Fukushima Operators Struggle to Contain 'Outrageous Amount' of Radioactive Water

Operators of Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant are having trouble storing a perpetual accumulation of radioactive cooling water from the plant's broken reactors, the plant's water-treatment manager, Yuichi Okamura, told the Associated Press in an interview this week.

The plant currently holds 200,000 tonnes of highly contaminated waste water, used to cool the broken reactors, but operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, continues to struggle to find ways to store the toxic substance. TEPCO has said they are running out of room to build more storage tanks and the volume of water will more than triple within three years.

"It's a time-pressing issue because the storage of contaminated water has its limits, there is only limited storage space," Okamura said.

After the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe of 2011, the plant's broken reactors have needed constant cooling and maintenance, including the dumping of massive amounts of water into the melting reactors -- the only way to avoid another complete meltdown.

Adding to the excessive amounts of cooling water is ground water, which continues to leak into the reactor facilities because of structural damage.

"There are pools of some 10,000 or 20,000 tonnes of contaminated water in each plant, and there are many of these, and to bring all these to one place would mean you would have to treat hundreds of thousands of tons of contaminated water which is mind-blowing in itself," Masashi Goto, nuclear engineer and college lecturer, stated, adding the problem is a massive public health concern.

"It's an outrageous amount, truly outrageous" Goto added.

Big Ag Ad Blitz Puts GMO Labeling in Jeopardy

California Proposition 37 to label foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is up for a vote on Tuesday, November 6. It enjoyed broad popular support as of September, with a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll showing support by 61 percent of registered voters.

But in the two weeks following that poll, support dropped to 48 percent, according to a poll done by Pepperdine University School of Public Policy and the California Business Roundtable.

What explains the 13 point slide?

Multi-Million Dollar Ad Blitz Changes Minds

Between one poll and the next, voters saw the start of what the Los Angeles Times called a "major television advertising blitz by opponents aimed at changing voters' minds on the issue."

How big of an advertising blitz? $41 million in campaign contributions have been made to the "No on 37" campaign, according to the Los Angeles Times. The campaign paid Winner & Mandabach Campaigns, a political campaign management and advertising firm specializing solely in ballot measures, $14.7 million for "TV or cable airtime and production costs" in September.

Mark Bittman writes in a New York Times op-ed, "By some accounts the 'no' advocates are spending $1 million a day."

Follow the Money: "Big 6" GMO Companies Buy Big Ads

Among the campaign's largest funders are the "Big 6" GMO and pesticide corporations: BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, Syngenta, and Monsanto (see the chart below this article). These six corporations dominate the world's seed, pesticide and genetic engineering (GE) industries. Collectively they have contributed more than $20 million to oppose the labeling measure.

The most effective ad run by the opposition campaign, according to "Yes on 37" spokesperson Stacy Malkan, features Henry I. Millertelling voters that Prop 37 "doesn't make sense." It misleads voters by spinning the law's logical labeling exemptions into "arbitrary" "special interest" loopholes that allegedly result in an "illogical" and "ill-conceived" law.

For instance, the ad discusses exemptions for animal products, but currently there are no genetically modified cows, pigs, or chickens on the market.

According to the Earth Island Journal, spinning the law's exemptions into a major issue makes "a snazzy sound bite, . . . no doubt informed by the No campaign’s polling and focus group findings that show this is a wedge issue. But it’s a strawman argument and fundamentally misleading. The article points out "the holes in the loophole argument" one by one.

Who is Henry Miller?

The ad originally listed campaign spokesperson Miller as "M.D., Stanford" and showed Stanford University buildings in the background. The campaign had to pull that version off the air at the request of Stanford University and re-do it because "the Stanford ID on the screen appeared to violate the university’s policy against use of the Stanford name by consultants," according to the Los Angeles Times.

Miller is a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank housed on the Stanford campus. Prior to joining Hoover, Miller worked for 15 years at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he was an outspoken advocate of agricultural biotechnology, including GMOs. Miller was the founding director of the FDA Office of Biotechnology, from 1989-1994.

What Miller is most notorious for are his unusual public positions. In 2003, Miller penned an op-ed for the New York Times defending DDT and arguing for its resurrection. This prompted a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) response pointing out the estimated "increase in infant deaths that might result from DDT spraying."

Miller was also a founding member scientist of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a now-defunct, tobacco industry-funded public relations front group run by the APCO Worldwide PR firm that worked to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer.

Perhaps most outrageously, Miller wrote in a 2011 op-ed for Forbes that some of those exposed to radiation after the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant "could have actually benefitted from it."

So it is unsurprising that Miller penned a Forbes op-ed on GMO labeling this week suggesting that it is the supporters of GMO labeling who are engaged in "no-holds-barred advocacy . . . to disparage farming methods and promulgate fraudulent health claims about the foods we eat."

Behind the Money is the Right to Know

In these big dollar proposition campaigns, voters in California are often subject to a great deal of misinformation. As CMD has reported, a proposition on the California ballot in June dropped 17 points in the polls and was defeated after a $47 million misleading ad campaign by the tobacco industry.

On election day, voters in California are challenged to sift the wheat from the chaff to decide if they want to join 61 nations in enjoying the right to know if their food contains GMOs.

"No on 37" Campaign Funding

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/26-1

Farmers say entire organic industry at risk in GM alfalfa debate

There’s a new genetically modified crop on the horizon that some say is jeopardizing the entire Canadian organic farming industry.

Organic farmers across the country are sounding the alarm bells on the state of alfalfa, one small plant with a massive role in organic farming.

When most people hear the word alfalfa they generally think of sprouts they buy in the grocery store.

However, full-grown, dried alfalfa is a high-protein feed for pigs, poultry, dairy cows, beef cattle and lambs and is used to increase the nutrients in soil.

In order to be certified organic, foods cannot be produced with genetically modified crops and chemical sprays.

The crop at the centre of this debate is Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant, genetically modified (GM) alfalfa. It has already been deregulated in the U.S. and north of the border seed growers and conventional farmers are meeting to discuss the possibility of commercializing GM alfalfa in Canada.

This November, the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) is meeting with members of Forage Genetics International to discuss the status of herbicide tolerant alfalfa in the U.S. and Canada and develop a coexistence plan for GM alfalfa.

Critics argue that organic crops and GM crops cannot coexist, as cross-pollination of GM alfalfa to organic crops is inevitable – making organic certification impossible.

“The consensus among the food scientists is that once it's out there, it will inevitably contaminate the entire seed supply,” said Ted Zettel, from the Canadian Organic Federation.

“I'm sure that I'll lose my certification,” said organic dairy farmer John Brunsveld.

A spokesperson for the CSTA said they were unable to respond to questions from Global News until a "value chain workshop" on an alfalfa coexistence plan is completed. That workshop is scheduled to begin on Wednesday.

An additional worry for farmers is the loss of exports they could suffer.

Canada exports $29-million worth of alfalfa each year, often to countries where genetically modified organisms are banned.

“So many other countries have banned [GMOs] in their food system. Once our alfalfa is contaminated, there are very few countries in the world that are going to want an export of ours,” said Sarah Dobec from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network’s “Stop GM Alfalfa” campaign.

With that business lost, the cost of organic food could skyrocket. With fewer locally grown organic products available for sale, Canada would need to increase imports in order to meet demand.

These effects may force organic farmers to close up shop or change their definitions of what makes something organic.

“I don’t think we can have an organic industry without growing alfalfa,” said Zettel. “It won’t be the industry that we have now because we’re so dependent on it for livestock feed.”

Several grassroots groups are rallying to raise awareness for the issue. This Wednesday, the National Farmers Union will hold a protest in Kitchener, Ont., in order to stop plans to introduce GM alfalfa in Ontario. 

http://www.globaltoronto.com/farmers+say+entire+organic+industry+at+risk+in+gm+alfalfa+debate/6442738683/story.html

Starving People, Targeting Them with Biological and Chemical Weapons

Israeli authorities blockading the Gaza Strip in 2008 went so far as to calculate how many calories would be needed to avert a humanitarian disaster in the impoverished Palestinian territory, according to a newly declassified military document… [Critics said] the document was new evidence that Israel used food as a pressure tactic to try to force Gaza’s Hamas rulers from power…

What bothers me are the number of parallels to this right here, throughout US history. We’ve used chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare against our alleged enemies, have had concentration camps for far more people than the Japanese; starved our enemies with “sanctions” while denying them medical care at the same time; and much worse -back well into the First World War and the Civil War. But people don’t like to remember these things, whether they’re about Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, or Japan or against the enemies in our midst, like the Red Man – and god only knows how many others. Starving people through sanctions or sieges is, as Allen says, just a primitive form of biological warfare.

In its early years, our beloved, exceptional Republic, used germ warfare by deliberately giving small-pox infected blankets to groups of Native Americans, often wiping out entire tribes – and then grabbing their land. The concentration camps we devised for them still exist in places like the Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota, the Tohono O’odham desert outside Ajo, Arizona, or the dustlands of Oklahoma. Go back to the Crusades for examples of enforced starvation and creative torture such as the art of burning living people at the stake in the name of religion.

As for chemical weapons, how many people know that US forces used “Mark 77,” a new and improved form of Napalm, in Iraq? Or that we’ve permanently poisoned the environments of Basra and Fallujah through the metals used in our weapons? The nuclear cases are well-known, as is the example of depleted uranium and white phosphorus. Reports out three years ago detailed the astonishing rise in birth defects in infants, metals in their systems, and spontaneous abortions by women who’d had no difficulty conceiving prior to our little adventure.

The point isn’t to generate a list, it’s to say that for every barbaric act committed by the Israelis there are parallels that came first in the United States (and before that, in Europe) – one reason our government sits silently by when Israel uses newfangled weapons like DIMEs, with strange chemical components such as tungsten in them, on human beings in Gaza to cause unspeakable amputation wounds.

Personally, I’m surprised by the article – as if it wasn’t common knowledge during Cast Lead and before it that government officials were calculating the number of calories each Gazan could live on per day under the blockade. This was talked about openly in Israel as Tzipi Livni self-righteously exclaimed, “there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza”. (The Arab media played her saying this over and over while showing war footage in the background that, to my knowledge, has never been seen in this country, as I’m sure you know.)

This was true – and written about – a long time ago when Dov Weisglass spoke openly of putting Gaza on a “starvation diet” (just enough food to live on but to stay hungry) or when the blockade authorities would authorize, week by week, which food stuffs not to let in (hence the reason why, at one point, spaghetti and macaroni were prohibited, and at another point, citrus fruits, or certain vegetables would not be allowed in, etc. It made perfect sense to those cheering on the IDF that one of the first factories bombed in Dec. 2008 was the last remaining flour mill in Gaza. So much for making bread. The Gazans must be made completely dependent on outside aid organizations, often the same ones paying for the US/Israel’s occupation, or the sum total of the damages inflicted on peoples’ homes, businesses, and factories.

Way back in the 1990s and before, curfews and closures left thousands of people ‘food insecure’ or malnourished. It just wasn’t framed the same way as ‘counting calories for a blockade,’ though in essence it was the same tactic. Probably started in 1948. I believe most of us have yet to view Israeli and US history with our eyes wide open. If we could see it that clearly we’d have to renounce our citizenship to live with ourselves. Just as an aside, it is now well known that before 1500 (or 1492, to be exact) somewhere between 10 and 17 million Native Americans (a conservative estimate) lived on this land. By 1900 that number was 250,000. What American history textbook teaches that?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/starving-people-targeting-them-with-biological-and-chemical-weapons/5309364

Koch Brothers Produce Counterfeit Climate Report to Deceive Congress

Similarly deceptive is an upcoming junk study from a Koch-funded think tank that has taken on the format and appearance of a truly scientific report from the US Government, but is loaded with lies and misrepresentation of actual climate change science. Thefalse report is a tentacle of the Kochtopus - with oil and industrial billionaires Charles and David Koch at the head.

The report’s disgraced author, Patrick Michaels, has made his largely undistinguished career shilling for fossil fuel interestes, including his stay at the Cato Institute, which published the counterfeit report. After admitting to CNN that  40% of his funding is from the oil industry alone, even Cato was embarrassed enough to clarify that "Pat works for Cato on a contract basis, not as a full-time employee. Fund that Pay received for work done outside the Cato Institute does not come through our organization."

Koch Industries Chairman and CEO Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, and David Koch sits on Cato’s board of directors. Both brothers are Cato shareholders.

The Kochs’ combined $62 billion in wealth comes from Koch Industries operations in oil refining, pipelines, tar sands exploration, chemical production, deforestation and fossil fuel commodity trading, all of which contribute to global climate change and the types of extreme weather Americans are now starting to recognize as symptoms of global warming.

Wary of how public concern over climate change could drop demand for fossil fuel products, the Kochs have spent the last 15 years dumpingover $61 million to front groups

telling us that global warming doesn’t exist, or that it would destroy our economy to stop runaway climate change. Other billionaire families like the Scaifes and companies like ExxonMobil have funneled tens of millions more to the same groups to bury climate science in public relations schemes designed to delay solutions to global warming. While Cato got over $5.5 million from the Kochs since 1997, it received over $1 million from the Scaifes, $125,000 from ExxonMobiland tens of millions more from other fossil fuel interests and ideologues in the top 1%.

In a highly public battle earlier this year between the Koch brothers and libertarians at the Cato Institute, some Cato employees didn’t want their work to become what David Koch calls “intellectual ammunition” for other Koch fronts like Americans for Prosperity. Cato’s deceptive climate report is exactly the type of fake science that AFP needs in order to continue lying to the American public about the reality of global warming.

Cato’s counterfeit report is classic global warming denial that is clearly designed to be confused for actual science. Its author, its publisher and its billionaire supporters have all been key to the coordinated public relations effort that has blocked climate policy in this country by making climate science a partisan issue in this country and rallying the American public behind the very lies they themselves fabricated. The junk report has already beencirculated

by other climate science deniers and even cited in a Congressional presentation.

With climate change already contributing to 400,000 deaths each year and costing $1.2 trillion to economies worldwide, such dubious doubt-peddling should be considered criminal. If you are an elected official or a journalist and spot the Cato Institute’s bogus new report, call it for what it is: malarkey!

http://www.nationofchange.org/koch-brothers-produce-counterfeit-climate-report-deceive-congress-1350999952

Inside the Monsanto Information War

In the United States and abroad, independent and industry science battle it out on a playing field where testing protocols are still in flux despite a history of efforts to push for standardization.

French food safety officials have decided not to ban a Monsanto variety of genetically engineered corn after dismissing the findings of a recent study that linked the corn to massive tumors in lab rats and set off a firestorm of global controversy, but the announcement was not a straight victory for Monsanto and the biotech industry. The French authorities agreed with one of the study's conclusions - and Monsanto's deepest critics - that more long-term testing of genetically engineered food must be done (Genetically engineered products are also known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.)

In an opinion released on Monday, the French food safety authority ANSES announced that the data offered in a study on Monsanto corn and Roundup herbicide conducted by a team lead by biotech critic Gilles-Eric Séralini did not support its author's controversial claims linking the products to health problems in rats.

ANSES also called attention to the "originality" of the study, which was one of the first long-term feeding studies of its kind, and called for more research on the "rarely investigated" subject of the long-term health effects of consuming genetically engineered crops and the pesticides associated with them.

The two-year study, published in a peer-reviewed US journal in September, found that rats fed a lifetime supply of either Monsanto's NK603 corn, the Roundup herbicide which NK603 is engineered to tolerate, or both suffered organ damage and premature deaths at higher rates than control groups.

Séralini hyped the cancer findings and told the media he stands by his research, but he has also said that more research needs to be done. The study, after all, was a long-term toxicology study modeled from short-term industry studies like those funded by Monsanto to gain regulatory approvals in Europe, not a carcinogenicity study. Similar industry studies span about 90 days, and Séralini's team said that many of the health problems appeared in rats after the 90-day mark.

Michael Hansen, a biotechnology expert for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, told Truthout that the study does not definitively link Roundup and NK603 to cancer, "but it raises questions that absolutely need to be answered."

If ANSES and Séralini's detractors say the study is flawed, Hansen said, then they must also extend that criticism to the Monsanto-funded studies Séralini mimicked over a longer time period.

In its statement, ANSES claimed that Séralini's study "did not cast doubt on previous assessments of ... NK603," but the agency called for large-scale studies on "insufficiently documented health risks."

In a way, the ANSES announcement dismissing the results of the study while calling for more like it is a victory for Séralini and his supporters. Séralini has publicly wrangled with Monsanto for years over the safety of its products and is supported by an activist group pushing for long-term, mandatory studies of genetically engineered crops, which are not required for regulatory approval in the United States or Europe.

Séralini's Media Fallout

In September, the Séralini study made a splash worldwide and quickly drew sharp criticism from scientists in the United States and the United Kingdom and pro-business publications such as Forbes.com. Monsanto itself recently dismissed the study.

The French and Russian governments, however, quickly launched investigations into the safety of NK603 in light of the study, and Russian authorities placed a temporary ban on NK603 imports. The ANSES announcement this week was the result of the expedited French investigation.

Meanwhile, US regulatory agencies, which have never conducted food safety studies on genetically engineered crops, stayed mum while the debate lit up the blogosphere.

Séralini's study included grotesque pictures of rats with giant tumors and was released to a limited number of journalists under a heavy embargo that prevented them from sharing the report with scientists before its official release, leading some in the media to suspect Séralini's team was more interested in generating media hype than promoting objective science.

Hansen, however, said that there have been "vicious" media attacks against Séralini in the past, and the media embargo may have been used to beat his detractors to the punch.

Regardless of the researcher's motives, the ongoing controversy surrounding the study injected genetic engineering into the headlines during the past month, exposing the inner workings of an ongoing information war over the safety of GMOs and an industry bent on drowning out scientific dissent.

The Information War

When it comes to getting the facts on GMOs, it all depends on whom you talk to. Many of the study's alleged shortcomings that boomed through the media following its release also exist in the industry studies - including Monsanto's own studies - that form the basis of approvals of genetically engineered crops in Europe. Some of the loudest critics of the study, such as the UK-based Science Media Centre, have received funding from agrichemical companies such as Bayer, BASF and - you guessed it - Monsanto. 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), a European Union agency and food safety watchdog, also discredited the study on many of the same grounds as the Science Media Centre. GMO critics are quick to point out that the EFSA has come under fire from auditors and the European Parliament for conflicts of interest with the industry. 

"When an industry study comes out poorly designed, they don't trash it," said Hansen, who described a "battalion" of pro-industry scientists that stands ready to criticize independent researchers like Séralini whenever their studies are released.

The science surrounding genetically engineered crops is complex, Hansen said, and with the looming deadlines of a 24-hour news cycle, reporters easily succumb to spin from both sides of the debate. In the weeks following the study's release, American bloggers smelled blood and resorted to pot shots to discredit Séralini and reporters who cover his work.

Journalist and blogger Keith Kloor, who is no stranger to controversy, wrote a scathing article for Slate accusing Mother Jones, Grist and, with a generous link, Truthout, of "fear-mongering" and seizing on "pseudoscience" in covering the study. GMO opponents, Kloor writes, are the "climate skeptics of the left." (Truthout's coverage did mention that known biotech critics conducted the study.)

Hansen tells Truthout that independent risk assessments like the Séralini study are often held to a double standard. In an open letter signed by dozens of scientists, Hansen and his colleagues point out that one widely quoted British scientist, Tom Sanders of Kings College, told media outlets that the Sprague-Dawley breed of lab rats used in the study are prone to tumors, and Séralini allowed the rats to eat as much NK603 as they liked. Similar studies by the industry, however, also use the same type of rats, and feed intake was also unrestricted.

Séralini was also widely criticized for using small test groups of ten male and ten female rats each. Séralini and his supporters have said that the sample size meets international protocols for toxicology studies, and Monsanto's own 90-day studies analyzed test groups of the same size. EFSA and other European regulators, however, said Séralini's study did not meet these same protocols.

"Where were you people when Monsanto was submitting studies with the same sample size and saying they that they were valid to show that this crop is safe?" Hansen asks of Séralini's detractors.

Séralini and his colleagues have been sparring with Monsanto for years, and in 2009, they released a study re-analyzing the data in three Monsanto-funded safety studies on NK603 and two other corn varieties that were submitted to European regulators. Like Séralini's own embattled study, Monsanto analyzed 10 out of a group of 20 Sprague-Dawley rats from each test group. Séralini's team was forced to fight legal battles in court in order to secure Monsanto's data for the comparative analysis, but once they did, they found that Monsanto somehow missed evidence that linked pesticide residue on the corn to toxic side effects.

EFSA also dismissed Séralini's 2009 review of the Monsanto studies, which the regulators had accepted from the company as part if its approval process for the genetically engineered corn varieties.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), which routinely defends Séralini and other independent researchers, explained in a statement that Séralini's latest study attempted to replicate the previous Monsanto studies over an extended time period. ENSSER agrees with Séralini's critics that a sample size of ten rats is too small for a long-term study and protocols should be tightened, but if regulators like ESFA dismiss the study on such grounds, then the studies submitted by Monsanto for regulatory approval must be dismissed, as well. Regulators, ENSSER and Hansen claim, fail to turn such a critical eye when the industry studies show no harm.

ENSSER admits Séralini's rat study is not perfect, but the group welcomed it into the scientific debate over GMOs. The group argues that the controversy Séralini has stirred up reveals an underlying lack of scientific standards for conducting safety studies. Concerned scientists have demanded international authorities agree on a set of standard methodologies since the introduction of genetically engineered crops, but industry lobbyists routinely block such efforts, ENSSER argues.

Crushing Scientific Dissent

Hansen and watchdogs like the Union of Concerned Scientists say the biotech industry has a long history of suppressing and discrediting independent research on its genetically engineered products. The open letter Hansen co-authored details a legacy of scientists who faced intimidation after releasing research on suspected dangers of GMOs. Most recently, the Argentinian embryologist Andres Carrasco survived an attack by a violent mob in 2010 while on his way to present to members of a small farming community on the findings of a study linking Roundup herbicide to birth defects in Argentina's agriculture areas.

Patents on genetically engineered seeds set up a blockade prohibiting independent scientists from using the seeds for research. In 2009, a group of 26 corn entomologists sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) complaining that "no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions" regarding genetically engineered crops due to patent restrictions. The restrictions "inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry," the scientists claimed.

Christian Krupke, a Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter, told a scientific journal at the time, "Industry is completely driving the bus." 

The scientists were involved in research projects on corn rootworms and other crop pests. Since then, corn rootworms have become an agricultural epidemic for farmers as they developed a resistance to pesticides produced by Monsanto's genetically engineered crops.

In the wake of the letter, Monsanto and other companies set up voluntary deals with universities, and an industry trade group is developing guidelines to improve access to new seeds, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The Union warns, however, that these deals are voluntary and too opaque to assure the public that independent researchers have access to biotech seeds. Researchers who are not involved in the deals are still left in the dark.

Label Monsanto?

So whom can consumers believe? In one corner sits Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry, armed with its own studies and well-funded scientists, claiming over and over that its patented genetically engineered crops are safe. In the other corner sits an international network of activists and independent scientists who, like Séralini, say more testing must be done on GMO safety but are often accused of operating with an anti-GMO bias. Anti-GMO alarmists and pro-industry pundits further cloud the waters.

Hansen and other consumer advocates are pushing for regulatory reforms in the United States that would require agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct long-term safety studies on genetically engineered crops instead of simply relying on data voluntarily submitted from the industry, as US regulators have for years.

"People are shocked when they find out that the FDA has never done a safety study on these products," Hansen said.

Until reforms are made, Hansen fears consumers will have to sort out the GMO information war on their own.

"People are guinea pigs, and if you want to be part of this experiment, that's fine, but you have a right to choose not too," Hansen said.

For this reason, Hansen and the Consumers Union support Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative that would require groceries containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. While the Séralini controversy exploded across France and Europe, Proposition 37 has sparked a GMO information war of its own, complete with millions of dollars worth of television ads paid for by Monsanto, DuPont and other agrichemical companies pushing to defeat the initiative.

Some anti-37 ads feature Henry Miller, an expert who's resume includes arguing for the reintroduction of the pesticide DDT and founding a Phillip Morris-backed front group to discredit the links between tobacco products and health problems. Several California newspapers have complained that the ads are misleading and the pro-37 campaign claims their well-funded opponents are subverting the election with "a massive campaign of lies and deception."

Meanwhile, the pro-37 campaign has taken heat for trumpeting the embattled Séralini study and using scare tactics to woo voters. 

At home and abroad, the Monsanto information war continues.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12284-inside-the-controversy-over-a-french-gmo-study-and-the-monsanto-information-war

Space Weather Anomalies, Power Grid Collapse And Nuclear Safety

“More than half the gross national product of the earth, representing the accumulated wealth of our planet, depends in some way on the electromagnetic force.” -Michio Kaku

Summary

Severe space weather that involves transfer of massive amount of energy and matter from the Sun to the Earth is a one in hundred years event, that can cause collapse of power grid on a global scale. Recovery may take months and years. As the last event happened in 1921, there is high probability of a recurrance during the next few decades. Prolonged non-availability of electricity will cause meltdowns and explosions in nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools. Regulators in USA are considering to harden their nuclear assets against this. India and other nuclear nations have yet to spell out their action plan to prevent a radiological catastrophe.

Introduction

The largest power outage in history happened in India on 30th and 31st Jul 2012, affecting 320 million people. An estimated 32,000 MW(e) was taken offline and the restoration was rather quick. There are a hundred reasons for the grids to fail and a hundred plus one reasons to celeberate it. However, a prolonged outage is a serious affair with catastrophic consequences like meltdown and explosions of nuclear reactors . The possibility of global scale grid failures lasting for months and years due to space weather events has been under scrutiny by scientists and governments for over a decade.

Space Weather

The Sun's role as the donor of abandunt energy in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiations is well known. Besides these, the Sun and other stars continuously bombard the Earth with other forms of energy and matter most of which are blocked or deflected by the Earth’s magnetosphere. Still, an estimated one million tons of particles arrive the Earth in a normal year. Known as cosmic radiation, this particle shower causes cloud formation and also generates geomagnetically induced current (GIC) of about one ampere on the Earth surface. This cosmic shower also causes ionization that accounts for about a third of the natural background radiation experienced on Earth's surface, ensuring one hit to one-third of all cells in our body every year. Occassionally there will be violent transfers of matter and energy known as 'space weather' and its main drivers are (a) solar flares, (b) solar proton events (SPE) and (c) coronal mass ejections (CME).

1. Solar Flares are magnetically driven explosions on the surface of the sun. These are powerful burst of electromagnetic radiation in the form of X-ray, extreme ultraviolet (UV) rays, gamma rays and radio burst that travel at the speed of light. These heat up the upper atmosphere and strip electrons from the atoms in the ionosphere.

2. Solar Proton Events (SPEs) are high-energy protons and ions, whch take around an hour to reach Earth, though an event of Jan 2005 had an arrival time of 15 minutes. SPEs produce auroras visible to the human eye, when they collide with Earth’s atmosphere. They also cause oxidization of atmospheric nitrogen. The nitrates from large SPEs during the past have been detected and measured in the ice cores drilled from the Antarctica and Greenland.

3. Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) are vast clouds of gas, charged plasma with imbedded magnetic field. CMEs may contain as much as 10 billion tons or or more of coronal material travelling at speeds as high as 3000 km/second. A CME strike can cause disturbance of Earth’s magnetic field called a geomagnetic storm and induce GIC of upto 100 amperes on the Earth surface.

While the above events normally happen in isolation a major eruption will involve all the three components. In September 1859, there was a big solar eruption, known as the Carrington event after Richard Carrington, a British astronomer who recorded it. It is estimated that this event transferred 10 billion tons of matter to the Earth in a few days. That is equivalent to about 200 grams per each square meter area of the planet. Telegraph lines were disrupted for days on in all continents. The only instrumental record of this event available today is from the the Geomagnetic Observatory at Alibag, Colaba, Mumbai. The next big event happened in 1921 and a smaller one with lower energy struck the Earth in March 1989, known as the Quebec event.

The Known Impacts of Space Weather

Severe space weather events have occurred at regular intervals in the past. Yet there is no mention of it in our history books or folklores because such events do not have any visible impacts on the human beings and other life forms. However, space weather is not neutral to our technological infra-structure. The main known impacts are listed below:

1. Grid failure due to geomagnetically induced electricity

A big CME causes a geomagnetic storm as it punctures the planet’s magnetosphere, leading to a surge in the earth’s current up-to 100 amperes. When this is communicated to the power grid (as a semi DC current), the transformers get burnt. The Quebec event of March 1989 destroyed several transformers in North America rendering more than five million people 'power-less' for nine hours in Ontario, Canada. In US, a transformer at the Salem nuclear plant in New Jersey was also burnt out and had to be replaced. The damage of two of National Grid’s transformers in the UK was considered the worst incident of its kind. Smaller, localized damages have been reported from several other places during the past three decades.

2. Damage to satellites

There are about 1000 human-made satellites above the earth, which are central to our communication , entertainment, business, military and science research. The satellites may lose their orientation or get destroyed and fall down. The outage in January 1994 of two Canadian telecommunications satellites was the first reported event.

3 Damage to Electronics

All the electronic gadgets we use will also suffer damage in a space weather event. There are suggestions to keep them in Faraday cages, but since they are part of almost all the machines we use, this is not practical.

4. Radiofrequency anomalies and the effects of Global Positiong System (GPS)

In Jan 2005, 26 flights involving polar routes had to be diverted to non-polar routes during several days due high frequency radio black- outs in USA alone. Disabling of the Federal Aviation Administration’s GPS-based Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) for 30 hours during October-November 2003 was another major event.

Scientific Studies and deliberations

1. US National Academy of Sciences, 2008

Space science places like NASA, European Space Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have been tracking the Sun with the aid of more than two dozen satellites for over two decades. The ACE satellite located at L1 point, 1.5 million km above the Earth is the one that is the closest to the Sun. In 2008 the United States National Academy of Sciences (US NAS) published the deliberations of an expert committee consisting of scientists from NASA, NOAA, the military and the utilities (National Research Council, 2008) One of the conclusions is that a 1921 or 1859 type event can cause widespread, serious damage to the electricity grid throughout the Earth. (National Research Council, 2008)

Solar eruptions occur more frequently and most of them may not be earth-directed as this alert on 31st August 2012 shows: “a magnetic filament on the sun erupted in spectacular fashion, producing a long-duration solar flare, a coronal mass ejection (CME) and one of the most beautiful movies of an explosion ever recorded by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.  The CME propelled by the blast might deliver a glancing blow to Earth's magnetic field in the days ahead.”  http://spaceweather.com, 2012). Advanced Composition Exoeiment (ACE) satellite stationed at L1 point, 1.5 million km from earth alone can tell us in advance if a particular burst is earth-directed. The lead time may be an hour so. Not enough time to take any preventive step at a naional or global level.

2. US Department of Energy (DOE)

US DOE and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) jointly sponsored a workshop in November, 2009. The attendees at the closed session included representatives from the Congressional Staff, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), EMP Commission, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and representatives from the electric industry’s major sectors. The report of the meeting concedes that the North American power grids have significant reliability issues in regard events such as severe space weather. “The design of transformers also acts to further compound the impacts of GIC flows in the high voltage portion of the power grid...These transformers generally cannot be repaired in the field, and if damaged in this manner, need to be replaced with new units, which have manufacture lead times of 12–24 months or more in the world market.” (NERC-US DOE, 2010) The government in USA or for that matter any goverment has probably never been so nervous and helpless as the report underlines that “in the affected area, the supply of food, water, and fuel would degrade within days. The facile communication of information to the general population would be greatly complicated by the loss of cell phones, internet access, and television. The economy would virtually shut down as electronic transactions could no longer be processed. After several days, widespread social unrest and confusion would ensue.”

3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)

In October 2010, in a series of technical reports sponsored by DOE and DHS, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) estimated that “major geomagnetic storms, such as those that occurred in 1859 and 1921 occur approximately once every one hundred years. Storms of this type are global events that can last for days and will likely have an effect on electrical networks world wide. Should a storm of this magnitude strike today, it could interrupt power to as many as 130 million people in the United States alone, requiring several years to recover.”(ORNL, 2010) Many space weather experts believe that this one-in-hundred-years event can happen during the 24th solar cycle which began in 2009 and will end in 2021/22, with peak activities in 2012/13. The storm can happen any time during the cycle, but there is higher risk during the solar peak.

The Nuclear Risk

Even though almost all of our modern ventures need electricty. Loss of electricity will not cause any major accident in any of them. Hoowever, nuclear reactors and their spent fuel pools (SFP) require electicity for their safety related pumps. The reactor cores and SFPs need to be cooled even when the plants are offline. For nuclear campuses offsite electric power is the designed default power source and it is required to be supplied in a high-reliability, dual-circuit configuration to run the safety related coolant pumps. They do have diesel generators and batteries as backup just in case offsite power is not available. The reserve of diesel is generally for less than a week. When there is no offsite power and the generators are unavailable- a condition known as station blackout- the reactors and SFPs will experience meltdowns and explosions. All major nuclear events happened because of loss of coolant.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Grid failure

Seventy-one out of 104 nuclear reactors in US are within the areas of probable power system collapse listed in the ORNL study. Few days before the Fukushim nuclear disaster of March 2011, Thomas Popik of the Resilient Societies petitioned the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide nuclear campuses with permanent backup power for running the safety related pumps. (Popik Thomas, 2011) The petitioner assumes that as the supply chain breaks down the campuses will be deserted. Pumps using renewable sources of energy, about 10 to 20 KWe, that does not required regular input of fuel or human presence can prevent the disasters. Each reactor may require of electricity to run its safety related pumps and equipments. Popik substantiates that setting up of alternative power sources are economically and ecologically viable. Rarely does US NRC accept a petition for rule-making from private sources. However, this petition is under its consideration and a fierce debate on this issue is happening at an NRC blog. From a recent post from this blog: “if the NRC grossly ignores its duty, as it has been doing in this case for years, and does nothing to harden plants against long term grid disruption the US will be destroyed FOREVER, any people who survive will not be able to live on the land or drink the water!”(Levi Thomas, 2011)

The Indian situation

The situation in India is slightly better off as the number of power plants, total electricity generated and the volume of spent fuel in the pools is far less than that in North America or Europe. Almost all of India's aged spent fuel, except that of Tarapur, has been reprocessed and hence the volume of wastes in the pool is much smaller. We are also blessed with an abundant supply of solar and wind energy sources. Above all, there is a National Disaster Management Authority in Delhi and its affiiates at State Capitals. We still have problems as four of our reactor campuses are dangerously close to the cities, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and Thiruvananthapuram. The last one houses the nation's strategic command. Kudamkulam and also the proposed plant at Jaitapur will have an additional risk as their freshwater sources are desalination plants that also require electricity from the grid. The water crisis at Kudankulam has been reported earlier.(Padmanabhan V T et al, 2012) When this generic safety issue of space weather caused grid failure on nuclear campuses in India was raised, a Government of India Expert Group brushed it aside by a saying that “this situation is totally imaginary and technically/ scientifically not correct.” (Muthunagam AE et al, 2011) The science behind the space weather and its impacts has evolved in the same laboratories and institutuions that developed our modern technological infrastructure including nuclear power plants.

Solutions

Availability of fresh water in the campus and an energy source to pump water are the only requirements for safety of the campus in a shut down mode. Most of the nuclear campuses in India are dependent on offsite water. In the offline mode, the water requirement will be between 10 to 20% of the online mode. This can be harnessed with rain water harvesting. A combintion of wind and solar generators can take care o the enegy needs of pumping. This will not be a dead investment and will only increase the self-reliance of the campus. SFP of Tarapur 1 and 2 reactors are as over-crowded as those in USA. Steps should be taken to reprocess the aged fuel, so as to reduce the water requirement and risks of contamination in case of SFP fire.

Radiological contamination from nuclear disasters is a global problem. Governments of US, Canada and UK are acting on the issue. India and other nuclear nations appear to be in a denial mode. Besides hardening her nuclear assets against the grid failure, India must also bring this issue in the United Nations and other global forums.

Conclusion

The return period for a severe space weather event is 100 years and if a CME strikes the planet during this decade there is nothing that the humanity can do to prevent the conseqences listed above. There will be problems during the initial days of the disaster, but the societies will be able to overcome them. Thomas Levi wrote on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) blog “in the event of a power outage lasting more than a month, possibly years, there will be massive causalities, this is unavoidable should this situation come to pass. But just like with any other natural disaster the people will eventually come back and they may be a little smarter than before.” We have survived several such disasters in the past and similarly we will overcome the impending one as well. However, life will be more painful and difficult in a radiocontaminated land. Surely, this is not a partisan issue concerning a certain class, political party or interest group. In a way, we are all in it. Timely action on the vulnerable sites can greatly reduce the impacst. As the saying goes disaster happens when hazrads meet vulnerability.

Based on a paper presented at a National Seminar in Kuvempu University on 10 Nov 2011.

We fondly remember the advisory support from Dr Rosalie Bertel, who left for her heavenly abode on 16 June, 2012.

Dr. V. Pugazhenthi is acclaimed for his rigorous and credible studies on health impact of radiation around Kalpakkam nuclear site. He is an activist belonging to the Doctors for Safer Environment

Dr. R. Ramesh a medical practitioner, who has written books on the geology of Kudankulam

VT Padmanabhan is a researcher in health effects of radiation. He has led epidemiological investigations among people exposed to high radiation in Kerala. He has also studied the occupational radiation hazards among workers of Indian Rare Earths, genetic effects of children exposed to MIC gases in Bhopal, health hazards to workers in a viscose rayon unit in Madhyapradesh and reduction of birth weight of babies near a beverage bottling plant in Kerala. He has visited several contaminated sites in Belarus and Japan and had extensive interactions with the survivors.His papers have been published in International Journal of Health Services, Journal of American Medical Association, International Perspectives in Public Health, the Lancet and Economic and Political Weekly. He is a member of the European Commission on Radiation Risk, an independent body of experts appointed by the Green MEPs in Europe. He can be reached at vtpadman@gmail.com

References

Levi Thomas, 2011 The NRC: We’re Ready to Respond, 
http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2011/04/22/the-nrc-were-ready-to-respond/

Muthunayagam AE et al , 2011, Safety of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant and Impact of its Operation on the Surroundings -Report by Expert Group Constituted by Govt. of India, December 2011, www.barc.ernet.in/egreport.pdf

National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences, 2008, Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts, Committee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events.http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12507.html

NERC-US DOE (North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the U.S. Department of Energy) 2010 "High- Impact, Low-Frequency Event Risk to the North American Bulk Power System," www.nerc.com/files/HILF.pdf

ORNL, 2010 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), “Electromagnetic Pulse: Effects on the U.S. Power Grid”www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/pes/pubs/ferc_Executive_Summary.pdf

Padmanabhan, V T, R Ramesh and V Pugazhendi, 2012, , Koodankulam's Reserve Water RequirementsEconomic and Political Weekly, Vol - XLVII No. 18, May 05, 2012, http://www.epw.in/commentary/koodankulams-reserve- water-requirements.html

Popik Thomas , 2011, Petition To Nuclear Regulatory Commission To Require Installation Of New Back-Up Safety Systems,www.resilientsocieties.org

Further Readings

Severe Space Weather--Social and Economic Impacts- NASA ScienceSpace Weather Anomalies, Power Grid Collapse And Nuclear Safety

New Report: American Lives at Risk from Unsafe Foods

Despite government commitments to address the problem, food recalls are on the rise and our food safety systems are broken, according to a new report by U.S. PIRG.  Contaminated food makes 48 million Americans sick every year and costs over $77 billion in aggregated economic costs.  In the USA over the last 21 months, 1753 people were made sick from foodborne illnesses linked directly to food recalls and the cost was over $227 million.

“Every year we see hundreds of food products recalled, because they have caused sickness and in some cases death. 2012 has already seen nearly twice as many illnesses due to recalls as 2011, with high-profile recalls of cantaloupes and hundreds of thousands of jars of peanut butter,” said Nasima Hossain, Public Health Advocate for U.S. PIRG.  “More needs to be done to identify the contaminants that are making us sick and to protect Americans from the risk of unsafe food.”

 The report, “Total Food Recall: Unsafe Foods Putting American Lives at Risk,” analyzed nationwide recall information issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) from January 2011 to September 2012.  During that period, there were:

• 1,753 foodborne Illnesses directly linked to recalls of food products from known pathogens such as Listeria and Salmonella;
• 37 deaths directly linked to recalls of food products; and
• $227 million in economic and health related costs linked to recalls of food products.

 The Food Safety Modernization Act was signed into law by President Obama in January 2011, with strong support from U.S.PIRG, consumer groups and public health groups.  The law was designed to give the FDA new tools and new powers to protect consumers.   However, the Act is still not being fully implemented and our foods remain unsafe.

“We need a food safety system that is fully funded and fully staffed so it can stop unsafe food from reaching our dinner tables,” said Nasima Hossain.   “We must move away from the current reactive approach, where recalls happen after dangerous products have already made it into families’ kitchens, and focus on prevention.  The Food Safety Modernization Act should be fully implemented and the Administration should not waste any more time in strengthening our food safety systems.”

The report is available at http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/total-food-recall

Growing an Alternative Economy One Community at a Time

On Sunday mornings, farmers, producers and consumers meet in Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C., and exchange locally grown products. Bright fruits, vegetables and flowers are lifted from large tables and brought to the cash register, where shoppers and farmers talk at length. Others taste cheeses and sample slices of tomato, pausing to savor the taste or read a handout detailing the food’s provenance.

The apples, pears, potatoes here are collected from farms within 150 miles of where they are sold. The men and women behind each stand are often the farmers themselves. Pesticides, antibiotics and artificial growth hormones are banned. Fresh Farm Markets, a not-for-profit organization that oversees and regulates the farmers market in Dupont Circle, travels to each farm to make sure that regulations are followed.

Any producers, whether they sell jam, pastas, or soups, must prove that their ingredients are from the region.

“We work with the locals,” says Isabel Castillo, co-owner of Dolcezza Artisanal Gelato. “I have apples from here, pears from here, ricotta from here. I support here.” Castillo makes the gelato in her flagship store on Wisconsin Avenue and Q Street. She has two other stores. “My son-in-law is the chef and my daughter and husband and I manage the shops,” she says.

The vibrancy here reaches beyond the mere color of the produce. It’s found in the conversations between shoppers and vendors, which point to a level of care in how people are consuming. It’s about more than health. It’s about buying food that hasn’t traveled thousands of miles to get here, and the impact that has on the environment.

“The best thing about farmers markets is that people talk,” says environmentalist Bill McKibben. “A study found that shoppers at farmers markets had 10 times as many conversations per visit than at supermarkets.”

“That’s one way we reknit the community, lost as America sprawls outwards,” he says.

The farmers market is a microcosm of an alternative economy. It is marked by conversation, not by profit.

In recent years, chain stores like Whole Foods and Sun Organic Farm have sought to graft this local economy onto an international business model. In its mission statement, Whole Foods declares “we promote environmental stewardship.” But “we are not a fully self-sustaining ecosystem,” it says afterward. “There are hundreds of other businesses that we depend on to assist us in creating an outstanding retail shopping experience for our customers.”

The message from environmentalists like Michael Pollan, Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben is that it is doubtful that international chains will be the ones to spearhead the “buy local” movement. Instead they create a “shopping experience” for customers, one that satisfies us even if it means lying about the use of GMOs in the food they sell.

The problem is that stores such as Whole Foods, can’t make up their minds, McKibben says. “Eat seasonally—and when you go to Whole Foods, tell them you’re not buying the Chilean raspberries because they make a mockery of the store’s commitment to doing something good for the planet.”

Food transportation, or “food miles,” is a non-issue in mass media. The chemicals used to treat the food are covered. Its healthfulness is covered. But not its carbon footprint.

The New York Times has featured two articles on this issue in the past five years, both of which end by defending the global food market.

James McWilliams wrote in the 2007 article “Food That Travels Well,” that researchers “found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed.

“In other words,” he wrote, “it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.”

But McWilliams never addressed the obvious. Why not sacrifice the lamb? If it’s better to import lamb from halfway around the world than to raise it locally, why not simply eat something else?

We can’t pin the problem of food trade on any single store. Whole Foods is, in fact, one of the more progressive supermarkets in some ways. It caps the amount of money executives make, for example, and makes an effort to collect local produce for retail.

But local food amounts to only 10 to 30 percent of what’s on the shelves. 

It is in that other 70 to 90 percent—the coffee from Africa, the tomatoes from Chile, the lentils from Morocco—that we see where Whole Foods truly stands on the global vs. local food issue. Unlike a small farmers market, there is no conversation between grower and consumer, no initiative to move toward self-sustainability, and no acknowledgment of the energy that goes into transporting food overseas. Without the communication and community found in places like Dupont Circle on Sunday mornings, chain corporations cannot opt out of the global food market that is destroying the planet, and stay in business.

Read more.. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/growing_an_alternative_economy_one_community_at_a_time_20121024/

Greenpeace: 'Unreliable' Monitoring of Fukushima Radiation

Environmental activist group Greenpeace reported Tuesday that government monitoring of radiation near the disabled Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan is unreliable, and  that some heavily populated areas are exposed to 13 times the legal limit of radiation.

Three Greenpeace radiation-monitoring teams traveled last week to Fukushima City to record and assess contamination threats, the organization reports.

A check of 40 monitoring posts between Oct. 16 and 19 showed that 75 percent of the radiation readings close to the posts were lower than readings for their immediate surroundings.

Contamination levels within 25 meters of the posts were up to six times higher than at the posts.

"Greenpeace found that in some parks and school facilities in Fukushima city, home to 285,000 people, radiation levels were above three microsieverts per hour," Agence France-Press reported. "Japan's recommended radiation limit is 0.23 microsieverts per hour."

Clean-up efforts have been "misguided," Greenpeace's Japan nuclear campaigner Kazue Suzuki said, according to AFP.

"One home or office may be cleaned up, but it is very unlikely that the whole area will be freed of radiation risks within the next few years," given the mountainous and heavily forested nature of the region, she said. "The government continues to downplay radiation risks and give false hope (of returning home) to victims of this nuclear disaster."

Concerns about the radiation are not new, and in March, Greenpeace found a newly installed radiation monitoring post that showed a "relatively low level of contamination," the organization reports. But the station was "placed smack in the middle of a small area that had been clearly decontaminated." Stepping asway from that immediate area, contamination levels "rose sharply."

Earlier this month, The Association for Citizens and Scientists Concerned About Internal Radiation Exposures expressed concernthat Japan's science ministry "manipulated its measurement of radiation levels in Fukushima Prefecture to show figures lower than they really were."

Greenpeace reports that during last week's trip, residents of the area spoke of a "distinct distrust" of information coming from the government, and little confidence in the government's ability to clean up the radiation.

Governent officials also told Greenpeace that they were "hamstrung" by a lack of workers, funding and "a lack of direction and engagement from the national government."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/10/23-10