOX DEFENDS REPUBLICANS:


http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/01/21/flints-poison-water-not-republican-scandal-its-mess-made-and-ignored-dems

Flint's Poison Water Is Not a Republican Scandal - It's a Mess Made and Ignored By Dems
Published January 21, 2016

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE IN THE NATIONAL REVIEW:

Flint has relatively high levels of lead in its drinking water, a cause for legitimate concern. This is a result not so much of the source of its drinking water, the Flint River, as of the city’s failure to treat the water, which, without the proper additives, leaches lead and other contaminants from pipes.

Prior to and separate from the current water crisis, Flint was in a state of financial ruination. In one of the most liberal cities in the United States, Flint’s Democrat-dominated government did what Democrat-monopoly governments do in practically every city they control: It spent money as quickly as it could while at the same time carpet-bombing the tax base with inept municipal services, onerous regulations, high taxes, and the like. As a result of this, a bankrupt Flint entered into a state of receivership, meaning that an emergency manager — or emergency financial manager, depending upon Michigan’s fluctuating fiscal-emergency law — was appointed by state authorities and given power to supersede local elected officials in some matters, especially financial ones. The contamination happened while Flint was under the authority of an emergency manager who, though a Democrat, had been appointed to the post by Michigan’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder. He was, in fact, the most recent in a long line of emergency managers, Flint having failed for years to emerge from its state of fiscal emergency.

Because the Democratic emergency manager was appointed by a Republican governor, the people from whom one expects cheap theatrics of this sort have declared the situation in Flint to be a Republican scandal.

Not so fast.

Before the appointment of the (Democratic) emergency manager, Flint’s elected mayor and city council (Democrats) had decided to sever the city’s relationship with its drinking-water supplier, which was at the time the Detroit water authority. Flint intended to join a regional water authority that would pipe water in from Lake Huron, a project that was scheduled to take three years to come online. In a fit of pique, Detroit (a city under unitary Democratic control) immediately moved to terminate Flint’s water supply, leaving the city high and literally dry.

At this point, somebody — no one will quite admit to being the responsible party — decided to rely temporarily on the Flint River. The Democrats in the city government deny responsibility for this; so does Darnell Earley, the Democrat who served as emergency manager. Earley says that the decisions to terminate the Detroit deal and rely temporarily on the Flint River “were both a part of a long-term plan that was approved by Flint’s mayor, and confirmed by a City Council vote of 7–1 in March of 2013 — a full seven months before I began my term as emergency manager.”

Meanwhile, Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality — no hotbed of covert Republican activity — seems at the very least to have suppressed worrisome findings about Flint’s water supply, and may have done worse than that. The federal Environmental Protection Agency — whose Democratic chief was appointed by our Democratic president — knew for months that there were concerns about Flint’s water, and did nothing.

In sum: The Democratic government of a Democratic city destroys that city’s finances so thoroughly that it must go into state receivership; a Democratic emergency manager signs off on a consensus plan to use a temporary water source; the municipal authorities in that Democratic city responsible for treating and monitoring drinking water fail to do their job; a state agency whose employees work under the tender attention of SEIU Local 517 fails to do its job overseeing the local authorities; Barack Obama’s EPA, having been informed about the issue, keeps mum.

Read the full story in The National Review→



JANUARY 11 -- BETTER LATE THAN NEVER – QUICK


http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/the-geoengineering-disaster-capitalists-who-are-they/

The Geoengineering Disaster Capitalists, Who are They?
DANE WIGINGTON ON FACEBOOK
January 11, 2016


These are indeed strange days on planet Earth. For all of the technological genius of the human race, we have not even considered how to save ourselves from ourselves. The absolute epitome of human insanity is the ongoing decades long attempt to completely engineer Earth's climate system (with countless variations of weather and biological warfare along the way). Even the U. S. National Academy of Sciences is trying to sound the alarm on the dangers of geoengineering (though these scientists have not yet shown the courage to admit global geoengineering has long since been fully deployed). As the biosphere implosion continues to accelerate, the disaster capitalists have come from every dark corner with the goal of profiteering in the final hours of industrialized civilization. I have had my own confrontation with internationally recognized geoengineer David Keith, but there are many more in the camp of climate engineering capitalists. Who are these people? What are their individual parts in the planetary geoenigneering nightmare? Certainly those on the list below are only the lowest level pawns in the play, but it is still important to who they are and where they fit in. My most sincere gratitude to Jacob Brogan for assembling an excellent exposé of the geoengineering disaster capitalists.
Dane Wigington
geoengineeringwatch.org


Your Geoengineering Cheat Sheet
Source: slate.com, article by Jacob Brogan

Who's who in climate engineering? What are the big ethical debates? And what the heck is the albedo?
Source: slate.com, article by Jacob Brogan

Geoengineering describes the active transformation of our planet’s climate through human intervention. Here are some of the key players, major debates, and pop cultural landmarks shaping the ways that we understand this emerging field.

Key Players

Paul Crutzen: Crutzen, a Nobel Prize–winning atmospheric chemist, helped legitimize scientific conversations about geoengineering with his 2006 paper about seeding the atmosphere with sulfur to reflect sunlight back into space.

Peter Eisenberger: Working to extract carbon dioxide from the air through his company Global Thermostat, Eisenberger is at the forefront of the still-developing business side of geoengineering.

Russ George: In 2012, the climate entrepreneur George attempted an unauthorized experiment in iron fertilization, dumping large quantities of metal into the ocean to stimulate the growth of carbon-consuming phytoplankton.

Newt Gingrich: The former speaker of the House, Gingrich is one of geoengineering’s most politically connected advocates, insisting that it’s an important weapon in the fight against climate change.

David Keith: Having literally written the book on solar radiation management, Harvard Kennedy School professor Keith also works to advance the science of CO2 reduction with his company Carbon Engineering.

Marcia McNutt: An oceanographer and editor-in-chief of Science, McNutt chaired the National Academy of Sciences’ comprehensive inquiry into geoengineering, which published its findings in February 2015.

Nathan Myhrvold: The former chief technology officer of Microsoft, Myhrvold has proposed a project he calls the Stratoshield, in which giant hoses would be lifted into the sky by balloons to spray aerosols into the upper atmosphere.

Raymond Pierrehumbert: A University of Oxford–based climatologist, Pierrehumbert has vocally argued against geoengineering by solar radiation management, famously calling such efforts “barking mad.”

Alan Robock: Rutgers University professor Robock’s widely discussed “Twenty Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea” provided a sweeping response to the proposals of Crutzen and other geoengineering advocates.

Lynn Russell: An atmospheric scientist based at Scripps, Russell has led research into the potential impacts of geoengineering on ecosystems.

Major Debates
Further environmental degradation: Though some geoengineering technologies may help cool the planet, it’s possible that they may release additional greenhouse gasses, harm the ozone layer, or otherwise advance the damage they aim to prevent. Is geoengineering an environmental dead end?

Induced complacency: Even geoengineering’s advocates acknowledge that it’s not a true solution to climate change. But if it’s successfully implemented, will it prevent us from doing more to save the planet? Will it simply give us permission to keep burning fossil fuels?

International cooperation: In the absence of treaties regulating geoengineering, there’s a risk that companies or countries will pursue projects without taking proper precautions—and the climate doesn’t respect national borders. Some commentators even worry that “rogue billionaires” might take matters into their own hands. Can we regulate geoengineering without restricting innovation?

Long-term commitment: Scientists such as Pierrehumbert argue that we’ll have to stick with geoengineering some technologies for thousands of years once we embrace them, lest we cause even worse catastrophes. Will civilization stay stable for long enough to make a difference?

Price tag: At present, the most effective geoengineering technologies are prohibitively expensive, often less cost-effective than converting to environmentally safe energies. Can scientists bring down the expense? Or should we pursue these avenues regardless?

Unequal effects: Most geoengineering proposals would have different (and often unpredictable) effects on different regions of the planet. Even as some benefit, others would potentially suffer colder winters, decreased rainfall, or other problems. How can we assure that it helps all?

Unintended consequences: We lack the technological sophistication to accurately model most geoengineering proposals on a global scale, making it difficult to anticipate their effects. Should we continue researching these consequences or try to aggressively push the technology ahead?

Weaponization: Many geoengineering proposals originate in Cold War technologies. As the science advances, will we be able to prevent their renewed use as weapons? How can we prevent climatological conflicts?

Pop Culture

The Brothers Vonnegut, by Ginger Strand: Delving into the historical origins of climate technology, this biography demonstrates how weather-control technology shaped science fiction—and how science fiction helped shaped geoengineering in its wake.

Green Earth, by Kim Stanley Robinson: Collecting and condensing the three volumes previously known as the “Science in the Capital” trilogy into one novel, Robinson imagines attempts to resist the effects of climate change—and some of the disasters that could ensue.

“Hypercane,” by Eric Holthaus: In this short story published in Vice, Slate’s Holthaus shows how the promise of geoengineering could make things worse if we don’t aggressively investigate the technologies behind it.

Ice Twisters, directed by Steven R. Monroe: In this box office bomb, cloud seeding–based geoengineering creates an absurd disaster. But science can fix what it has wrought!

Snowpiercer, directed by Bong Joon-ho: This acclaimed film depicts a world driven into a new ice age by geoengineering gone wrong.

Thunder & Lightning, by Lauren Redniss: In this beautifully illustrated hybrid of comics and science journalism, Redniss visualizes some of the ways humans have attempted to regulate the weather, especially in the face of rapidly accelerating climate change.

“Who Shot Mr. Burns?”: The famous Simpsons whodunit began with Mr. Burns plotting to block out the sun so that Springfieldians would be forced to consume more energy. It’s kind of geoengineering!

Read Up

“20 Reasons Why Geoengineering May Be a Bad Idea,” by Alan Robock: Despite its listicle format, this thoroughly annotated article offers one of the most comprehensive, rigorous challenges to geoengineering advocates.

“Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections,” by Paul Crutzen: With this seminal paper, Crutzen helped to legitimize scientific conversations about geoengineering.

A Case for Climate Engineering, by David Keith: In this readable volume, climate scientist Keith makes a passionate case for albedo modification technologies, exploring their promise and the effort required to put them into practice.

Climate Intervention Reports, by the National Academy of Sciences: The product of years of research, this report comes close to offering the scientific consensus on both carbon dioxide removal and albedo modification.

“The Ethics of Geoengineering,” by David Appell: The first of a two-part series, this essay offers a thorough, balanced examination of geoengineering’s risks, as well as its possible rewards.

The Planet Remade, by Oliver Morton: Even as he discusses the science behind geoengineering technologies, Morton goes deep into the social and political anxieties that hover around them.

Lingo

Albedo: The portion of sunlight that the Earth reflects back into space. The albedo is shaped by factors like cloud cover and snowfall.

Biological pump: Under ordinary circumstances, oceanic plankton naturally pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. By increasing plankton quantities, some geoengineers hope to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.

Carbon dioxide reduction: A key geoengineering strategy, carbon dioxide reduction would involve removing pollutants directly from the air.

Ocean fertilization: The artificial stimulation of the ocean’s biological pump. Ocean fertilization might help pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, but it could also damage fisheries.

Solar radiation management: The second major geoengineering strategy, solar radiation management aims to cool the Earth by increasing its reflective properties (see albedo).

Source: slate.com, article by Jacob Brogan


97 Responses

Michel B says:
January 13, 2016 at 1:09 pm

When the time comes, the scientists who helped by remaining silent will also be liquidated. Because of what they know and what will be their reaction to the results of that with which they were complicit, it will be necessary to remove them. They are just a cog in this machine like everyone else and they are very expendable. They are like a witness in a court case where the criminal defense needs them for a while, but then finds them to be a liability after their testimony is used. Yes, the gallows in the distance are waiting for them too.



I am glad that scientists are busy working on potential ways to improve the situation of our environment. We will need their expertise. It is not, however, as good as not having polluted and despoiled the earth in the first place. Every thing that science does has consequences, some of which will do further damage. That's just the way science is. The best way to protect the rain forests is to stop cutting them down, but of course farmers and loggers aren't going to do that, and governments aren't going to MAKE them. I am almost out of hope and faith for our Mother Earth, but I am not out of love for her. Go to the following website for helpful, if whimsical, information: http://www.planetaryphilosophy.com/philosophy/philosophy-of-consciousness/the-gaia-theory/. The following is from that website.

"In the 1970s, the chemist James Lovelock proposed the Gaia Hypothesis, named after the Greek Earth Goddess, Gaia. The Gaia Hypothesis proposed that life on Earth is a self-regulating system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, and the pedosphere (skin of soil and living organisms), all of which are intimately integrated as an evolving complex system.

Wider research proved the original hypothesis wrong, in the sense that it is not organic life alone but the whole Earth system that is self-regulating. However, the hypothesis has been modified and elaborated enough and there have been enough predictions made and confirmed that the Gaia Hypothesis has become the Gaia Theory, which now holds that the Earth system as a whole seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.

Acceptance of the Gaia Theory has become so widespread that, in 2001, a thousand scientists at the European Geophysical Union meeting signed the Declaration of Amsterdam, starting with the statement “The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system with physical, chemical, biological, and human components.”

Originally, many Earth scientists strongly criticized the Gaia Hypothesis, suggesting, among other things, that it involved a teleological explanation (rather than the type of mechanico/deterministic explanation favored by traditional science). Lovelock responded that “Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota.”

The Earth Is Alive

However, maybe Lovelock hasn’t gone far enough. It seems possible to simplify and strengthen the Gaia Theory if we take the strong form of the Anthropic Principle seriously, which asserts that the universe must be compatible with conscious life, which means that it is most likely that the universe is a living place that contains a spectrum of consciousness.

From this perspective, we can reformulate the Gaia Theory as “The Earth is alive and behaves in a purposive fashion with a type of consciousness in order to pursue an environment optimal for life.”

The proposed consciousness of the Earth would clearly be located at a place on the consciousness spectrum that is different from ordinary human consciousness or human consciousness as augmented by the technologies of traditional science. But there is significant evidence that people who train their consciousness, e.g. Yogis and Taoists in the Eastern metaphysical tradition, can reach and participate in wider portions of the consciousness spectrum, and, in some cases, touch the unique form of consciousness that is manifested by the Earth.

However, the Eastern maps that have emerged from this participation have tended to lack the useful corrective of systematic external observation (the central purview of Western science) and they, by and large, have not provided us with a future oriented philosophy powerful enough to orient and guide us through the great transformation that is taking place right now.

However, if it is true that it is possible to connect with the consciousness of the Earth, then we may be able to find ways to partner with the Earth in accomplishing the One Purpose of Planetary Philosophy, i.e. the evolution of a higher order living system within which the human species takes its place furthering and being furthered by the life of the Earth. The question then becomes, how do we do this?