Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Government Investigations’ Category

Nazi biochemical weapon history is very important and it’s still relevant knowledge explaining war today. Two important books on the topic are “Operation Paperclip” by Annie Jacobson and “The Devils Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars” by Nuremberg prosecutor, Josiah E. DuBois, Jr.. “Ghost Map” covers the origins of epidemiology and the nature of Vibrio cholerae. These books provide much enlightenment into warfare strategies and the biological technologies utilized by nations in war. “Medical Apartheid,” by Harriet A. Washington provided the last important piece in the puzzle of the war on Yemen. The information in these books explain the strategic model utilized to destroy nations and someday soon it might be your nation that’s next.

I examine world events closely because of the knowledge I’ve acquired from much of my reading. Hitler’s Director of Chemical Weapons was also IG Farben’s Director of Chemical Operations. Otto Ambros only served 3 years for his mass murder and slavery conviction at Nuremberg. Himmler worked for Ambros, not Hitler, and that’s an important understanding. Both were students of Otto’s father and had been friends since childhood. Otto’s father was a professor of agricultural chemistry. Himmler was originally employed in fertilizing manufacturing prior to his position in the Nazi Party.

Here is an example of how Himmler worked for Ambros and not the other way around.

“The concentration camp already existing with approximately 7000 prisoners is to be expanded.” Santo noted in his official company report. For Ambros, Farben’s arrangement with the SS regarding slave laborers remained vague; Ambros sought clarity. “It is therefore necessary to open negotiations with the Reich Leader SS [Himmler] as soon as possible to discuss necessary measures with him,” Ambros wrote in his official company report. The two men had a decades-old relationship; Heinrich Himmler and Otto Ambros had known one another since grade school. Ambros could make Himmler see eye-to-eye with him on the benefits that Auschwitz offered to both Farben and the SS. – Operation Paperclip. page 153.
Himmler hanged as Ambros advanced and expanded his program and technologies to the industrial combines in NATO nations. Keep this passage with that knowledge in mind.

“Himmler…, the Reichsfuhrer-SS had studied agriculture in school. According to Blome, it was Himmler who was the primary motivator behind the Reich’s bioweapons program. Hitler, Blome said, did not approve of biological warfare and was kept in the dark as to specific plans. Himmler’s area of greatest fascination, said Blome, was bubonic plague.

On April 30, 1943, Goring had created the cancer research post that was to be held by Blome. Over the next nineteen months, Blome explained, he met with Himmler five times.

At their first meeting, which occurred in the summer of 1943—Blome recalled it as being July or August—Himmler ordered Blome to study various dissemination methods of plague bacteria for offensive warfare. According to Blome, he shared with Himmler his fears regarding the dangerous boomerang effect a plague bomb would most likely have on Germany. Himmler told Blome that in that case, he should get to work immediately to produce a vaccine to prevent such a thing. To expedite vaccine research, Blome said, Himmler ordered him “to use human beings.”

Himmler offered Blome a medical block at a concentration camp like Dachau where he could complete this work. Blome said he told Himmler he was aware of “strong objections in certain circles” to using humans in experimental vaccine trials. Himmler told Blome that experimenting on humans was necessary in the war effort. To refuse was “the equivalent of treason.”….

“We know [that] from antiquity up till the time of [the] Napoleonic wars, victories and defeats were often determined by epidemics and starvation.” Blome said. Spreading an infectious disease could bring about the demise of a marauding army, and Blome said that the failure of Napoleon’s Russian campaign was “due in great part to the infection of his horses with Glanders.” a highly contagious bacterial disease. History aside, Blome said he counseled Himmler on the fact that a concentration camp was a terrible place to experiment with bubonic plague because the population was too dense.

Blome then told Himmler that if he were to experiment with plague bacterium, he would need his own institute, an isolated facility far removed from population centers. Himmler and Blame agreed that Poland would be a good place, and they settled on Neseltedt, a small town outside the former Poznan University (by then operated by the Reich) Blome’s research institute was to be called the Bacteriological Institute at Nesselstedt….

Himmler proposed another idea: How about disseminating a virulent strain of hoof-and-mouth disease” Or tularemia, also called rabbit fever, which affected man in a manner similar to plague? Blome told Himmler that these were dangerous ideas, as to any outbreak would surely affect Germany’s troops. The Reich needed a massive stockpile of vaccinations before it could feasibly launch a biological attack.

Himmler stretched his thinking to target Allies on their own soil. How about spreading cattle plague, also called rinderpest, in America or England? Himmler told Blome that infecting the enemy’s food supply would have a sinister effect on enemy troops. Blome agreed and said he would investigate what it wold take to start a plague epidemic among the enemies’ cows. There was, however, a problem, Blome explained. An international agreement prohibited stocks of the rinderpest virus to be stored anywhere in Europe. Strains of cattle plague were available only in the third world.

Himmler said that he would get the cattle plague himself. He sent Dr. Erich Traub, a veterinarian from Reich’s State Research Institute, located on the island of Reims, to Turkey. There, Dr. Traub acquired a strain of the lethal rinderpest virus. Under Blome’s direction, trials to infect healthy cows with rinderpest began….

“Everyone was astounded, ” Schrader told Tilley. This was the most promising chemical killer since the Germans invented mustard gas. Preparation 9/91 was classified as top secret and given a code name: tabun gas. It came from the English word “taboo,” something prohibited or forbidden… At the Dustbin interrogation center, Major Tilley asked Schrader about full-scale production. Based on the Allies’ discovery of thousands of tons of tabun bombs in the forests outside Raubkammer, Farben must have had an enormous secret production facility somewhere. Dr. Schrader said that he was not involved in full-scale production. That was the job of his colleague, Dr. Otto Ambros….

Krauch also revealed a new piece of evidence. Dyhernfurth produced a second nerve agent, one that was even more potent than tabun, called sarin. Sarin was an acronym pieced together from the names of four key persons involved in its development: Schrader and Ambros from IG Farben and from the German Army, two officers named Rudiger and Linde.”- Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists to America by Annie Jacobson (Portions from pages 146 -149 & pages 160 – 163)

“We know [that] from antiquity up till the time of [the] Napoleonic wars, victories and defeats were often determined by epidemics and starvation.” Blome said.

Pay close attention to international munition sales.

“The U.S. Senate on Wednesday blocked a bipartisan initiative to suspend a $1.15 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, clearing the way for a massive resupply of the Kingdom’s military as it continues its incursions into neighboring Yemen. The victory over lawmakers who were trying to stop the deal will benefit General Dynamics — a defense contractor whose employees and corporate executives have spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions in the lead-up to the vote.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/saudi-arms-deal-backed-us-senators-who-got-cash-weapons-contractor-will-benefit

Bombing agricultural regions leads to massive starvation in Yemen.

“Martha Mundy, emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, who is currently working in Lebanon with her colleague Cynthia Gharios, has been researching through Yemeni agriculture ministry statistics and says that the data “is beginning to show that in some regions, the Saudis are deliberately striking at agricultural infrastructure in order to destroy the civil society”.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/27/is-yemen-too-much-for-the-world-to-take/

“The United Nations says the cholera outbreak in war-torn Yemen has now spread to all 21 governorates.”
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2017-07-cholera-outbreak-yemen-dead.html

The UN suspended Plan for Cholera Vaccination in Yemen.

“While the latest figures confirmed over 320,000 cases of cholera in Yemen, the World Health Organization announced that it would be canceling the planned shipment of nearly one million cholera vaccines”
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/WHO-Cancels-Shipment-of-500000-Cholera-Vaccines-to-Yemen-20170713-0005.html

Yemen’s fast epidemic should alarm anyone with knowledge of Vibrio cholerae . The cholera epidemic in London in 1854 gave birth to epidemiology. It was the first time disease victims were tracked and mapped so Dr. John Snow could discover the origins of the epidemic. His map lead him to the Broad Street Pump and the London cholera epidemic ended when they removed the pump handle.
“Ghost Map.” (London had no infrastructure at that time.) “In the 1851 census, London had a population of 2.4 million… But without infrastructure, two million people suddenly forced to share ninety square miles of space wasn’t just a disaster waiting to happen — it was a kind of permanent, rolling disaster, a vast organism destroying itself by laying waste to its habitat…”
The epidemic of 1854 occurred in only one location in the densely populated London. Yemen’s epidemic is impacting all of her 21 governorates?
Ghost Map’s information is important for understanding the nature of Vibrio cholerae (Cholera).

“The technical name for Cholera Bacterium is Vibrio cholerae. Viewed through the electron microscope, the bacterium looks somewhat like a swimming peanut—a curved rod with a thin, rotating tail called a flagellum that propels the organism, not unlike the outboard motor of a speedboat. On its own, a single V. cholerae bacterium is harmless to humans. You need somewhere between 1 million and 100 million organisms, depending on the acidity of your stomach, to contract the disease. Because our minds have a difficult time grasping the scale of life in the microcosmos of bacterial existence, 100 million microbes sounds, intuitively, like a quantity that would be difficult to ingest accidentally. But it takes about 10 million bacteria per milliliter of water for the organism’s presence be detectable to the human eye. (A milliliter is roughly 0.4 percent—four thousandths—of 1 cup.) A glass of water could easily contain 200 million V. cholerae without the slightest hint of cloudiness.

For those bacteria to pose any threat, you need to ingest the little creatures: simple physical contact can’t get you sick. V. cholerae needs to find its way into your small intestine. At that point, it launches a two-pronged attack. First, a protein called TCP pili helps the bacteria reproduce at an astonishing clip, cementing the organisms into a dense mat, made up of the small intestine’s primary metabolic roles, which is to maintain the body’s overall water balance. The walls of the small intestine are lined with two types of cells: cells that absorb water and pass it on to the rest of the body, and cells that secrete water that ultimately gets flushed out as waste. In a healthy, hydrated body, the small intestine absorbs more water that it secretes, but an invasion of V. cholerae reverses that balance: the cholera toxin tricks the cells into expelling water at a prodigious rate, so much so that in extreme cases people have been known to lose up to thirty percent of body weight in a matter of hours. (Some say that the name cholera itself derives from the Greek word for “roof gutter,” invoking the torrents of water that flow out after a rainstorm.) The expelled fluids contain flakes from the epithelial cells of the small intestine (the white particles that inspired the “rice water” description). They also contain a massive quantity of V. cholerae. An attack of cholera can result in the expulsion of up to twenty liters of fluid, with a per milliliter concentration of V. cholerae of about a hundred million.

In other words, an accidental ingestion of a million Vibrio cholerae can produce a trillion new bacteria over the course of three or four days. The organism effectively converts the human body into a factory for multiplying itself a millionfold. And if the factory doesn’t survive longer than a few days, so be it. There’s usually another one nearby to colonize.

The actual cause of death with cholera is difficult to pinpoint; the human body’s dependence on water is so profound that almost all the major systems begin to fail when so much fluid is evacuated in such a short period of time. Dying of dehydration is, in a sense, an abomination against the very origins of life on earth. Our ancestors evolved first in the oceans of the young planet, and while some organisms managed to adapt to life on the land, our bodies retain a genetic memory of their watery origin. Fertilization for all animals takes place in some form of water: embryos float in the womb; human blood almost has the same concentration of salts as seawater. “Those animal species that fully adapted to the land did so through the trick of taking their former environment with them,” the evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis writes. “No animal has ever really left the watery microcosm… No matter how high and dry the mountain top, no matter how secluded and modern the retreat, we sweat and cry what is basically seawater.” – Ghost Map (pages 36 – 37)

“We know [that] from antiquity up till the time of [the] Napoleonic wars, victories and defeats were often determined by epidemics and starvation.” Blome said.

Now they are manufacturing both starvation and the epidemics to destroy nations. They are exterminating Yemen in yet another Holocaust and the United States remains silent and enables yet again.

Where did Ambros go to work after his three year prison sentence for his mass murder slavery conviction at Nuremberg?

“On July 28, 1945, Dr. Hirschkind met with Ambros and Lieutenant Colonel Tarr in Heidelberg. Ambros brought his wartime deputy with him to the meeting, the Farben chemist Jurgen von Klenck. It was von Klenck who, in the final months of the war, had helped Ambros destroy evidence, hide documents, and disguise the Farben factory in Gendorf so that it appeared to produce soap, not chemical weapons. Jurgen von Klenck was initially detained at Dustbin but later released. The Heidelberg meetings lasted several days. When Dr. Wilhelm Hirschkind left, he had these words for Ambros: “I would look forward after the conclusion of the peace treaty [to] continuing our relations [in my position] as a representative of Dow.”

Only later did FIAT interrogators learn about this meeting. Major Tilley’s suspicions were now confirmed. A group inside the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service, including his former partner, Lieutenant Colonel Tarr, did indeed have an ulterior motive that ran counter to the motives of CIOS, FIAT, and the United Nations War Crimes Commission. Tilley’s superior at Dustbin, Major Wilson, confirmed this dark and disturbing truth in a classified military intelligence report on the Ambros affair. “It is believed that the conflict between FIAT… and LT-Col Tarr was due to the latter’s wish to use Ambros for industrial chemical purposes” back in the United States.”

“All documents regarding the Ambros affair would remain classified for the next forty years, until August of 1985. That an officer of the U.S. Chemical Warfare Service, Lieutenant Colonel Tarr, had sheltered a wanted war criminal from capture in the aftermath of the German surrender was damning. That this officer was also participating in meetings with the fugitive and a representative from the Dow Chemical Company was scandalous.” – Operation Paperclip (portions from pages 157 – 159)

“In separate letters to Finance Minister Ludger Westrick and Deputy Finance Minister Dr. Dollinger, a new secret was revealed, though Ambros promised not to make public a piece of the information they shared. “Concerning the firms abroad where I am a permanent co-worker advisor,” Ambros wrote, “I won’t name them [publicly] because I don’t want to tip off any journalists who might cause trouble with my friends. You know about W.R. Grace in New York… and I hope I can stay with Hibernia Company. Concerning the firms in Israel,” Ambros wrote, “stating their names publicly would be very embarrassing because they are [run by] very public, well-respected persons in public positions that have actually been at my home and are aware of my position, how I behaved during the Reich, and they accept this.”

The “well-respected” public figures in Israel to whom Ambros referred have never been revealed. That Ambros also had worked for the American company W.R Grace would take decades to come to light. When it did, in the early 1980s, the public would also learn that Otto Ambros worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Energy, formerly the Atomic Energy Commission, “to develop and operate a plant for the hydrogenation of coal in a scale of 4 million tons/year at the former IG Farben industry.” That a convicted war criminal had been hired by the Department of Energy sparked indignation, and congressmen and journalists sought further details about Ambros’s U.S. government contract. In a statement to the press, the Department of Energy insisted that the paperwork had been lost…
Letters on White House stationary reveal that Deputy National Security Adviser James W. Nance briefed Reagan about how it was that the U.S. government could have hired Otto Ambros. Nance’s argument to the president was that many others hired him. “Dr. Ambros had contracts with numerous officials from Allied countries,” wrote Nance. “Dr. Ambros was a consultant to companies such as Distillers Limited of England; Pechiney, the French chemical giant; and Dow Europe of Switzerland. He was also the chairman of Knoll, a pharmaceutical subsidiary of the well known chemical corporation BASF.” President Reagan requested further information from the Department of Energy on its Ambros contract. Nance told the president, “The DOE and/or ERDA [The Energy Research and Development Administration] do not have records that would answer the questions you asked in the detail you requested. However, with Ambros’ involvement in the company shown and his special knowledge in hydrogenation of coal, we know there were productive contacts between Dr. Ambros and U.S. energy officials.” Even the president of the United States could not get complete information about an Operation Paperclip legacy.

In the midst of the scandal, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle telephoned Ambros at his home in Mannheim, Germany, and asked Ambros about his 1948 conviction at Nuremberg for mass murder and slavery.

“That happened a very long time ago,” Ambros told the reporter. “It involved Jews. We do not think about it anymore.” – Operation Paperclip (Portions from pages 418 – 419)

Harriet A Washington’s book, “Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present,” provided critically important knowledge and evidence about the biological and chemical weapons program in United States and one that used cholera.

“I must confirm that the structure of the [Chemical and Biological Warfare] project was based on the U.S. system. That’s where we learnt the most.” – Wouter Basson, M.D.,

“The South African bioterrorism campaign depended upon very close relationships with U.S. scientists. Despite the supposed isolation imposed upon South African scientists by the international embargoes of the 1980s until 1993, Basson and his minions could not have undertaken biological warfare without the support of the U.S. government. From 1981 until 1993, the United States supported Wouter Basson’s weaponization programs by financing close collaborations with U.S. scientists and by sponsoring Basson’s sojourns to the United States for conferences and education. For example, in 1983, Basson attended a closed Department of Defense conference on biological and chemical warfare in San Antonio. During his trial, Basson recounted his participation in a 1981 federal conference in San Antonio with army officers from the United States, West Germany, Japan, Britain, and Canada. He declared, “I must confirm that the structure of the [CBWP] project was based on the U.S. system. That’s where we learnt the most.”

Basson says he was also grateful for expert American consultants, because the CBWP was dependent upon a colorful assortment of American scientists, especially Larry Ford, M.D., of California. Ford and Basson shared strange research proclivities, acerbic racist sensibilities, and a fascination with scientific genocide. Extant medical and legal documents and the testimony of Basson’s former confederates under oath describe their shocking joint-research projects.

According to Ford’s lawyer, he was a chemical-weapons researcher for the U.S. government in the 1980. In 1987, the United States sent him to South Africa to train microbiologists at the military-run Roodeplaat Research Laboratory (RRL), a key component of South Africa’s chemical-weapons program and a front for the apartheid South African Defense Force. Ford returned often to teach RRL scientists how to produce biological agents such as anthrax and botulinum toxin for use as weapons against antiapartheid forces and against blacks in general. He also taught apartheid’s defenders how to transform innocuous objects such as doilies and tea bags into biological weapons. His seminar series, a master class for poisoners, proved popular among South African scientists, who dubbed it “Project Larry.” Lt. Gen. Lothar Neething, head of the apartheid regime’s police forensic laboratory, was in attendance. So was RRL microbiologist Dr. Mike Odendaal, who recalls, “Ford spent an entire day showing us how to contaminate ordinary items and turn them into biological weapons.” He says Ford gave them “ideas about how to infiltrate innocuous objects such as perfume or household items” and place them in close proximity to a potential target.

Ford’s expertise in the toxicology of everyday life was put to use as South African physicians busily set about eliminating the enemies of apartheid. Ford was warmly welcomed within the nation’s top echelon of medical politicians: for example, the home of former surgeon general Dr. Niels Knobel is graced by a prominently placed framed photograph of him and Ford posing with a lion that Ford had shot.”…

Goosen supervised a multitude of biological assaults on black townships, including the release of pathogens and their vectors, such as mosquitoes, to seed disease epidemics there, just as the army and the CIA had released them over Carver Village… Goosen, Basson,and their deputies investigated the use of Mandrax, an amphetamine, and Ecstasy for crowd control, infused township water supplies with treatment-resistant strains of cholera, and deployed napalm and phosphorus against blacks in Namibia and Angola during the 1980s.

Basson also ordered Goosen to suppress black reproduction surreptitiously and suggested the clandestine addition of contraceptives to townships’ drinking water. Basson stressed that this was a direct edict of the South African surgeon general.

Throughout the Cold War, Western newspapers were peppered with sporadic accounts of ethnic and racial bioweapons being developed by South Africa with U.S. assistance. U.S. news media broadly maligned all such reports as “misinformation” disseminated by the Soviet Union to embarrass the United States….

A 1998 London Sunday Times story alleged that Israel already has used South Africa’s research to develop a genetically specific weapon against arabs.” (Portions from pages 373- 378)

Cholera found in all of Yemen’s 21 governorates is as much a man-made epidemic as it was when it happened in South Africa’s black townships.
Why are they exterminating Yemen?

America and the UAE are drilling for oil and liquefied gas in the Shabwa region. Theft for industrial production needs and no different from Nazi Germany’s theft of Poland’s Oswiecem’s coal fields. Ter Meer: “There were really so many of our industrial prerequisites that one has to admit that this location, Auschwitz, was ideal industrially.”

“Hitler was IG Farben and IG Farben was Hitler,” Nuremberg prosecutor, Josiah E. DuBois, Jr.

“To the inmates of Camp I, the word “Buna” (which included “Leuna”) was more frightful than “Auschwitz” — the Farben site more terrifying than any place except a large wooded area three kilometers east of Camp I. During the first weeks of construction the workers at Camp I were routed out of bed every morning, stood roll call, ate a poor breakfast, and were marched by the SS five kilometers to the plant. Until this day of testimony, Ambros had insisted several times that disciplinary actions on the site were the responsibility of the SS. Now for some strange reason, he admitted: “I do know for sure that already in 1941 one began to fence off squares, blocks, and in these squares no SS had any further business. That was the preliminary stage for having the entire plant fenced in.” The workers had confirmed this. Once inside the plant enclosure, they found that the Farben overseers outnumbered the SS by 10 to 1…. “We struggled to carry cables, collapsing under the strain; the work was too heavy even for a nourished man.” “Once the inmates were assigned to Farben Meister, they became his slaves.” The prisoners of war, who were given easier jobs, remembered better and longer than most. “The inmates were forced to carry one-hundred C-weight bags of cement. It took four men to lift one bag and put it on the back of one man. When inmates couldn’t go along quickly enough to satisfy the Farben Meister, the Meister beat them with sticks and iron bars and punched them with his fists and kicked them. I have often seen them beaten to death with iron bars.” “When inmates first arrived at the I.G. Farben factory,” one of Ambros’ underlings had testified, “They looked reasonably well. In two or three months, they were hardly recognizable as the same people; the worst thing was the lack of food… I am not a scientist, Mr. Counselor, I would not pose as an expert on calories or grams or liters. I can merely say what I saw…. And my Czech physician friend was an expert. The Czech physician said: “The prisoners were condemned to burn up their own body weight by working.” Before construction was finished, nine out of ten punishments were meted out by the Farben plant employees. The SS at Camp I became concerned with the depletion of the labor supply. The most ironical occurrences were the repeated complaints of an SS man to his superior that a Farben foreman was beating the prisoners too often — it happened at the plant as it happened at the mine. “I did not observe anything of that kind,” Ambros said. – The Devils Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars by Nuremberg prosecutor, Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. portions from pages 178 – 181

“Ambros bowed as he took oath, exhibiting his sketch in all directions. He waved his counsel aside for the moment. He explained: “This tree of many branches I choose to call the Ethylene Tree to symbolize the Good and Evil in nature.”

Ethylene oxide, he went on, was the trunk which bore many branches “green with peaceful uses” and a few that were rotten with potential destruction. He pointed to lines he had drawn to cut off the rotten branches. Green branches had been his sole interest: soap for dirty soldiers, paint and cleaning agents for vehicles. “I still do not understand why I am here. The collapse promised everything but that I would be arrested.”

At Gerdorf, after those senseless investigations, the Americans had been kind enough to lend him a jeep and driver, to take him back home. Surely, if he had deserved arrest, the French at Ludwigshafen would have picked him up. He’d lived in Ludwigshafen since the mid-1920’s; people there thought he was just born for the place. If Heidelberg was the seat of chemical knowledge, Ludwigshafen was nature’s laboratory; and Ambros was the sort of man who liked earth running through his fingers. At Ludwigshafen, more productive than any other single Farben installation, were planted the synthetic seeds of every Farben product. Ludwigshafen put out the elementary compounds that became hormones and vitamins under Hoerlein at Elberfeld. At Ludwigshafen, the organic roots under careful cultivation grew their first ersatz offshoots. His “mother” was Ludwigshafen, said Ambros; but he owed a good deal, too, to his real father, a professor of agricultural chemistry, who had taken him into the laboratory before he could toddle. It was understandable that, at first sight of Oswiecem, he noted it was “predominantly agricultural terrain.”

When Bosch and Krauch hired Ambros, they got a young man with brains as well as feet in the soil. Bosch, recognizing a young excitable genius, turned him loose to study natural dyes and rosins and yeast breeding and sugar fermentation. Soon the Ethylene Tree was bearing synthetic twigs based on his studies.” – The Devils Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars by Nuremberg prosecutor, Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. page 170

Many branches on the tree of life will be sacrificed in order to feed the ethylene oxide tree invention of Otto Ambros. The people of Yemen are the current branch being sacrificed. Yemen is being systematically exterminated and there is nothing but silence from US media. The Holocaust in Yemen will continue until voices speak out and share the truth of what is happening to them and why.

Read Full Post »

U.S. Nerve Gas Hit Our Own Troops in Iraq

Read Full Post »

“Also in the first three months of the CIA’s existence, the National Security Council issued Directive No. 3, dealing specifically with the “production of intelligence and the coordination of intelligence activities within the intelligence community.” The National Security Council wanted to know who was producing what intelligence and how that information was being coordinated among agencies. In the opinion of the CIA, “the link between scientific planning and military research on a national scale did not hitherto exist.” The result was the creation of the Scientific Intelligence Committee (SIC), chaired by the CIA and with members from the army, the navy, the air force, the State Department, and the Atomic Energy Commission. “Very early in its existence the SIC undertook to define scientific intelligence, delineate areas of particular interest and establish committees to handle these areas,” wrote SIC chairman Dr. Karl Weber, in a CIA monograph that remained classified until September 2008. “Priority was accorded to atomic energy, biological warfare, chemical warfare, electronic warfare, guided missiles, aircraft, undersea warfare and medicine” –every area involving Operation Paperclip scientists. Each scientific intelligence subcommittees were created, one for each area of warfare.” – Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America (Page 315.)

President Kennedy fired CIA director Allen Dulles.

“Splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” – President Kennedy

Listen carefully to the words of President John F. Kennedy in his speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.

On August 1, 1962, Kennedy addressed the nation to warn them about thalidomide. He did not know that Operation Paperclip scientist Otto Ambros oversaw the creation of thalidomide at Auschwitz and was a client of the Sullivan and Cromwell law firm of CIA director Allen Dulles. Kennedy was also unaware that Otto Ambros was Hilter’s Director of Chemical Weapons and that thalidomide was a re-packaged chemical weapon in his chemical weapons program.

It is far from the last of the Nazi secrets and since sarin is all over the news, here’s what its inventor also contributed to.

“In 1980 a Grunenthal technician called Christian Wagemann wore an anti-fascist badge to work. He was sacked – and effectively blacklisted in the German pharma industry. He is now a school cook.

Wagemann’s dismissal letter was signed by Otto Ambros, then chairman of the firm’s advisory board and until his death in 1990 a respected figure in the global pharmaceutical business. Ambros also happened to be Hitler’s chief chemical weapons expert and a convicted war criminal.

He helped invent the deadly Sarin nerve gas and ran a section of Auschwitz where thousands of slave workers died. He reputedly killed prisoners to demonstrate the gas and in 1941 wrote that his “dear friendship with the SS is proving very beneficial.” Sacking someone for anti-fascist views was no problem.

Ambros was too valuable a Nazi to be executed for war crimes. So valuable, he later briefed Britain and the United States on nerve gas – and was retained by the British firm Distillers, a relationship that might explain why it trusted hollow assurances the “new” drug was safe.”

https://renchemista.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/the-last-german-war-secret-by-andrew-rule-for-herald-june-27-2011-1200am/

Kennedy warned the US public and his warning fell on deafened ears.

Read Full Post »

The CIA: A history lesson and present control of media dissemination.

“Also in the first three months of the CIA’s existence, the National Security Council issued Directive No. 3, dealing specifically with the “production of intelligence and the coordination of intelligence activities within the intelligence community.” The National Security Council wanted to know who was producing what intelligence and how that information was being coordinated among agencies. In the opinion of the CIA, “the link between scientific planning and military research on a national scale did not hitherto exist.” The result was the creation of the Scientific Intelligence Committee (SIC), chaired by the CIA and with members from the army, the navy, the air force, the State Department, and the Atomic Energy Commission. “Very early in its existence the SIC undertook to define scientific intelligence, delineate areas of particular interest and establish committees to handle these areas,” wrote SIC chairman Dr. Karl Weber, in a CIA monograph that remained classified until September 2008. “Priority was accorded to atomic energy, biological warfare, chemical warfare, electronic warfare, guided missiles, aircraft, undersea warfare and medicine” –every area involving Operation Paperclip scientists. Each scientific intelligence subcommittees were created, one for each area of warfare.” – Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America by Annie Jacobson page 315.

Excerpts from Spooked by Nicholas Shou.
“In the next chapter we will examine how a journalist and a whistle-blower can team up to expose a shocking case of abuse at Guantanamo, win a major journalism award in the process, and still find themselves erased from the media picture.” page 75.
“It’s horrifying. The whistle-blower said, “You know what we just found?” he said. “We just found our Auschwitz.” Hickman and the guard gave the secret facility the nickname “Camp No,” as in “no such camp.”- page 82.
The Guantánamo “Suicides”
A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle By Scott Horton

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/03/the-guantanamo-suicides/

“Kiriakou’s crime was not participating in waterboarding, but exposing it. This is the upside-down world that America’s major press institutions have allowed to become entrenched in Washington, by refusing to challenge the national security state’s Orwellian mentality. War Is Peace. Freedom Is Slavery. Ignorance Is Strength” – Spooked page 86

This story never received any media blitz campaign for a reason.

“On December 23, 2013, in response to a pair of Freedom for Information Act (FOIA) requests, the Central Intelligence Agency released 574 pages of emails between various national security reporters and the agency’s public affairs office. The massive trove of material remained out of the public eye for a year, but in late 2014, it finally surfaced in a series of articles published by the online investigative magazine, the Intercept. The articles landed like a bombshell, revealing how some of America’s most prominent national security reporters were functioning essentially as unpaid CIA assets, sending the agency detailed story notes and, in at least one case, entire drafts of articles prior to publication.” – Spooked page 7
Read the Atlantic article on Spooked

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/operation-tinseltown-how-the-cia-manipulates-hollywood/491138/

Book information on Spooked: How the CIA Manipulates the Media and Hoodwinks Hollywood

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30773514-spooked

Read Full Post »

Mother Jones

Meet the Mom Who Helped Expose Flint’s Toxic Water Nightmare

 

LeeAnne Walters’ tap water tested at 27 times the EPA limit for lead. The city offered her a garden hose.

On a chilly evening last March in Flint, Michigan, LeeAnne Walters was getting ready for bed when she heard her daughter shriek from the bathroom of the family’s two-story clapboard house. She ran upstairs to find 18-year-old Kaylie standing in the shower, staring at a clump of long brown hair that had fallen from her head.

Walters, a 37-year-old mother of four, was alarmed but not surprised—the entire family was losing hair. There had been other strange maladies over the previous few months: The twins, three-year-old Gavin and Garrett, kept breaking out in rashes. Gavin had stopped growing. On several occasions, 14-year-old JD had suffered abdominal pains so severe that Walters took him to the hospital. At one point, all of LeeAnne’s own eyelashes fell out.

The family, as you have probably guessed, was suffering from the effects of lead in Flint’s water supply—contamination that will have long-term, irreversible neurological consequences on the city’s children. The exposure has quietly devastated Flint since April 2014, when, in an effort to cut costs, a state-appointed emergency manager switched the city’s water source from Detroit’s water system over to the Flint River.

Elected officials toasted the change with glasses of water, but some longtime residents were skeptical, particularly since Flint-based General Motors had once used the river as a dumping ground. “I thought it was one of those Onion articles,” said Rhonda Kelso, a 52-year-old Flint native. “We already knew the Flint River was toxic waste.”

The lead exposure persisted for 17 months, despite repeated complaints from residents of this majority-black city. It is in no small part thanks to Walters, a no-nonsense stay-at-home mom with a husband in the Navy, that the Flint situation is now a full-blown national scandal complete with a class-action lawsuit, a federal investigation, National Guard troops, and many people—including Bernie Sanders—calling for the resignation of Gov. Rick Snyder. “Without [Walters] we would be nowhere,” Mona Hanna-Attisha, the head of pediatrics at Flint’s Hurley Medical Center, told me. “She’s the crux of all of this.”

It was the summer of 2014 when Walters first realized something was very wrong: Each time she bathed the three-year-olds, they would break out in tiny red bumps. Sometimes, when Gavin had soaked in the tub for a while, scaly red skin would form across his chest at the water line. That November, after brown water started flowing from her taps, Walters decided it was time to stock up on bottled water.

The family developed a routine: For toothbrushing, a gallon of water was left by the bathroom sink. Crates of water for drinking and cooking crowded the kitchen. The adults and teenagers showered whenever possible at friends’ houses outside Flint; when they had to do it at home, they flushed out the taps first and limited showers to five minutes. Gavin and Garrett got weekly baths in bottled water and sponge baths with baby wipes on the other days. Slowly, the acute symptoms began to wane.

In January 2015, Flint officials sent out a notice declaring that the city’s water contained high levels of trihalomethanes, the byproduct of a disinfectant used to treat the water. Over time, these chemicals can cause liver, kidney, and nervous system problems. The advisory warned that sick and elderly people might be at an increased risk, but it said the water was otherwise safe to drink. “That was when I went to my first city council meeting,” Walters told me.

She wasn’t the only one. Flint residents showed up in droves, many complaining of stinky, tainted water coming out of their taps. They cited symptoms ranging from hair loss and rashes to memory and vision loss.

The problem was exacerbated by a lack of alternatives. Flint is one of America’s poorest cities, with 41 percent of its residents living in poverty. Many couldn’t afford bottled water or make the trek to obtain it—the city of 100,000 only has one major grocery store, on the far side of town. Kelso, a stroke survivor who lives with her 12-year-old daughter, relied on relatives to take her on water runs outside the city. “Sometimes there’s no water,” she said. “People who can buy water, they buy it up.”

Throughout most of 2015, the city and state maintained there was nothing to worry about. “I want to assure everyone that the city is sensitive to the public’s concerns,” Dayne Walling, then Flint’s mayor, declared at a press conference that January. “The city water is safe to drink. My family and I drink it and use it every day.” Walters and others, dubbing themselves “water warriors,” began staging regular protests outside City Hall.

In February, at Walters’ urging, the city sent an employee to test the water coming from her taps. A few days later, she received a voice mail from the water department, warning her to keep her kids away from the water. “You know when somebody calls and you can just hear the panic in their voice? It was that,” Walters recalled. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there’s no safe level of lead in drinking water. The maximum concentration allowed by law is 15 parts per billion. The Walters’ tap water measured nearly 400 ppb.

Walters began compulsively researching lead exposure. She learned, to her horror, that the element has a particularly dramatic effect on young children, with long-term symptoms that can include a lower IQ, shortened attention span, and increases in violence and antisocial behavior—not to mention effects on reproductive and other organs. Studies also have tied higher lead levels to significantly increased rates of crime and teen pregnancy. The neurological and behavioral effects, notes the World Health Organization, “are believed to be irreversible.”

Walters rushed to get her children tested, and the results confirmed her worst fears: All four kids had been exposed to lead, and Gavin, who already had immune system problems, had bona fide lead poisoning, which put him at far greater risk. “I was hysterical,” said Walters. “At first, it was self-blame. And then there’s that anger: How are they letting them do this?”

The city’s initial response was to hook up a garden hose to her neighbor’s house to provide water for her family—officials claimed that the problem probably had to do with the Walters’ own plumbing. Just days after Walters got the results of her children’s blood tests, Gov. Snyder’s office assured residents that “Flint’s water system is producing water that meets all state and federal standards.” (Representatives from the city and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality declined to comment for this story.)

Walters, who is trained as a medical assistant, began staying up late at night to go through reams of Flint water quality reports. She learned that Flint River water is more corrosive than Detroit tap water, and she wondered why Flint hadn’t applied standard chemicals—known as corrosion controls—to prevent the leaching of metal from its aging pipes into the water supply. This treatment is critical in a city such as Flint, where half of households are connected to a lead water line. She also didn’t understand why the city employee who tested her water ran the tap for several minutes before taking a sample. If something were building up in her pipes, wouldn’t flushing it out understate the results?

Frustrated with the city’s lackadaisical response, Walters called Miguel Del Toral, a manager at the EPA’s Midwest water division, last March. She explained that Flint didn’t appear to be using corrosion controls and that it was flushing pipes before conducting lead tests. She also emailed him water quality reports for the previous year. Del Toral was floored. “From a technical standpoint, there’s just no justification for the way Flint is conducting its tests,” he later told the American Civil Liberties Union. “Any credible scientist will tell you [the city’s] method is not the way to catch worst-case conditions.”

By contacting Del Toral, Walters unwittingly unleashed a chain of investigations. He introduced her to Marc Edwards, an expert in lead corrosion at Virginia Tech who instructed her to collect new samples from her house without pre-flushing the pipes. In those samples, Edwards found lead concentrations of 13,200 ppb—more than twice the level the EPA classifies as hazardous waste. “At that point, you do not just have smoke, you have a three-alarm fire and should respond immediately,” he told the Detroit News.

Edwards put together a team to conduct field tests in Flint and to seek data from the city and the state. Del Toral, meanwhile, relayed his concerns to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, setting off a slow, bureaucratic back-and-forth between the state and the EPA. News that that the Virginia Tech team and the EPA were looking into the matter alarmed Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician at Hurley Medical Center. She began researching the blood lead levels of Flint’s youngest children before and after the change of water supply, comparing them with children living elsewhere in Genesee County.

The results from both investigations came back last September. Edwards’ tests suggested that one in six Flint homes had lead water levels exceeding the EPA’s safety threshold. Hanna-Attisha found that the rate of children younger than five with elevated lead concentrations in their blood had doubled—and in some areas, tripled—following the switch to Flint River water. The effect, she told CNN, would be analogous to “drinking through lead-painted straws.”

The day after Hanna-Attisha’s findings came out, the city released a lead advisory. State officials remained skeptical, insisting that the results were incorrect and that Flint’s water met federal standards. But by mid-October, after weeks of deliberations and lots of bad press, Gov. Snyder ordered that Flint’s water supply be switched back to the Detroit system. “It recently has become clear that our drinking-water program staff made a mistake while working with the city of Flint,” said Dan Wyant, the state’s Environmental Quality Director, who resigned not long after. “Simply stated, staff employed a federal protocol they believed was appropriate, and it was not.”

Earlier this month, Snyder deployed National Guard troops to work alongside Red Cross volunteers, delivering bottled water, water filters, and lead-testing kits to Flint residents—who still can’t drink from the tap thanks to the corroded lead pipes. On Saturday, President Barack Obama declared a state of emergency in Flint, entitling the city to federal disaster relief funds. Several residents, including Rhonda Kelso, have joined together in a class-action suit targeting city and state officials, including ex-Mayor Walling and Gov. Snyder. The US Attorney’s Office for Michigan’s Eastern District has launched its own investigation into the crisis.

The Walters no longer live in Flint—they moved to Virginia in October, partly in response to the contamination. But the water issue continues to consume LeeAnne, who regularly Skypes into meetings and fields calls with politicians and activists. She recently traveled to Washington, DC, to meet with EPA officials. Other Flint moms seek her out for advice; one telephoned after tests found that her 15-year-old daughter had the liver function of a 75-year-old. Walters won’t let her family drink Virginia tap water until she’s had it tested—or eat at a restaurant without reviewing its health reports in advance.

At five years old, Gavin weighs a mere 35 pounds to his twin brother’s 53.

The hardest thing, she says, is not knowing how the lead exposure will affect her kids in the long term. Gavin was the “party animal” of the twins, but lately he’s lost his appetite and sleeps more. At five, he weighs a mere 35 pounds to Garrett’s 53, and he mispronounces words that he could once handle. Garrett was recently diagnosed with ADHD. Both boys continue to ask, when handed a cup of water, whether it is “good water or bad water.”

When I asked Walters what she makes of all the national attention, she paused. “Everybody’s been asking, ‘How do you feel now that people are finally listening? Do you feel satisfied?'”

Then she was crying. “Every time I get a call from another mother whose child is sick,” she managed, “it doesn’t feel like a victory.”

Meet the mom who helped expose Flint’s toxic water nightmare

Read Full Post »

Bring Back Antitrust

Despite low inflation and some bargain prices, economic concentration and novel abuses of market power are pervasive in today’s economy—harming consumers, workers, and innovators. We need a new antitrust for a new predatory era.

By David Dayen

In the late 1980s, Thomas Shaw of Little Elm, Texas, watched a news report about surging HIV and Hepatitis C contractions among health-care workers. When treating patients, nurses and hospital personnel would accidentally stick themselves with used needles.

Shaw had childhood friends suffering from AIDS, and he wanted to help. “I knew I couldn’t fix the biology side of it, but I could fix one part because I’m a mechanical engineer,” Shaw says. So he went to the nearest drugstore and bought a bunch of syringes. He spent years taking them apart until he finally came up with a way to solve the needle-stick epidemic.

Shaw’s syringe operated like a ballpoint pen: Once you fully depressed the needle into the patient, a ring would snap and retract the needle, allowing workers to safely pull out the implement. He called it VanishPoint. If disposed of after a single use, it would eliminate needle-stick entirely.

Shaw patented VanishPoint and formed a company, Retractable Technologies, in 1997. He got a Small Business Innovation Research grant, $650,000 from the National Institutes of Health, to manufacture his product and get it to market. But that’s when he learned about Becton, Dickinson & Co. (BD), which sells 80 percent of all syringes in America.

After 18 years in operation, after a federal law mandating that hospitals work to prevent needle-stick, and after two successful lawsuits resulting in BD paying more than $400 million for violating anti-monopoly statutes, Retractable Technologies made only $34 million in global sales last year. BD, with an inferior, more expensive product, sold $8.4 billion, the payouts to its competitor serving only as the cost of doing business. In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control estimated 380,000 needle-sticks at hospitals every year. Today, they estimate 385,000.

“You turn on the TV and watch politicians talk about unleashing the power of the free market, that’s absurd,” Shaw says. “The American public is being denied a free market, being denied competition.”

 

THE TIGHT GRIP OF incumbents on the medical-supply industry is far from exceptional. Much of what we buy comes from a deceptively concentrated market. This is all the more surprising, given the wave of competition unleashed by the Internet.

The unaware consumer walks into a supermarket and sees aisles brimming with a daunting array of choices. But the majority of products come from just ten manufacturers. You’re made dizzy by the sheer variety of toothpastes, for example, but 70 percent of sales go to just two companies: Proctor & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive.

One company, Luxottica, makes virtually every different brand of sunglasses in the world. They also own nearly all the eyeglass retail outlets, from LensCrafters to Pearle Vision to Sunglass Hut. Several years ago, Tyco bought up all its competitors and now makes practically every plastic hanger in America. You’d be excused for thinking you have many options for booking airline tickets and hotels online, but when the Expedia-Orbitz merger clears, there will only be two (Priceline is the other).

America gets its cable and Internet service mostly from four companies, after AT&T’s successful merger with DirecTV. There are only three big airlines, four if you count Southwest; four big commercial banks; and five big trade-book publishers, six before Random House merged with Penguin.

Even where you don’t discern market concentration, it lurks behind the scenes. “Underneath GM and Chrysler are the suppliers,” says the New America Foundation’s Barry Lynn, author of the book Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction. “There are different brands, but everyone’s using the same windshield wipers and the same alternator. With cat food there are like 100 different brands, but they’re all coming out of the same plant.”

This accelerated consolidation can be self-perpetuating, with incumbents discouraging competitors from getting a foothold, or buying them up as soon as they gain some market share. Market concentration has a powerful impact on the day-to-day lives of every American, not just because monopolists have pricing power. Monopolies can also stunt innovation, degrade quality of service, increase inequality, and concentrate political power.

This trend operates against a background of weakening antitrust enforcement. Some of the new techniques to defend market power were not anticipated by the authors of the major antitrust laws more than a century ago. Others would be all too familiar, such as squeezing and then buying out competitors, or creating tying arrangements to compel a consumer to buy one product as a condition of buying another. “We’re back to a little bit of the new Gilded Age,” says Allen Grunes, a former antitrust official at the Justice Department.

This hidden concentration and its negative effects on consumers may seem paradoxical. First, this is a low-inflation economy. So if monopolists are jacking up prices, why does this not show up in a higher consumer price index? Secondly, thanks in part to the Internet, some innovation does result in greater consumer choice and price discipline. Amazon, for instance, has forced booksellers to cut prices. Internet shopping generally increases consumer knowledge to shop for the best deals.

But in a segmented economy, monopoly pricing power and suppression of innovation in some sectors can co-exist with competitive markets elsewhere. As for low inflation, much of it reflects depressed wages, in some ways driven by market concentration. So the consumer is hit twice—once in the paycheck and again at the store. And the Internet, for all of its ability to facilitate shopping around, has facilitated platform monopolies or near-monopolies such as Amazon and Google, with other anti-competitive effects.

 

RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES initially held talks with BD about licensing their VanishPoint syringe. But BD would not commit to actually using the technology, which would have required them to retool machinery. Thomas Shaw didn’t want to see VanishPoint die. But even after getting clinicians interested in using the syringe, he couldn’t get hospitals to buy it.

As a Washington Monthly story in 2010 on Retractable explained, most hospitals acquire supplies through group purchasing organizations (GPOs), coalitions of affiliated hospitals that buy in bulk at a discount. The vendors actually pay all the GPO’s administrative costs, as long as the hospitals buy entirely from the narrow group of vendors. Shaw discovered that BD had contracts through GPOs with a “90/10” requirement. If a hospital bought 100 syringes from BD last year, they had to buy 90 the next year to qualify for the discount. If the hospital failed to purchase 90 percent, they would lose the discounts and pay a penalty, a cost of millions of dollars. This contractual obligation fortified the monopoly.

Unable to sell his product, Shaw worked with nurses’ organizations to pass the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act in November 2000. It revised rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, mandating hospitals to reduce their reliance on equipment that exposes workers to blood-borne pathogens. Committees within hospitals would have to “document annually consideration and implementation of appropriate commercially available and effective safer medical devices.” But hospitals still resisted Retractable’s syringe, wary of breaking the GPO contracts.

Shaw went to the Federal Trade Commission in 2002, complaining about being locked out of the market. The FTC had jurisdiction to bust up monopolies, but took no action. Shaw also sued BD and several GPOs under the Sherman Antitrust Act. BD settled the case for $100 million in 2004. Retractable Technology took the money to survive as a viable business. But even after the settlement, nothing changed. The $100 million was the going rate for BD’s shareholders to maintain their monopoly, a pittance compared to its profits.

AMERICAN PROGRESSIVES have long had an ambivalent view of bigness. The split was evident in the presidential election of 1912. Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt’s idea was to allow some concentration to most efficiently distribute goods, but to let experts regulate those firms for the public benefit. Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and his adviser Louis Brandeis, saw concentrated power as dangerous, and held that monopolies that unduly restricted competition should be broken up.

The fuel for the Brandeis-Wilson perspective came from below. In the late 19th century, economic regulation was a function of the states, which were unable to deal with the rise of giant national trusts. The growth of railroad and telegraph monopolies restricted the channels for the flow of information and the transport of goods, raising prices in some cases and denying access to markets in others. Farmers, gouged by railroad tycoons and fearful of the trusts’ power, organized the Granger movement and others, fomenting a revolt against these practices and ultimately compelling national politicians to act.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, passed almost unanimously by Congress, gave the Justice Department (and later, via the Clayton Act, the Federal Trade Commission) authority to attempt to block anti-competitive mergers and price-fixing through the courts; the act authorized criminal penalties as well as civil remedies. But the Sherman Act authors made clear that “innocent monopolies” created by superior business practices could be tolerated as long as they did not suppress innovation and price competition. So even in the heyday of antitrust, the courts rejected the proposition that size per se was anti-competitive. Restraints of trade had to be demonstrated.

In Standard Oil v. United States, for example, the Supreme Court effectively modified the Sherman Act, saying that monopolistic restraint of trade was only objectionable if it was “unreasonable,” a determination to be made by the courts. The decision did break up Standard Oil, ending their Gilded Age dominance. However, U.S. Steel won its antitrust case in 1920, as did International Harvester in 1927, because they passed the reasonableness test.

Without a bit of monopoly power, pure competition would be mutually ruinous to necessary profits and innovation. The economist Joseph Schumpeter famously wrote, “Every grocer, every filling station, every manufacturer of gloves or shaving cream or handsaws has a small and precarious market of his own that he tries—must try—to keep by price strategy, quality strategy, ‘product differentiation’—and advertising.” This was what mid-century economists termed Monopolistic Competition—a balance between pure competition and some necessary market power.

Some cases, however, were deemed so potent that they required companies to be broken up. In United States v. Alcoa (1945), the Court referred the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that even though Alcoa didn’t pursue an industry monopoly, their acquisition of one through superior management could and did enable them to engage in monopolistic behavior. So they found Alcoa guilty of violating the Sherman Act, in a way that would never hold today. The 1953 case against United Shoe Machinery found the same thing. The 1966 proposed merger of Von’s and Shopping Bag grocery stores, which would have created market concentration of just 7.5 percent in the Los Angeles region, faced a court-ordered breakup. “During antitrust’s structural era, horizontal mergers were strongly presumed to harm competition,” wrote law professor Jon Baker of American University in 2013.

In general, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division was fairly aggressive during the period between the 1930s and the 1960s, seeking to safeguard market competition while recognizing that scale could sometimes be pro-competitive. And then, a future failed Supreme Court nominee named Robert Bork took this nuance to an extreme, arguing that antitrust enforcement was actually bad for innovation and consumer well-being.

 

IN HIS 1978 BOOK The Antitrust Paradox, Bork, a devotee of University of Chicago economic theories, contended the Sherman Act was merely a “consumer welfare” prescription, not a presumption against market power (which generally can’t exist in Chicago theory). So if a merger made the resulting business more efficient, that merger should be approved. Scale, likewise, generally enhanced efficiency. In both cases, consumers would see the benefits in lower prices. If the incumbent abused its dominant position and raised prices beyond a market-clearing price, competitors (by definition) would invariably arise. The power of incumbency was assumed away. The “paradox” of his book’s title was that antitrust enforcement made consumers worse off.

Recent scholarship has shown Bork’s assumptions to be backward. John Kwoka, an economics professor at Northeastern University, collected retrospective data on 46 closely studied mergers, and found that 38 of them resulted in higher prices, with an overall average increase of 7.29 percent. In cases where the Justice Department imposed some sort of condition for accepting a merger, like divestiture of some product lines or bans on retaliation against rivals, the price increases were even higher, ranging from 7.68 percent to 16.01 percent. By this analysis, consumers don’t benefit at all from merger activity, as market power overwhelms whatever efficiency gains.

But Bork’s ideas found a ready ally when Ronald Reagan took the White House. In 1982, Bill Baxter, head of the Antitrust Division at the Justice Department, rewrote the guidelines the agency would use to examine mergers, incorporating many of Bork’s theories. The earlier 1968 guidelines, authored by Assistant Attorney General Donald Turner, looked skeptically upon mergers where the resulting company would control as little as 5 percent of an industry. Baxter’s rewrite incorporated supposed efficiency into the equation, and significantly increased thresholds for market concentration that would even trigger official scrutiny, much less litigation.

Changing the enforcement guidelines transformed antitrust policy without altering a comma of the law. What was once a political issue became a question for micro-economists, and corporations could always find one to assert massive efficiencies from any merger. Judges began to require a higher threshold for merger challenges as well as a presumption against abuse of market power, as the Bork intellectual theories infected the entire apparatus.

 

IN 2007, RETRACTABLE Technologies sued BD again. They claimed that BD marketed inferior “safety” syringes to comply with federal law. Their main safety syringe was a retrofit of BD’s old plastic one, which added a sheath that health-care workers would slide over the needle. This only created one more potential for a needle-stick during the sheathing.

Retractable alleged that BD intentionally kept their substandard syringe on the market to drive down public perception of the VanishPoint. They also claimed that BD lied about the sharpness of their needles and the accuracy of their measurements of medicine.

After six years of legal wrangling, a jury ruled on the antitrust portions of the case, agreeing with Retractable that BD sought to monopolize the syringe market and made false statements to customers. A federal district court affirmed the jury’s verdict, awarding Retractable $340 million in damages and requiring BD to admit it lied to customers. The case is pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but BD did send letters to its GPOs acknowledging the lies. One responded by canceling Retractable’s contract instead.

Instead of relenting after having two antitrust cases go against them, BD sought approval last fall at the FTC for a merger with medical supplier CareFusion. Retractable wrote to the FTC strongly objecting to the merger, highlighting the millions of health-care workers unnecessarily harmed by BD’s monopoly over syringes, the company’s admitted falsehoods, and the harm to competition from allowing the market to entrench further. The FTC never responded to the letter, and cleared BD’s merger.

SINCE THE REAGAN JUSTICE Department neutered antitrust enforcement, a posture substantially ratified by increasingly conservative courts, two new factors have reinforced the trend. The first is the rise of intensified merger and acquisition activity, driven less by economic efficiency than by the fact that M&A is a huge Wall Street profit center that fits with the desire of CEOs to run bigger empires that produce fatter paydays. Mergers and acquisitions activity is poised to hit a record this year, with $4.58 trillion in takeover announcements expected.

Obviously, more mergers mean more commissions for the Wall Street firms that shepherd the deals, as well as more opportunities to profit from trades. Investors are also demanding consolidation as a means to increase pricing power and to show growth. It’s easier to use market power to extract more from suppliers and consumers than to make a better product and increase sales volume. “From society’s perspective, it’s complicated. But from the inside, I always want to have a monopoly,” said billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel in London in May.

The preference for debt over equity in the tax code also incentivizes mergers, since borrowed money to acquire companies produces a tax break. In principle, antitrust enforcement provides a counterweight, but as merger activity has increased, antitrust has declined. Today, corporate America’s most innovative activity is financial engineering, rather than invention that enhances consumer welfare.

Despite all the buzz about the start-up culture, entrepreneurship has suffered from these barriers to competition. The New America Foundation found start-ups fell 53 percent between 1977 and 2010. This removes urgency from incumbents to invest, and makes the economy sluggish.

Merger activity, John Kwoka shows, typically leads to price increases, as companies controlling concentrated markets gouge consumers. You can see the consequences of oligopolistic pricing simply by looking at your cell phone or cable bill, sectors where dominant players still enjoy market power.

A second complicating factor is the rise of electronic commerce. In principle, this should be good for competition and consumer welfare. But here we need to introduce the lesser-known cousin of monopoly—monopsony, meaning market power exercised by a dominant seller, or in the case of the Internet, a dominant platform. A good illustration is the market power that Google enjoys over the division of advertising income. It piggybacks on expensive content generated by magazines, newspapers, and others in the media, and takes a large share of advertising revenues. There have been widespread complaints that Google uses its market power to take too big a cut of the advertising dollar at the expense of content originators. Senator John Sherman, author of the Sherman Act, never anticipated this abuse in 1890.

Digital platforms using market power gained by controlling access to their audiences is a variant on the venerable problem of common carriers that abuse their positions as choke points. As early as 1913, the U.S. government began treating AT&T as a regulated monopoly, and insisted that it provide connectivity with rival independent phone companies. Regulators have not asked the same of Google or Facebook. “We have one fantastic victory in recent times, net neutrality,” said Barry Lynn of the New America Foundation. “For some reason, the wise folks at DOJ and FTC are not able to see that Amazon is largely analogous to the cable problem, the broadband problem. You need a neutral platform.”

Courts have on occasion held that abuses of monopsony are antitrust violations. In the A&P case of 1949, the Supreme Court agreed that A&P was using its dominant economic position to demand discounts from suppliers that were not available to its competitors, thus denying a level playing field among supermarkets. But there have been no successful cases against Google or Amazon for abusing their dominant position as platforms. Late in the Clinton administration, the FTC issued a staff paper warning of the multiple potentials for abuses of market power in e-commerce. But in a follow-up report under George W. Bush, the FTC held that the Internet was only beneficial for consumer welfare. Platform monopsony should be a fertile area for FTC investigation, but President Obama’s FTC has been quiescent.

The rise of the Internet has been double-edged for market concentration. For example, Amazon is the dominant delivery outlet for books, willing and able to keep out publishers if they don’t conform to their standards. This produces bargains for consumers, but undermines supplier industries, in this case author royalties and publisher earnings. “The focus on consumers led people to think, if Amazon can get cheaper prices, who’s to complain, without realizing that monopsony power is squeezing authors,” says Nobel Prize–winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. “The consumer may get better prices, but not on the other side.”

Monopsony creates many spillover effects. Suppliers can cut corners on labor and environmental standards to keep their profit margins up amid the squeeze. Wages can drop. So even if inflation stays low, the public can suffer. In other words, while some monopolies and monopsonies generate “cheap” goods for Americans, antitrust policy should look beyond simply prices and efficiency to incorporate all of the consumer effects of market concentration. And they are legion.

 

THE CASE OF RETRACTABLE Technologies shows how monopolies can inhibit innovation, by preventing start-ups from getting products out. Monopolization also has a significant effect on quality of service. With reduced competitive pressures from the outside, businesses have no reason to upgrade services.

Concentrated markets magnify disruptions. On July 8, IT issues knocked out the New York Stock Exchange, and the computer system of United Airlines went down. Because the NYSE has competing exchanges, others picked up the trading slack and stock volume went virtually unchanged. Because there are only three other major airlines, and in many cases none that fly the same routes as United, the computer glitch grounded thousands of flights nationwide and caused bottlenecks and flight delays that lasted for days. There were no redundancies in the airline industry to step in.

n many sectors, such as health care, market concentration leads to more market concentration. Hospital consolidation was motivated in part by providers’ desire to increase their ability to bargain with insurance companies for better prices. In reaction, insurance companies also consolidated, each side seeking leverage over the other. Once Anthem completes their merger with Cigna, and Aetna merges with Humana, there will be a “Big Three” in health insurance (UnitedHealth is the other).

Perhaps most critically, given the current political climate, monopolies drive inequality. Executives and Wall Street traders make astronomical incomes, while wages are squeezed. Post-merger price increases, from health care to cable TV service to airline tickets, translate into a decline in real wages. Big mergers also encourage reduction in actual wages, when consolidations produce layoffs and limit avenues for employment. And though high skills are supposedly a defense against wage cuts, cartel behavior by Silicon Valley firms to prevent raiding each other’s workers kept wages for coders and engineers low.

Suppliers to platform monopolies experience a price crunch across the spectrum, reducing their own profits and funneling them to the biggest firms, where they pass to executives. “High concentration in the PC platform market with Microsoft gives rise to the richest person in the country,” says Stiglitz. “Monopoly increases wealth at the top, and for average Americans real wages decrease.”

And in the Citizens United age, all this market power and collection of exorbitant monopoly profits can’t help but lead to the entrenchment of political power.

Senator Sherman did not anticipate the Internet, but he previewed this broader problem in 1890 when he warned of the “inequality of condition, of wealth, and of opportunity that has grown within a single generation out of the concentration of capital.” And in the Citizens United age, all this market power and collection of exorbitant monopoly profits can’t help but lead to the entrenchment of political power.

“Monopolies are as much political forces as they are economic ones,” says Zephyr Teachout, a former New York gubernatorial candidate and Fordham University law professor who now runs Mayday PAC, a federal political organization dedicated to public financing of elections. “I talk about fair elections as the rhythm of an open, free democracy, and decentralized economic power as the melody.”

 

THIS PAST JULY, RETRACTABLE Technologies wrote a 15-page letter to FTC commissioners, stressing how the agency “has sat on its hands while America’s dedicated health-care workers have had their hands pricked, stabbed and bloodied by needles that often carry deadly diseases.” The company reiterated the long history of anti-competitive practices by BD, including the two occasions where courts found them guilty of attempted monopolization. “Retractable Technologies would like to know just how much court-verified public harm a company has to commit before the FTC will be motivated to do its job,” the letter concluded.

In response, the FTC’s Health Care Division met with Shaw, Retractable’s CEO, in late August. Regulators admitted that American consumers pay more for health-care products than any country in the world, and Shaw offered that market concentration and the GPO hustle contributed to that. But the lack of resources and the need to expend so much effort on complex economic models to justify a case forces the FTC to choose its battles judiciously.

“They said, if you had a case where everything’s done, maybe we could get something done,” Shaw says. “Short of that, there’s nothing they can do. My problem with that as a taxpayer and inventor and manufacturer is, if they’re not coming to Little Elm and starting a business, why am I coming up here to do their job?”

AT THE OUTSET of the Obama administration, things looked promising for a resurgence of antitrust. George W. Bush’s Antitrust Division had been dismissive of antitrust, in a manner straight out of the pages of Robert Bork. Antitrust chief William Kolasky said in a speech in 2002, “All of us know that the rationale for most mergers is pro-competitive and that most mergers have no adverse effects on competition.” Bush’s FTC issued a report on Section 2 of the Sherman Act that was deferential to monopolies. The incoming Obama administration withdrew it.

Then, the new head of the Antitrust Division, Christine Varney, held joint hearings with the Department of Agriculture in five cities, with Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack attending. The field hearings looked at monopsony power—the concentration of agribusiness conglomerates, like Tyson, ratcheting down the rates they pay farmers for meat and poultry. “This was great, all these farmers, herders, everyone involved in the production of food, they’re up in arms,” says Maurice Stucke, antitrust law professor at the University of Tennessee. “DOJ itself said, the message is coming through.”

But when it came to actual enforcement, the administration largely took a pass. According to data collected by Northeastern University’s John Kwoka, from 2009 to 2011, for every merger that reduced competitors in a market to four or fewer, the administration made some investigation or challenge. But for mergers that left five or more competitors, they enforced none of them. Historically, a good chunk of those would have been challenged. “These are moderately concentrated industries, right on the cusp,” Kwoka says. “They took a pass on every one of them. It’s remarkable and a complete anomaly.”

Stucke points to a George’s Foods acquisition of a Tyson poultry processing plant in Harrisonburg, Virginia, that the Justice Department decided to challenge. Instead of blocking the acquisition, the Antitrust Division required minor capital improvements to the plant, including repairing the roof. “They settled on, it was like chicken feed,” Stucke says. “I can’t think of any other case where part of the remedy is to repair the plant’s roof.”

These conduct remedies are precisely the ones that Kwoka showed to be extremely ineffective in his retrospective studies. Yet they became a hallmark of Obama-era antitrust enforcement. The Comcast-NBC merger included a series of behavioral remedies. US Airways and American Airlines had to merely divest some slots at Reagan National and LaGuardia Airports. The LiveNation-Ticketmaster merger also included conditions, like divestitures and anti-retaliation provisions. Three years later, the merged company controlled more than 80 percent of the primary event-ticketing market.

It’s true that the administration faces hurdles from a judiciary that still adheres to the lessons of the Chicago school and places heavy burdens on the enforcement agencies. In Verizon v. Trinko (2004), Justice Antonin Scalia called charging monopoly prices “an important element of the free-market system,” and said that it must be protected “to safeguard the incentive to innovate.”

“One problem is that bad cases not brought by the government tend to make bad law,” says Allen Grunes, the former antitrust official, now in private practice. “The Supreme Court has been able to cherry-pick those cases to move things in a conservative direction.”

But the administration’s decision to close four of the seven antitrust field offices (in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia) in 2012 was taken as a strong signal. These field offices did primarily criminal cases, such as conspiracies to rig municipal contracts or construction bids. Dozens of prosecutors lost their jobs. The shuttering of over half of the field offices damaged agency morale. “The remaining offices can’t cover the territory,” says Robert Connolly, chief of the field office in Philadelphia when it was closed. “I think there’s a sense that the Antitrust Division is not that interested in local and regional cases. … They want a case with headlines, a lot of zeroes.”

The administration has had a better record on mergers that created heavy market concentration, blocking proposed mergers such as AT&T with T-Mobile, and Comcast with Time Warner. More recently, enforcement agencies have been praised for investigating the airline industry for price collusion, suing to block General Electric’s sale of its appliance business to Electrolux, and stopping the merger of the nation’s two largest food distributors, Sysco and U.S. Foods.

In some sense, these successes represent a last frontier. “Many of our industries have simply hit the wall, with high levels of concentration allowed by 20 years of lax enforcement,” says Diana Moss, vice president of the American Antitrust Institute. “As a result, mergers in markets with two, three, or four rivals are almost always going to raise competitive concerns. … The next administration is looking at a pretty grim landscape.”

 

BD’S ANTI-COMPETITIVE behavior dates back to at least the Eisenhower administration. Back in 1960, the Justice Department cited BD for price-fixing violations of the Sherman Act. BD agreed to a consent decree, but the company took advantage of a quirk in the language of the order. The consent decree only committed BD to end their illegal practices for reusable glass syringes. So BD simply shifted to plastic disposable syringes, and engaged in the same behavior. In fact, the routine reuse of plastic syringes by replacing the needles exposed patients and health-care workers to equipment that could not be re-sterilized, facilitating the global AIDS and Hepatitis C outbreaks.

Despite 55 years of anti-competitive behavior, BD’s market monopoly remains in place. And tellingly, no other medical supply conglomerate has ever tried to enter the market. “Johnson & Johnson told us, they don’t sell Band-Aids and we don’t sell syringes,” says Thomas Shaw. The market split allows monopolies to maximize profits as long as they stay out of competition. The big guys don’t mess with one another’s markets, and the little guys can’t get in.

Shaw believes his plight will only change if the public wakes up to the perversion of the free market, which long ago ceased to miraculously guide toward the best solutions through open competition. In fact, the markets don’t self-correct. “There are a lot of invisible hands, most of them are in our pockets,” Shaw says.

In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter gave a speech at the University of California, Berkeley, titled “What Happened to the Antitrust Movement?” He wondered why anti-monopoly sentiment ceased to become the subject of public agitation. “Once the United States had an antitrust movement without antitrust prosecutions,” Hofstadter said. “In our time, there have been antitrust prosecutions without an antitrust movement.”

Now we have lost both the movement and the prosecutions. When we talk about banks that are too big to fail, we’re talking about antitrust. When we talk about the high cost of health care, we’re talking about antitrust. So many of our key domestic issues are fundamentally questions about whether we should tolerate monopolies, or dismantle them. But this formulation—a centerpiece of public debate in the last robber-baron era between the 1880s and 1910s—has all but disappeared from popular discourse.

Can anti-monopoly sentiment be revived? When New York’s Working Families Party first recruited Zephyr Teachout to run for governor, she said she would only do it if she could talk about monopolies. “They polled it, and they were correct that nobody knew what I was talking about,” Teachout says. But when she eventually ran an insurgent campaign against incumbent Andrew Cuomo, she was determined to talk about it anyway.

“The minute you got past the sound-bite level, people responded to the concentration of power,” Teachout says. They did campaign events at places where people paid their cable bills, using the pending Comcast–Time Warner merger, eventually abandoned, as the hook. She engaged farmers in upstate New York about monopsony power, and discussed Amazon and big banks on the stump. And it resonated. After only one month of campaigning, Teachout won 35 percent of the vote, with particular strength in upstate counties where farming issues were prominent.

“The Tea Party talks to people and says, ‘You’re out of power because government is taking it away from you,’” Teachout says. “Far too often, Democrats say, ‘You’re wrong, you’re not out of power.’ That’s dissonant with our lived experience. You’re out of power … because your priorities don’t matter and JPMorgan’s do.”

Beyond Teachout, you can see through the haze the stirrings of a grassroots antitrust agenda. The greatest anti-monopoly victory of the modern age, the Federal Communications Commission’s net-neutrality rules, owed much to a smart, tech-savvy movement that leveraged big protest platforms. Web-native activists fought for the decentralized power of the Internet, without gatekeepers collecting tolls along the way. And they made the connection to things like the Comcast–Time Warner merger, which failed amid public outcry.

“After this existential threat to the Web, you see the same groups becoming interested in the deep history of anti-monopoly laws,” Teachout says. “It’s kind of an exciting intellectual moment, a fusion between old-school farmers who have been complaining for 30 years and new net-neutrality dreamers.”

Monopolists have long used technological advances to consolidate power, from Gilded Age tycoons leveraging control of railroads and telegraphs to Amazon using its first-mover status in e-commerce to squeeze book producers, or Google harvesting traffic to their market-leading search engine to serve ads. It’s easy to translate the need for a neutral platform for websites into the same need for book sales or car ride–sharing.

The European Union, in fact, did file formal antitrust charges against Google, accusing it of forcing search engine users into its own shopping platforms, and bundling Android phones with their own apps, to prevent competitors from performing the same functions. The FTC shut down its own investigation into Google over the same concerns in 2013. But an inadvertent disclosure revealed that the agency’s Bureau of Competition recommended bringing a lawsuit, arguing that Google’s conduct “has resulted—and will result—in real harm to consumers and to innovation in the online search and advertising markets.” The political leadership ignored the recommendation.

The next administration must show “leadership that has a certain intellectual curiosity,” says Maurice Stucke, pointing to the Google case as a missed opportunity. An alteration in posture would make enforcement far more vigorous, and bringing more cases will give litigators more experience and confidence to negotiate the judicial barriers. The American Antitrust Institute plans to create a transition document for the incoming administration, as they did for the Obama transition.

But at a time of political disempowerment, teaching about the dangers of monopolies and how we have the laws on the books to fight them, and creating upward pressure to do it, offers great potential for a paradigm shift. Connecting Senator Elizabeth Warren’s fight against a rigged financial system and Al Franken’s fight against media concentration can spark broader political energy.

You could see this potential in Washington, D.C., where in August, the city’s Public Service Commission rejected a merger between energy firms Exelon and Pepco, citing “more active participation by parties and interested persons than any other proceeding in the Commission’s more than a century of operations.” Activists argued a giant Exelon conglomerate would fail to devote resources to the city’s clean-energy goals, connecting anti-monopolization with fighting climate change.

There are a lot of reasons for runaway monopolies: an intellectual hijacking by Chicago-school conservative economists, the over-financialization of the economy, a failure of federal antitrust enforcement. But perhaps the biggest reason is that antitrust policy has become divorced from politics, confined to specialized lawyers and mathematicians instead of citizens and activists. Without grassroots momentum, politicians and enforcement agencies can safely ignore the issue. That’s the challenge for a small band of academics, think-tank fellows, and activists: to make monopolies a vital issue again, connecting with the severe economic anxiety Americans feel.

“In 2016, I hope that there’s 20 candidates running on an anti-monopoly platform, making it the heart of their campaign,” Teachout says. “It’s important to not believe that our current pathological capitalism is the only kind you can have. We can have a version of capitalism that’s not this concentrated.”

Bring Back Antitrust

 

 

Read Full Post »

Potential Health Risks to DOD FIRING-RANGE PERSONNEL from Recurrent Lead Exposure

Committee on Potential Health Risks from Recurrent
Lead Exposure of DOD Firing Range Personnel

Committee on Toxicology

Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.

 

“…High risk of heart disease, kidney damage, and dementia.”

“A review of the epidemiologic and toxicologic data allowed the committee to conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that the OSHA standard provides inadequate protection for DOD firing-range personnel and for any other worker populations covered by the general industry standard. Specifically, the premise that maintaining BLLs under 40 μg/dL for a working lifetime will protect workers adequately is not valid; by inference, the OSHA PEL and action level are also inadequate for protecting firing-range workers. The committee found sufficient evidence to infer causal relationships between BLLs under 40 μg/dL and adverse neurologic, hematopoietic, renal, reproductive, and cardio-vascular effects. The committee also found compelling evidence of developmental effects in offspring exposed to lead in utero and during breastfeeding, and this raises additional concerns about exposures of women of childbearing age….

Despite changes in military tactics and technology, proficiency in the handling of weapons remains a cornerstone in the training of the modern combat soldier. Modern military forces are trained on one or more small arms, including handguns, shotguns, rifles, and machine guns. Many of the projectiles used in military small arms contain lead. Exposure to lead during weapons training on firing ranges therefore is an important occupational-health concern.

Lead is a ubiquitous metal in the environment, and its adverse effects on human health are well documented. The nervous system is an important target of lead toxicity, which causes adverse cognitive, mood, and psychiatric effects in the central nervous system of adults; causes various peripheral nervous system effects; and has been linked to neurodegenerative diseases. Lead exposure also causes anemia, nephrotoxicity, a variety of adverse reproductive and developmental effects, small increases in blood pressure and an increased risk of hypertension particularly in middle-aged and older people, and various effects in other organ systems, including joint pain and gastrointestinal pain (ATSDR 2007; EPA 2012; NTP 2012).”

___________________

1After the committee completed its evaluation and released the prepublication draft of this report, the Army submitted data on BLLs for Department of the Army civilian personnel working at shoot houses. The Army’s submission can be obtained by contacting the National Research Council’s Public Access Records Office at (202) 334-3543 or paro@nas.edu.”

 

• Characterization of exposure on firing ranges. The committee focused its attention on airborne lead exposures that are most likely to occur on DOD firing ranges. Measurements and evaluations conducted at DOD ranges were used primarily and were supplemented with information on other types of firing ranges.

 http://www.nap.edu/read/18249/chapter/2#4

Potential Health Risks to DOD FIRING-RANGE PERSONNEL from Recurrent Lead Exposure

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »