Ciononostante, ogni mese, tonnellate di scorie nucleari ad altissima radioattività viaggiano sui binari ferroviari delle nostre città, senza che la popolazione ne venga messa al corrente. Ho chiesto a Stefano Ciafani, vicedirettore nazionale di Legambiente, di raccontarlo al blog.
I TRENI DELLA MORTE
intervista a Stefano Ciafani, vicepresidente di Legambiente
Il nostro Paese continua ad essere interessato, ormai da qualche anno, dall’esportazione soprattutto di barre di uranio irraggiato, ovvero il combustibile che veniva utilizzato nelle quattro centrali italiane che erano in funzione fino agli anni ’80, e che poi fortunatamente sono state spente grazie al referendum approvato e poi votato dalla maggioranza degli Italiani nell’’87. Quelle barre vengono esportate su rotaia, e dovrebbe essere segnalato chiaramente agli abitanti dei territori che vengono attraversati. Cosa che succede abbastanza normalmente negli altri Paesi. Noi non stiamo facendo nulla di tutto ciò.
In questo periodo la direttrice principale è Piemonte- Francia, anche se qualche mese fa c’era stato un viaggio, di cui non si è parlato adeguatamente e che ha scatenato molte polemiche sul territorio, che dalla provincia di Vercelli doveva andare verso Trieste, perché in quel caso i rifiuti radioattivi sarebbero stati imbarcati su una nave per essere poi destinati all’esportazione via mare. Diciamo che ci sono magari differenze nelle tratte, ma la costante è la totale assenza di corretta informazione su questi viaggi molto pericolosi che, se in alcuni casi sono inevitabili, devono esser fatti nel rispetto delle norme, nel rispetto della giusta necessità da parte dei cittadini di essere informati. E questo purtroppo non si sta facendo.
I treni con le scorie radioattive viaggiano sui binari tradizionali: quindi sulle ferrovie che vengono ogni giorno seguite dai treni dei pendolari, dai treni di chi si sposta da una città all’altra piuttosto che dai treni merci. Ed è per questo che è fondamentale informare le popolazioni, perché ad esempio quei treni passano nelle stazioni, dove magari ci sono persone che stanno aspettando il treno per andare al lavoro, o per andarsene in un’altra città o per andarsene in vacanza e magari rischiano di vedersi passare il treno coi rifiuti radioattivi davanti senza saperlo. Ecco, questo è il punto: si deve rendere consapevole la popolazione che a quell’ora, in quella stazione ferroviaria, oppure a quell’ora, a quel passaggio a livello, oppure a quell'ora, davanti a una casa, passa il treno. Si devono informare tutti che sta passando un treno coi rifiuti radioattivi. Chi non vuole starci, accanto a un treno coi rifiuti radioattivi, deve essere adeguatamente informato perché si deve allontanare quantomeno per quei minuti in cui il treno sta passando. Se non si dice a che ora e dove passerà il treno, i cittadini non potranno scegliere, saranno in qualche modo obbligati a subire il passaggio del treno con le scorie.
La legge esiste. Viene previsto l’obbligo della corretta informazione. Il vuoto sta nella politica locale e nel network delle prefetture e dei territori che vengono interessati dal passaggio del treno, che non fanno quello che è previsto dalla norma. Questa è la cosa più grave che abbiamo denunciato per l’ennesima qualche lunedì fa. Un treno di scorie è più sicuro rispetto alle scorie che possono viaggiare su un TIR, su gomma, ma è possibile che si verifichino incidenti ferroviari. I cittadini devono essere informati sugli scenari possibili, anche quelli più catastrofici, che speriamo non si concretizzino mai. Senza un'adeguata informazione aumentano i rischi di coinvolgimento delle popolazioni o dei territori in potenziali incidenti. Dovremmo imparare dagli altri Paesi: continuiamo a gestire questa partita in maniera sbagliata, e questo finisce per creare inutili polemiche, che a loro volta producono tanti ritardi. Ma si tratta di ritardi voluti da chi decide di realizzare le opere: pensano di poter fare le cose alla chetichella, ma poi questa mancata informazione si paga. In Francia esiste una legge da diversi anni: la legge sul cosiddetto dibattito pubblico che prevede una fase di consultazione vera del territorio che sarà oggetto di questa nuova infrastruttura stradale, autostradale, ferroviaria, impiantistica eccetera... Insomma c’è una fase di discussione, a volte anche accesa, nella quale si mette in discussione il progetto o i suoi dettagli. Si perde un po’ di tempo prima, ma poi quel tempo che tu perdi prima dell’approvazione dell’impianto lo recuperi nel momento in cui l’impianto o l’infrastruttura trasportistica la devi realizzare, dopo.
Stiamo facendo una cosa molto discutibile: inviamo i nostri rifiuti radioattivi all’estero, negli impianti di riprocessamento delle scorie. Li inviamo in quello francese piuttosto che in quello inglese di Sellafield. Poi le barre, dopo essere state trattate adeguatamente, vengono rispedite al mittente, nella loro parte, diciamo, di rifiuto, con tutto il loro contenuto altamente radioattivo. Quel tipo di radioattività decade con intervalli di tempo lunghissimi: si parla di decine di migliaia di anni. Questi rifiuti torneranno in Italia vetrificati, cementificati, ma con tutto il loro contenuto radioattivo che dovrà essere depositato nel famigerato deposito nazionale di rifiuti radioattivi che ancora ad oggi non è stato realizzato, e che ancora ad oggi non è stato neanche localizzato, dopo il folle percorso che il governo Berlusconi nel novembre del 2003 decise di imboccare quando decise la localizzazione di Scanzano Jonico in Basilicata. Volevano realizzare un deposito di rifiuti radioattivi senza aver fatto la minima condivisione con il territorio. Non lo sapevano gli enti locali, non lo sapevano i cittadini, non lo sapevano le categorie produttive, gli agricoltori e gli operatori turistici. Il risultato fu che come ricordiamo tutti la Basilicata fu bloccata dalle proteste popolari per un mese. E dopo un mese, il governo Berlusconi fece il secondo errore: dopo aver individuato un sito senza condividerlo con nessuno, decise di ritirare quella localizzazione, creando un precedente assolutamente pericoloso perché innanzitutto non abbiamo bisogno di un deposito per rifiuti ad alta attività, visto che fortunatamente dalla fine degli anni ’80 non ne produciamo più (e mi auguro non ne produrremo più, visto che il NO al nucleare detto in maniera chiara dagli Italiani nell’’87 è stato ribadito poi con altrettanta forza nel referendum del 2011).
Quei pochi rifiuti radioattivi ad alta produttività, l’Italia può stoccarli in quelli che la direttiva europea sullo smaltimento dei rifiuti radioattivi definisce depositi internazionali, nei confini europei, magari realizzati in quei Paesi che continuano a produrre elettricità dall’atomo, e che quindi continuano a produrre rifiuti radioattivi. Tuttavia, dalla fine degli anni ’80, continuiamo a produrre ogni anni circa 2 mila metri cubi di rifiuti radioattivi a media e bassa attività, che sono i rifiuti che sono prodotti nell’industria, piuttosto che negli ospedali, piuttosto che nei centri di ricerca. Ecco, li stiamo producendo anche nel 2013 e, quindi, è comunque necessario individuare uno o più siti che li possano ospitare, per le decine di anni in cui quei rifiuti continueranno ad emettere radioattività. Per questo genere di scorie in qualche modo bisognerà trovare una sistemazione nei confini nazionali. Ma con il precedente di Scanzano ora sarà complicatissimo anche trovare una localizzazione per i rifiuti a media e bassa attività. Quindi è stato fatto un doppio disastro dall’allora governo Berlusconi, che purtroppo ancora oggi paghiamo perché, ad esempio, le scorie che stiamo inviando in Francia, le scorie che abbiano inviato nel passato in Gran Bretagna, quelle torneranno indietro, qui, con tutto il loro corico di radioattività. E noi, ad oggi, non sappiamo dove metterle. Non abbiamo neanche firmato un accordo con un altro Paese, nel rispetto della direttiva europea, per conferirli. Ad oggi, è bene ricordare che nessun Paese del mondo ha realizzato un deposito per rifiuti ad alta attività, un deposito definitivo. E non ce n’è neanche uno in attività. L'unico che c'è, negli Stati Uniti, è per rifiuti nucleari derivanti dalle attività militari, ma un deposito per rifiuti radioattivi civili non è attivo, parlo di depositi definitivi. E questo dimostra, se mai ce ne fosse ancora bisogno, la follia che sta dietro a questa tecnologia per produrre elettricità, in Europa così come nel resto del mondo.
Is it getting better, or do you feel the same? Will it make it easier on you, now you got someone to blame? You say one love, one life, when it's one need in the night. One love, we get to share it Leaves you baby if you don't care for it.
Did I disappoint you or leave a bad taste in your mouth? You act like you never had love and you want me to go without. Well, it's too late tonight to drag the past out into the light. We're one, but we're not the same. We get to carry each other, carry each other... one
Have you come here for forgiveness, Have you come to raise the dead Have you come here to play Jesus to the lepers in your head Did I ask too much, more than a lot You gave me nothing, now it's all I got. We're one, but we're not the same. Well, we hurt each other, then we do it again.
You say love is a temple, love a higher law Love is a temple, love the higher law. You ask me to enter, but then you make me crawl And I can't be holding on to what you got, when all you got is hurt.
One love, one blood, one life, you got to do what you should. One life with each other: sisters, brothers. One life, but we're not the same. We get to carry each other, carry each other. One, one.
Paul, cu o fata abatuta si ganditoare, se intalneste cu o prietena, Laura, sa bea o cafea, intr-un bar. Deprimat, se descarca, spunandu-i problemele lui: cu munca, cu banii... relatia cu iubita lui, vocatia sa!...
Laura baga mana in geanta, scoase o bancnota de 500 € si-i spuse: - Vrei bancnota asta?
Paul, un pic confuz la inceput, i-a raspuns: - Bineinteles, Laura… Sunt 500 €. Cine nu i-ar vrea?
Atunci Laura lua bancnota in pumn si o mototoli, facand-o ghem…
Aratandu-i bancnota mototolita, l-a intrebat din nou pe Paul: - Si acum o mai vrei? - Laura, nu stiu ce pretinzi cu asta, dar sunt tot 500 €. Bineinteles ca-i vreau daca mi-i dai.
Laura desfacu bancnota, o arunca pe jos si o calca in picioare, apoi o ridica, prafuita si murdara.Tot o mai vrei?
- Uite, Laura, tot nu inteleg ce vrei sa spui, dar este o bancnota de 500 € si atat timp cat nu o rupi, are aceeasi valoare…
Paul, trebuie sa stii ca, chiar daca uneori nu iese cum vrei, chiar daca viata te mototoleste sau te calca in picioare, continui sa fii la fel de valoros cum ai fost mereu…
Ceea ce trebuie sa te intrebi este cat valorezi in realitate si nu cat esti de lovit la un moment dat.
Paul ramase privind-o pe Laura fara sa spuna nimic, timp in care impactul mesajului lucra in mintea sa…
Laura a pus bancnota mototolita pe masa si cu un zambet complice a adaugat: -Poftim, pastreaz-o, pentru ca sa-ti amintesti de asta cand te simti rau… dar imi datorezi o bancnota noua de 500€ pentru a o putea folosi cu urmatorul prieten care va avea nevoie... si s-a indreptat spre iesire.
Paul a privit din nou bancnota, a zambit, a pus-o bine, si cu o energie noua a chemat ospatarul sa plateasca nota...
De cate ori nu ne indoim de propria noastra valoare, de ceea ce meritam cu adevarat si ca putem reusi daca ne-o propunem?
Bineinteles ca nu ajunge doar a-ti propune… Trebuie trecut la actiune si exista multe cai…
Incearca sa raspunzi la aceste cerinte: 1. Numeste cele mai bogate 5 persoane din lume. 2. Numeste ultimele 5 castigatoare ale concursului Miss Univers. 3. Numeste 5 castigatori ai premiului Nobel. 4. Numeste ultimii 5 castigatori de Oscar pentru cel mai bun actor sau actrita.
Cum este? Rau? Nu-ti face probleme! Niciunul dintre noi nu-si aminteste. Aplauzele vin si se duc! Trofeele se prafuiesc ! Frumusetea e trecatoare...
Acum raspunde la acestea: 1. Numeste 5 persoane care te-au ajutat in educatia ta. 2. Numeste 5 persoane care te-au ajutat in momente dificile. 3. Numeste 5 persoane care te-au facut sa simti ceva special. 4. Numeste 5 persoane cu care-ti place sa-ti petreci timpul liber.
Cum este? Mai bine? Persoanele care te marcheaza in viata nu sunt acelea cu cele mai multe bunuri, cu mai multi bani sau cu cele mai mari premii…
… Sunt acelea care se preocupa pentru tine, care te ingrijesc, care in multe feluri sunt aproape de tine...
Reflecteaza un moment… Viata este foarte scurta…
Tu?... Pe ce lista esti ? ...
Nu esti printre cei bogati si faimosi, dar esti printre cei de care mi-am amintit pentru a-i trimite acest mesaj…
And a new study recently published in the journal Antiviral Therapy affirms this, having found that bee venom, which is released during a bee sting, may hold the key to targeting and destroying HIV.
As reported by U.S. News & World Report, scientists from the Washington University (WU) School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, identified the presence of a compound known as melittin that they say exhibits powerful anti-HIV effects. The bee venom toxin was visibly observed to destroy the viral components of HIV while leaving healthy cells unharmed.
For their research, Joshua Hood and his colleagues from WU attached melittin to nanoparticles that are smaller than HIV. They then applied the resulting substance to HIV itself, where it was clearly observed to "rip holes" in the outer layer of the virus, effectively destroying it. But because of the particles' size, they did not harm healthy cells in the body.
According to ScienceNews.org, the team also applied the solution to healthy human cells obtained from vaginal walls. They observed that the substance did not visibly affect these healthy cells at all, illustrating the unique nature of the bee venom in differentiating between the cells it is supposed to attack, and the cells it is supposed to leave unharmed.
"Based on this finding, we propose that melittin-loaded nanoparticles are well-suited for use as topical vaginal HIV virucidal agents," wrote the authors in their paper. "Out hope is that in places where HIV is running rampant, people could use this as a preventative measure to stop the initial infections."
As far as HIV potentially growing resistance to the treatment later on down the road, researchers believe such a scenario will never materialize due to the nature of the mechanistic action. Because bee venom specifically destroys the outer layer of the virus, which results in the virus itself dying, there is little or no chance of resistance ever developing.
"Theoretically, melittin nanoparticles are not susceptible to HIV mutational resistance seen with standard HIV therapies," added the research team. "By disintegrating the [virus'] lipid envelope, [it's] less likely to develop resistance to the melittin nanoparticles."
Propolis, royal jelly, bee pollen, and raw honey may also target HIV
However, the use of nanoparticles, which have never been proven safe, is not actually necessary for bee venom to do its work. A patent issued to Vespa Laboratories, Inc. back in 1989 reveals that the use of melittin as a natural antiretroviral treatment was known long before nanoparticles were even invented (or discovered), which means the substance itself, without modification, possesses anti-HIV properties.
And besides bee venom, many other bee products may also target HIV naturally without the need for deadly antiretroviral drugs and therapies. Numerous scientific studies have shown that bee propolis, for instance, is loaded with biologically-active substances that stimulate immunity and prevent HIV replication. And royal jelly, which is considered by many to be a "perfect food," contains all sorts of beneficial hormones, vitamins, and other nutrients that naturally promote strong immunity and the proliferation of healthy cells.
"Five bee products are involved in apitherapy protocol for the treatment of HIV/AIDS," explains an article posted on ProNutrition.org. "These are honey, pollen, royal jelly, propolis, and bee venom. The first four can be used as food supplements and [medications], while bee venom is only applicable as medicine for HIV/AIDS and other disease conditions."
According to eBay, there were only two bids on the historic document, but the competition was enough to bump the sale to just above the asking price of $3 million, i09 notes.
However, when the auction was announced earlier this month, Eric Gazin, president of the Los Angeles-based auction house that handled the sale, speculated the item might triple its opening bid threshold, Fox News reports.
The auction closed Oct. 18, 2012.
The handwritten letter, sent to Jewish philosopher Erik Gutkind shortly before Einstein's death, references several philosophical and theological themes including religion and tribalism. The letter also expresses Einstein's belief that God does not exist.
Here is a partial translation of Einstein's letter (via Auction Cause):
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
The letter was auctioned with its envelope, stamp and postmark.
Its anonymous seller turned quite a profit on the sale: The item was purchased from Bloomsbury Auctions in London in 2008 for $404,000, according to Reuters. That auction, which revived interest in the letter, “poured gasoline on the culture wars between science and religion,” according to The New York Times. Among the bidders who reportedly lost out in 2008 was the well-known atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins.
Sono Marcello Foa sono un giornalista (e docente) di scuola montanelliana. Ho incentrato le mie ricerche e la mia analisi, anche quotidiana, sul modo in cui i governi e le istituzioni riescono ad orientare i media, spesso all'insaputa sia dei giornalisti e sia dell'opinione pubblica.
Come si producono verità più "vere" di altre. Marcello Foa, giornalista e docente, parla di Spin Doctor, di "Frame" e delle strategie per inattivare i grandi cambiamenti sociali.
Il cosiddetto "scandalo fiscale planetario". A finire sotto la lente d'ingrandimento dell'ICIJ questa volta è la Deutsche Bank, la più grande banca tedesca.
Secondo quanto rivelato dall'ICIJ, in collaborazione con il quotidiano tedesco Sueddeutsche Zeitung, la Deutsche Bank avrebbe aiutato i propri clienti a sviluppare e mantenere oltre 300 compagnie "offshore" (per la precisione, 309) all'interno di paradisi fiscali attraverso una sua filiale che ha sede a Singapore.
I dipendenti della banca tedesca coinvolti sarebbero più di un centinaio. Quest'ultimi, con l'aiuto di un'altra compagnia con sede a Singapore, la Portcullis TrustNet, avrebbero aiutato i clienti della Deutsche Bank a creare entità offshore dai nomi più strani come “Thrilling Returns Incorporated,” “Amazing Opportunity Limited” e “Market Dollar Group Limited”.
La banca tedesca, per adesso, si è rifiutata di rispondere a domande precise ma ha solamente fornito un commento generale. "La Deutsche Bank non sta offrendo nessun consiglio fiscale o servizio di registrazione di compagnie in paradisi fiscali" si legge in una nota di un portavoce.
Nonostante queste dichiarazioni, tuttavia, l'imbarazzo delle grandi istituzioni finanziarie continua a crescere. Secondo Frank Wehrheim, capo dell'unità investigazioni fiscali nella città di Francoforte, le grandi banche come la Deutsche Bank sono responsabili per "complicità in frode fiscale, riciclaggio di denaro e crimini simili".
Nonostante ciò, i paradisi fiscali mantengono legislazioni tributarie e fiscali molto complesse che, nella maggior parte dei casi, non permettono alle autorità di andare a fondo.
Am avut de ales intre a muri si a incerca sa gasesc un remediu. Sunt un om de stiinta - trebuia sa existe o explicatie rationala pentru care una din 12 femei din Anglia sufera de aceasta boala.
Oricine a intrat in contact cu cancerul de san stie ca anumiti factori de risc - cum ar fi varsta, menstruatia timpurie, menopauza cu debut intarziat si o familie cu antecedente - nu pot fi controlati. Dar sunt alti factori de risc pe care ii putem controla cu usurinta.
Puntem controla acesti factori de risc facand simple schimbari in viata de zi cu zi pentru preveni sau videca aceasta forma de cancer. Mesajul meu este ca pana si cancerul de san in stare avansata poate fi invins, pentru ca eu am reusit.
Primul indiciu pentru a intelege ce anume imi dezvolta cancerul de san l-am gasit cand sotul meu Peter, care este si el un om de stiinta, s-a intors de la munca din China. In acea perioada ma pregateam pentru o sesiune de chimioterapie.
Urmatoarele cuvinte rasunau ca un ecou in mintea mea: "De ce femeile din China nu au cancer de san?"
Am colaborat cu mai multi colegi din China la un studiu care facea legatura intre chimia solului si boli, si mi-am amintit unele statistici. Cacerul de san era aproape inexistent in toata tara. In China, doar o femeie din 10 000 moare de aceasta boala, comparativ cu una din 12 in Anglia, si mai grav, una din 10 in tarile occidentale.
Nu este vorba numai de faptul ca in China este mai raspandit mediu rural, cu mai putina poluare urbana. In Hong Kong, care este puternic urbanizat, rata de cancer de san este de 34 din 10 000 de femei, rata care este foarte mica in comparatie cu cea occidentala.
Mi s-a parut evident ca exista alti factori ai stilului de viata care influenteaza cancerul de san, independeti de poluare, urbanizare sau mediu.
Ulterior am descoperit ca oricare ar fi cauza diferentelor asa mari intre proportiile de cancer de san din orient si occident, aceasta cauza nu este genetica.
Cercetarile stiintifice au aratat ca atunci cand chinezii sau japonezii se muta in occident, pe parcursul unei generatii sau doua, ratele ce cancer de san se apropie de cele ale tarii gazda.
Acelasi lucru se intampla cand cei din orient adopta un stil de viata occidental in Hong Kong. De fapt, cancerul de san mai este numit in China si "boala femeilor bogate". Aceasta pentru ca in China numai cei instariti isi pot permite "mancare Hong Kong". Toate mancarurile occidentale, inclusiv totul de la inghetata si batoane de ciocolata la spaghete si branza feta, este denumit "mancare Hong Kong".
Bunul simt m-a facut sa gandesc ca ceea ce mi-a cauzat cancerul la san si numarul mare de cazuri din aceasta tara in general, are legatura cu stillul de viata al clasei de mijloc din occident.
Exista un aspect important si pentru barbati. In cercetarile mele am observat ca multe date despre cancerul de prostata duce la concluzii similare. Conform statisticilor de la Organizatia de Sanatate Mondiala (World Health Organization), numarul de barbati cu cancer de prostata in China este neglijabil, de numai 0,5 la 100 000. In Anglia si Scotia numarul este de 70 de ori mai mare. Ca si cancerul de san, este o boala a clasei de mijloc care ataca in principal categoriile de oameni care isi permit anumite mancaruri.
Imi amintesc ca l-am intrebat pe Peter dupa ce s-a intors din China ce anume este asa diferit in stilul de viata al chinezilor. La ei de ce nu fac femeile cancer de san? Ne-am hotarat sa abordam problema logic. Am examinat date stiintifice care scoteau in evidenta grasimile din dieta. Cercetatorii au descoperit ca in anii '80, numai 14% din calorii in dieta chinezilor era din grasimi, comparativ cu 36% in occident.
Dar dieta pe care o urmez de ani de zile, cu mult inainte sa fac cancer de san, era foarte scazuta in grasimi si bogata in fibre. Mai mult, ca om de stiinta, stiam ca grasimile in dieta adultilor nu s-au dovedit a creste riscul de cancer de san.
Intr-o zi, dupa indelungi cercetari, am realizat ca in China nu se mananca lactate. Atunci mi-am amintit cati chinezi sufera de intoleranta la lactoza, mi-am amintit cum colegii chinezi cu care lucram spuneau mereu ca laptele este numai pentru bebelusi, si cum unul din cei mai apropiati prieteni (care este de origine chineza), refuza mereu politicos antreurile cu branza de la petreceri.
Nu cunosteam niciun chinez care continua sa traiasca dupa obiceiurile traditionale si care sa foloseasca lactate pentru a isi hrani copiii. Traditia lor era sa angajeze o femeie care sa alapteze copilul daca era nevoie, dar niciodata sa nu foloseasca lactate. Pentru chinezi preocuparea occidentului fata de lactate este ciudata.
Imi amintesc de cand am gazduit o conferinta la putin timp dupa incheierea revolutiei culturale a anilor '80. Am comandat o budinca cu inghetata, iar cand am precizat ca acel desert contine lapte, toti chinezii au refuzat politicos sa o manance si nu au putut fi convinsi sa se razgandeasca. La vremea respectiva ne-am bucurat foarte mult de portiile ramase in plus!
Am descoperit ca laptele este una din cele mai raspandite cauze ale alergiilor alimentare.
Peste 70% din populatia lumii nu poate digera lactoza, fapt ce i-a determinat pe nutritionisti sa considere ca este o situatie normala a adultilor, si nu o deficienta anume. Poate ca natura incearca sa ne spuna ca anumite alimente nu trebuie consumate.
Inainte sa am cancer de san mancam foarte multe lactate, cum ar fi lapte, branza si iaurt. Le-am folosit ca sursa primara de proteine. Mai mancam si carne slaba de vita tocata, din cea mai ieftina, care acum realizez ca probabil era provenita de la vaci de lapte mature.
Pentru a putea face fata chimioterapiei pe care am facut-o cand a revenit cancerul a cincea oara, am consumat foarte multe iaurturi organice pentu flora intestinala. Recent am descoperit ca in trecut, in 1989 iaurtul a fost corelat cu cancerul ovarian. Doctorul Daniel Cramer de la Universitatea Harvard a facut un studiu pe sute de femei cu cancer ovarian pe care le-a pus sa noteze in detaliu ce mancau. Imi doresc sa fi stiu de aceste descoperiri de pe atunci.
Studiind impreuna cu Peter dieta chinezeasca, am hotarat sa renunt la toate lactatele. Am aruncat branza, unt, lapte, iaurt si orice alte lactate.
Este surprinzator cat de multe produse, inclusiv supele comercializate, biscuiti, prajituri, contin o forma de lactate. Chiar si multe margarine promovate ca fiind de soia, floarea soarelui sau ulei de masline, contin lactate. Avand acestea in vedere, am inceput sa citesc toate etichetele de pe mancaruri.
Pana in acest punct, am masurat in mod regular progresele ganglionului canceros. In ciuda comentariilor incurajatoare din partea doctorilor si asistentelor, observatiile proprii imi spuneau amarul adevar. Prima sesiune de chimioterapie nu a avut niciun efect. Ganglionul era de aceeasi dimensiune.
Dupa aceea am eliminat lactatele. In cateva zile ganglionul a inceput sa isi reduca dimensiunile. La doua saptamani dupa a doua sedinta de chimioterapie si la o saptamana dupa ce am renuntat la produsele lactate, ganglionul din gat a inceput sa imi provoace mancarimi. Apoi a inceput sa isi reduca dimensiunile. Linia graficului pe care il facusem pe baza masuratorilor incepuse sa se indrepte in jos pe masura ce tumoarea se micsora.
Foate important de retinut este ca graficul in loc sa aiba un declin exponential, dimensiunea tumorii a scazut liniar, indicand vindecare si nu suprimare (sau remisie) a tumorii.
Intr-o sambata, dupa sase saptamani de cand renuntasem la produsele lactate, am avut o sedinta de meditatie de o ora, dupa care am pipait sa verific ganglionul. Nu l-am putut gasi, desi aveam experienta in detectarea ganglionilor cancerosi (mi i-am detectat singura pe toti cinci). M-am dus la sotul meu si l-am rugat sa imi pipaie gatul si nici el nu a gasit ganglionul.
In urmatoarea zi de marti am fost la control. Dupa o examinare amanuntita, medicul nu a mai gasit tumoarea. Niciunul din doctori nu se astepta ca cineva cu tipul si stagiul de cancer pe care il aveam (care s-a raspandit in sistemul limfatic) sa supravietuiasca, cu atat mai putin sa se vindece.
Specialistul a fost foarte bucuros de rezultatele analizelor. Cand i-am spus initial ideile mele a fost sceptic. Acum foloseste harti pe care arata mortalitatea din cauza cancerului in China in prelegerile pe care le tine si recomanda o dieta fara lactate pacientilor cu cancer.
Am convingerea ca legatura dintre lactate si cancerul de san este similara cu legatura dintre fumat si cancer de plamani. Cred ca identificand aceasta legatura intre lactate si cancerul de san, iar apoi urmand o dieta pentru mentinerea sanatatii, m-am vindecat.
A fost greu pentru mine, cum probabil este si pentru altii, sa accept ca o substanta "naturala" precum laptele poate avea implicatii asa mari asupra sanatatii.
A rambling tirade of questionable thinking by DangerF
Conflict exists to promote evolutionary development. Though, it is no longer just physical, but for us who claim to be human, mental, emotional, spiritual.
In earlier times, conflict was more personal. It was all about surviving as individuals. Like many animal species, humans work together best in small herds of around 30 - 40. At that size, what is best for an individual is best for the group, it's easier to manage resources when times are tough, food and shelter can be readily shared without pressure on the individual, and one can still retire into their personal bubble space.
These days however, it is becoming increasingly obvious to those whose eyes and minds agree on what is displayed that survival of the species is rapidly becoming a group thing. We must now learn to overcome the herd mentality and become a hive. What is good for the individual now must be weighed against the good of all humanity.
Early in our history, man would slaughter each other on the basis of competition for survival. Conflicts were, in general fairly small, short-lived, take no prisoners type affairs. We lived in small tribal communities that were extremely protective of their local resources. Unannounced visitors were often treated as threats to survival, as archeological evidence has shown.
Putting aside other influences for a moment, one could say that this early fighting was about protecting self from external threats. If I had a small cave that would shelter my tribe from the approaching storm, and your tribe was caught outside and decided you needed my cave, the tribes would fight, winner had shelter, (and a smaller tribe). The same applied for food sources and whatever else was needed to survive. In short, the threats were external.
This was followed by a relatively Golden Age. The earth spirits had stopped leaving the refrigerator door open to make ice-age sculptures to show to their friends. The sky gods stopped using us for target practice by throwing large rocks and ice at us from space. Man had learned enough about the ground he walked on to make more efficient use of resources, growing food instead of collecting it so there was enough to go around, we learned to make shelters that withstood the weather, visiting other communities was encouraged in the name of trade. Now that we were not so busy protecting ourselves we had time to think and discuss the way the world worked, and travelers brought wondrous information about the world outside. Communities began to work together to better the living conditions of the group, perhaps with some thought of preparation in case we pissed off another vengeful god. Who knows? The point is we didn't kill each other in order to survive. Sure folks still stabbed each other, but usually that was more because someone was being a dick.
Man began to understand nature. Those who understood the finer details were variously called shamans and witchdoctors, later they were alchemists and magicians. These days we normally call them scientists, (though I'm beginning to doubt whether they know more than the ancients did about the Earth).
Moving on, conflict began to appear again. This time the scale was much larger, it was not about community survival either. Also, the instigators tended not to be on the front lines so much, preferring to play chess from the back of the field. Oh sure, there were few at the start who obviously didn’t think of it, too busy with bloodlust, but as time progressed the fight starters learned that picking up whores for post-battle sex was easier if they weren’t dead. Exaggerating ones deeds was another survivor’s perk.
The reasons for battle now had become twisted. It became a competition, not for resources, but for stuff. Everyone had enough food and shelter, until some dick decided he needed more stuff. Watch some George Carlin talking about stuff -
The fights moved from ‘stuff’, and now were less about ‘stuff’ and more about ideologies. People stopped thinking about each other, and became more interested in having other folks agree with their ignorant ideas. They got so worked up and over-excited about changing the colour of the ground from green to red, they forgot how they had existed relatively harmoniously despite differing opinions, (slight assumption, just go with it).
Imagine the battlefield sledging (do it in a child’s voice!) - “My battle god is better than your battle god, and He said we could take your stuff and rape your women”. “The earth is flat not round we fool, here taste my sword”. “Don’t be teaching folks how to read and communicate information, they might tell each other about how we stabbed that guy who talks about round planets”. And so on...
Since then we have become more civilized. Err oops, getting ahead of history.
There is so much propaganda from either side, it’s hard to know what’s really happening. We have such an unprecedented access to information one would think we would know what is going on, but do we?
We have enough food to go around, yet people starve to death because they can’t pay for it. We have enough resources, we just like wasting them or again, don’t have as much monopoly money as the chaps who own the printing press. We have enough fuel, we just refuse use it efficiently because, yes I really do need a 22 foot long 12 foot high vehicle that uses more fuel than the Exxon Valdez tipped on the beach to get some milk and bread. We have the technology and mind to create a world without money or borders, but we’d rather fight and squabble like unevolved Neanderthal babies with no social experience.
We all know this behavior is bullshit stupidity, yet we continue to let ourselves be led into dispute like lemmings off a cliff. We keep following the herd we live in, obeying its values even when we know they are not in our or anyone’s best interest. Why? Because our behavior is a holdover from when we lived instinctively, fighting for survival. Think about this next time we speak to someone, watch their reactions, and test them. Are they reacting rationally to you? Most don’t.
The Universe we live in is dualistic (as far as we can tell). It is not static. Look at the life cycles of planets and stars, of plants and animals. Actually look at anything cyclic. There is up time and down time. There is growth and life and entropy and death. Physics tells us that energy is never destroyed, just changes form. The minerals and elements in your body only exist because some stars died to form them. This webpage - We're made of stars! - has some nice charts, info and more cool links. You are a Star! How cool is that!
A star had to die for us to live. Before it died it suffered enormous stresses which caused it to create the bits that make us. The food we eat also came from a dying star, think about next time you eat.
Without stress, strengths are not developed. Swords are made from metals that are heated and beaten and cooled many times. Everything around us would not exist without stresses being put on them in some way to produce the qualities they contain. Wood can even be tempered with heat. Bacteria, viruses and such can be introduced into the body in such a way that it stresses the body to become stronger, less susceptible to disease, even immune to some infections.
Our mental process is no different. We learn life lessons from stressful experiences. Education stresses the mind to remember patterns and symbols, ideas and associations. When we went to school the exams were often stressful because of the pressure/stress your parents or peers or we gave yourself to perform well, but we learnt something. It stuck in your head. If you’re like me you probably don’t recall the lesson details very well, but it’s in there, ready to surprise us when we need it. Environmental and cultural clashes induce stresses often forcing re-evaluation of values, morality and beliefs.
These are the opportunities to become the person we, perhaps secretly, think we want to be. Everyone has something they wish they could change about themselves. Lose weight, gain strength, have hair, make more money, make the world a better place.
We know in our hearts what is good for us, we all do. It’s like pointing out the obvious, but I’m going to anyway. We know eating at McDonalds is equivalent to eating the wrapper after its been dragged thru a poison factory then used to wipe someone’s ass, but we eat it anyway. We know we shouldn’t eat that second bowl of ice-cream because it will go straight to our ass, but we can re-start that diet tomorrow. We know we shouldn’t eat any food that has a label, but it’s so much quicker than waiting for vegetables to cook. We know our body only needs a few handfuls of fresh food each day, but still we gobble that extra bacon at breakfast plus a pie on the way to work then a large lunch with small desert then go home for 2 helpings of dinner followed by desert or three, a quick sandwich before bed or maybe a midnight snack. Not to mention the lolly's and chocolate and whatever crap snuck in between meals that we didn’t tell the wife about. We know we need 2-3 liters of clean water each day but we merrily justify coffee, coke and alcohol as forms of water. We know the tap water is full of chlorine and fluoride, both of which are extremely bad for your health but we mindlessly allow the government to keep slowly poisoningus anyway. We know the government has never ever been beneficial for the public no matter who is in charge and the elections are rigged and still we vote because they tell us to. We know the wars in the world are bullshit (well we should, there is enough evidence of the scam) but we keep cheering the troops on.
This is Insanity. There is so much crap going on in the world right now it’s becoming difficult to stay sane. Far too often, we rely on someone else to tell us what to do. Luckily there is no shortage of folk who think they have a valid opinion of how you should live. Doctors, priests, politicians, pretty plastic people on TV, even well-meaning family members. Besides your family, everyone else is collecting a paycheck from telling us what to do. These are very stressful times in which we live, and it’s normal and ok to ask for guidance. But only we know what is best for us. If we’re not using these stressful times to re-evaluate, to test our beliefs, to look at life from another angle, we are not going to be that person we want to be or expect others to be.
We have already overcome the evolutionary forces that nature thrusts upon us. Now we must learn to overcome the vagaries of mind, biases of our narrow, limiting perceptions, to not be pushed around by petty differences, to learn how to integrate the baser 'negative' aspects of our nature and turn them into powerful, positive forces for 'good'.
This can only be achieved through unity and common goals, though not necessarily common beliefs. We must learn that our weakness is another's strength, that our strength is a compensation for our brother’s weaknesses. We must learn that weaknesses are not shortcomings. They are opportunities for growth, lessons to learn.
We all want change of some kind. Why not make some? Why wouldn’t you want to be better person? Do you think you are all you can be? Don’t limit yourself like that. Don’t let others prejudice limit you like that.
This era is your test. It’s your time to grow. Show yourself what you can do. The evolutionary development of your mind is your responsibility. It is a choice. A choice to evolve or to continue to react out of instinct. Acting out of instinct was valuable when we knew little or nothing of the world around, of social interactions, when it meant our survival. Now, we have everything we need to survive. We have the knowledge. We have the technology. We have a choice how we use it. Having these things makes our survival a no-brainer, allowing us something we never had before - the ability and choice to develop ourselves, to free ourselves from the fears that hold us back (whether or not we admit to them, they are there).
We have the power to make positive change for all mankind, both present and future. This change starts with the individual. As Gandhi said, “Be the change we want to see in the world”.
Give it a go. Amaze yourself. Be inspired and Inspire.
Anarchadia: Do you see a link between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood which has been considered in retrospect as manipulated by western interests to destabilize the Middle East?
Noam Chomsky: I don't know of any evidence for a relation, and I'd be cautious about the term "destabilize". It's a term of imperialism. Thus Obama praises the brutal dictator Mubarak because he "stabilizes" Egypt, and opposes the Muslim brotherhood because they are calling for democratic elections, in which they are likely to do well, thus "destabilizing" Egypt.
Anarchadia:What is your opinion on this quote: "Nor was that all. Sound beatings of the Moslem Brotherhood organizers who had been arrested revealed that the organization had been thoroughly penetrated, at the top, by the British, American, French and Soviet intelligence services, any one of which could either make active use of it or blow it up, whichever best suited its purposes. Important lesson: fanaticism is no insurance against corruption; indeed, the two are highly compatible." Quote from Miles Axe Copeland, Jr. "The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1970".
Noam Chomsky: Miles Copeland is not very reliable.
Anarchadia:Well neither is Obama, but sometimes the pieces fit together. I mean true, this sort of mentality benefits the Islamists, Chinese and Russians... but was it not this sort of meandering from the projected truth about Vietnam, which woke us from the extreme anti-communist fervor the American populace had been living in for the last 20 or 30 years?
Noam Chomsky: On Vietnam, the meandering was towards reliable fact and understanding. Takes better evidence than this, in my opinion.
Anarchadia:It is harder to have reliable facts today, because everything which is factual and needs to stay a secret, is marginalized. The first thing you said about Copeland, was that he was unreliable. But, if you take the true nature of anyone, everyone is unreliable, right?
Noam Chomsky: It's true that quantum physics is not 100% reliable, nor is astrology. But there is a difference. Afraid I don't follow the rest.
Anarchadia:It is my opinion that marginalization is a weapon for keeping things on the down low. If you take three specialists, from different parts of the world, let's say: Iran, U.K and Israel, all three will come up with different conclusions while looking at the same facts. Yet the one who is backed by the interests that be, will be the person who is considered most linear (on the mainstream level). Do you have any comments on this?
Noam Chomsky: I've written extensively on these matters, and don't have much to add. We know that outside of narrow areas of logic and mathematics, nothing can be definitively proven. From that fact deeply confused post-modernists go off into fantasies about conflicting narratives, no truth, etc. In fact, it's been understood for centuries that we can make sensible (if not certain) judgments quite often - about the matters you mention, for example. On Wikileaks, if you read yesterday's newspapers you can see that the main thrust was interpreted differently in the NYT and the London Financial Times, the world's leading business daily. That's fairly systematic, and understandable, a tiny example of what I and others have documented in great detail. The US-UK coup in Iran was not only known at once, but celebrated in the press - the NY Times, for example. I've often quoted it. Some take the Warren Commission as accurate, many question elements of it, or even all of it. That has nothing to do with the question of general significance: was there a high-level conspiracy with policy consequences? To that the answer is: No, with very high probability, a matter that I've written about in detail. The Truth Movement receives unusually high publicity as contrasted with genuine activist critique of state crimes. Simply compare Griffin's exposure on CSPAN, etc., to that of activist dissenters. The reason may be that it is welcomed by power systems, much as JFK conspiracy theories have been (as we know from internal documents), because it diverts energy and attention from ongoing crimes of state. If he or anyone could present a coherent account of what they think happened, one that is not undermined by the most elementary considerations, - and I suppose others - would pay some attention to it. I was closely involved with leaking the Pentagon Papers, and am very glad they came out, but in fact they had almost no impact on the decisions by the business world and the government to slowly withdraw from Vietnam, which had already been taken. A great deal is indeed marginalized. I've written thousands of pages on the topic, as have others. But I think you are ignoring the most significant examples and keeping to some which, while fashionable, are not of much importance.
Anarchadia: I absolutely see what you mean. I am 23 years old and not as informed, but I try to be. I am a constant activist, and am outraged by the indecency with which law abiding citizens are treated (protest parks, ultrasounds, escrow police spying and dressing up imitating violent activists such as the black blocks, heavy armor, gas, etc...). Democracy is being sold off to private contractors, and we protest to no avail (France). I also see what you mean when you say that the truth movement is somewhat cathartic: The Truth Movement has a tendency to lure people towards the Tea Party which has been very highly publicized, and even clamored by the crooks over at Fox News. Example: Alex Jones has a tendency to be able to explain things that other Media Organizations can't (I am a very rational person and definitely see through Infowars political and advertising strategies, which are populist sometimes and very far from fact). Yet, the Infowars website surprises me from time to time with a decent sourced article; but then, Alex Jones goes on to supporting the tea party and the terror advertisers who advertise on the Infowars website. Have you heard of Alex Jones?
Noam Chomsky: I don't know much about Jones. The little I've seen, not enough for a serious judgment, seemed to be pretty wild. On 9/11, the coincidences, etc., may seem remarkable, but they are normal. Look at any complex historical event through a microscope, and that's what you'll find, even breaches of security that go far beyond 9/11 in significance. E.g., it was just revealed that Clinton lost the code that authorizes launching nukes, which means that for four months, the USSR could have launched a surprise attack, destroying the US, with complete impunity. A few years ago a nuclear-armed bomber flew across the country, violating the highest security controls. A malfunction could have destroyed most of the country. Etc. That's why scientists do experiments instead of studying videotapes of what's happening outside the window. It's why historians hotly debate events that have been intensively studied. The TMers do not seem to understand the nature of evidence - and also, do not understand why they are laboring to show that Saddam or bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, inadvertently of course. That requires following a simple argument. Your hypothesis that the Bush administration knew about 9/11 but didn't try to stop it is weak enough so that the evidence is almost irrelevant. But it still assumes that they are utter lunatics, or else they would have blamed it on Iraqis, not Saudis, as has been pointed out over and over. I'm afraid your other assertions vanish in much the same way as these, or what you claimed about concealing the Iranian coup, when subjected to scrutiny. If you'd like to believe these things, that's your business. But if you want anyone to take your speculations seriously, you'll have to make a case. I've written about most of the matters you mention.
What you say has shreds of truth. Thus, of course the US had oil in mind in invading Iraq (and was compelled to abandon its major war aims in this respect, as we have seen). The concept "false flag" has become popular with the TM, who uses it in ways that make it almost meaningless. Of course governments invent ways to frighten populations into obedience to pursue aims of dominant power centers. We hardly need these rather random speculations to establish that. It's topic of extensive serious work.
Anarchadia: I admit, every point I've tried to make has for the most part been an assertion. Scrutiny is what keeps my opinions objective. I don't pretend to know the truth behind these events, but I have an insatiable need for truth, and am always searching for it. On the - Clinton losing the code incident - don't you find this story is politically motivated? To release such information, especially today when America is positioning itself against China and Russia? This seems like they are inciting fear into the American mind (again) about: "what if Russia (China, Iran) attacked us". I find it insane how much war fomentation is going on these days. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an Ex-CEO of one of the largest military contractors in America and abroad, I mean talk about conflict of interest (they sold weapons to Taiwan against China's firm request not to, that is a direct breach of National Security). Democracy has been taken hostage by military profiteers, pharmaceutical/chemical corporations, big banks and their arm of hijacked government the Federal Reserve (whoever can pay for the expensive campaigns and shoes of opportunists such as Sarah Palin). Political prostitution is at an all time high. So when you say that there is a very small chance that 9/11 was caused by western interests I have to disagree. If you look at any complex situation through a microscope you can also get lost in the complexity. "Tout est relatif". This goes both ways. When you talk about the Bush Family as lunatics, I disagree; I see them as somewhat intelligent. They know exactly what they are doing. And why they are doing it. I met Carla Del Ponte last year here in Lyon, France, and she talked about her meeting with President Bush (when she was trying to get war criminals of the former Yugoslavia extradited). She says he seemed very concerned in person and said "Carla I will personally look into this, I promise". She never heard from him again. This I think clearly depicts a very good liar instead of the stupid yet powerful imbecile of a president everyone has been making him out to be. His father was the head of the CIA. That is a very strong asset. The U.N. has also been hijacked by political prostitutes and we live in a far more nefarious world than the transparent one you tend to proclaim when assertions are made about 9/11, Kennedy, etc... The internal organization in charge of supervising the U.N. has been suspended since 2009. Surely this is more important than an idiotic playboy president like Clinton losing the Nuclear codes? I mean after all it is people who invest their pride on this logic and transparency you talk about, who voted for Clinton. Surely there is a reason why Wikileaks has published more scoops than the New York Times has in a decade? What is your opinion on movements who are for auditing the FED and the the DOD? Also, those who are against organizations such as Bilderberg (and their claims that Obama secretly went to a meeting with Hillary Clinton)?
Noam Chomsky: You misunderstood. I didn't talk of the Bush family as lunatics. You did. More precisely, as I wrote, that is what follows from your speculations. Who do you propose to audit the DOD and the Fed? It would be amazing if Obama hadn't met Clinton, and why should it be advertised? There's no known significance to Bilderberg apart from the fact that rich and powerful people like to get together. Can't comment on the rest. By that kind of reasoning one can reach any conclusion. These are not what count as evidence and argument, in any form of rational inquiry.
Of course you don't believe that Bush is a lunatic. Rather, the theory you proposed implied that he is a lunatic. One of many reasons why it's hard to take the TM seriously. Nothing wrong with a civilian audit, but such proposals require mass popular support. To recapitulate, I pointed out that the theories proposed by the TM, and your much weaker one too, implied that the Bush administration were all lunatics; not just Bush the individual, but all of the planners. I'm glad we agree that the conclusion is unacceptable. It therefore follows that all the theories are too...
NOTE: After having spoken to Noam Chomsky about September 11 and the Truth Movement, I was more lost than ever: how can such a brilliant man (who I agree with on so many levels) be so opposed to a theory like 9/11 is an inside job? Is the movement and its abundant flux of information truly discreditable? OR has the mainstream media discredited so many points and used such strong rhetoric of ridicule towards TM that even intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky can't believe it? I got the impression that Chomsky just hasn't really looked into the facts about Sept. 11, simply because of all the false facts TM has incorporated into its rhetoric (which are easily exploitable by the spin doctors). I noticed that the media never directly discredited the TM. They acted as though it were of minor interest and could discredit itself. It can! Like the Norman Mineta video: if watched in full it is completely insync with Cheney's story (there are a few mistakes but not enough for indictment). So if there is a conspiracy behind September 11 Noam Chomsky is right about the fact that whoever orchestrated the event was very intelligent, and to solve the puzzle it will take true intellect and hard work to crack. But now that it has been discredited, we must become very careful: it took years to popularize the notion that Pearl Harbor was a false flag attack and we still don't truly know for Kennedy (although in my opinion the event was very suspicious). If George Bush Sr. and his entourage got away with the assassination of a U.S president, then yes, Bush Sr. was definitely not a lunatic!
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
