Social Security Keeps 20 Millions Americans Out Of Poverty, Report Finds                        

13-08-2010 om 23:09 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.

It's been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.

Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word -- something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.

You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease. And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let's get some basics down first.

What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?

That's right, you do need cholesterol.

This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.

Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body's cholesterol ,[i] and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:

High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the "good" cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.

Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This "bad" cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

Also making up your total cholesterol count are:

-- Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.

-- Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL "bad cholesterol" part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.

Understand this:

Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk

Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood's cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs and VLDLs.

The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.

In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children's cholesterol levels, they're increasing their market even more.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

-- HDL/Cholesterol ratio

-- Triglyceride/HDL ratios

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.

You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there's a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.

They give you a closer idea of what's going on, but they still do not show you everything.

Cholesterol is Neither "Good" Nor "Bad"

Now that we've defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept :[ii]

"Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins -- fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.

Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.

In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.

Thus, you might say that there is "good LDL" and "bad LDL."

Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much."

Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy

Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.

In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people's minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.

"First and foremost," Dr. Rosedale points out, "cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.

We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol."

Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol

You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren't, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.

What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.

Bottom line?

If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.

Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?

Other "evidence" that cholesterol is good for you?

Consider the role of "good" HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body's tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.

Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?

Because your liver is going to reuse it.

"It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it," Dr. Rosedale explains. "Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health."

Cholesterol and Inflammation - What's the Connection?

Inflammation has become a bit of a buzzword in the medical field because it has been linked to so many different diseases. And one of those diseases is heart disease ... the same heart disease that cholesterol is often blamed for.

What am I getting at?

Well, first consider the role of inflammation in your body. In many respects, it's a good thing as it's your body's natural response to invaders it perceives as threats. If you get a cut for instance, the process of inflammation is what allows you to heal.

Specifically during inflammation:

-- Your blood vessels constrict to keep you from bleeding to death

-- Your blood becomes thicker so it can clot

-- Your immune system sends cells and chemicals to fight viruses, bacteria and other "bad guys" that could infect the area

-- Cells multiply to repair the damage

Ultimately, the cut is healed and a protective scar may form over the area.

If your arteries are damaged, a very similar process occurs inside of your body, except that a "scar" in your artery is known as plaque.

This plaque, along with the thickening of your blood and constricting of your blood vessels that normally occur during the inflammatory process, can indeed increase your risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks.

Notice that cholesterol has yet to even enter the picture.

Cholesterol comes in because, in order to replace your damaged cells, it is necessary.

Remember that no cell can form without it.

So if you have damaged cells that need to be replaced, your liver will be notified to make more cholesterol and release it into your bloodstream. This is a deliberate process that takes place in order for your body to produce new, healthy cells.

It's also possible, and quite common, for damage to occur in your body on a regular basis. In this case, you will be in a dangerous state of chronic inflammation.

The test usually used to determine if you have chronic inflammation is a C-reactive protein (CRP) blood test. CRP level is used as a marker of inflammation in your arteries.

Generally speaking:

-- A CRP level under 1 milligrams per liter of blood means you have a low risk for cardiovascular disease

-- 1 to 3 milligrams means your risk is intermediate

-- More than 3 milligrams is high risk

Even conventional medicine is warming up to the idea that chronic inflammation can trigger heart attacks. But they stop short of seeing the big picture.

In the eyes of conventional medicine, when they see increased cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream, they conclude that it -- not the underlying damage to your arteries -- is the cause of heart attacks.

Which brings me to my next point.

The Insanity of Lowering Cholesterol

Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and Mary Enig, Ph.D, an expert in lipid biochemistry, have gone so far as to call high cholesterol "an invented disease, a 'problem' that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood."[iii]

And this explanation is spot on.

If you have increased levels of cholesterol, it is at least in part because of increased inflammation in your body. The cholesterol is there to do a job: help your body to heal and repair.

Conventional medicine misses the boat entirely when they dangerously recommend that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the way to reduce your risk of heart attacks, because what is actually needed is to address whatever is causing your body damage -- and leading to increased inflammation and then increased cholesterol.

As Dr. Rosedale so rightly points out:

"If excessive damage is occurring such that it is necessary to distribute extra cholesterol through the bloodstream, it would not seem very wise to merely lower the cholesterol and forget about why it is there in the first place.

It would seem much smarter to reduce the extra need for the cholesterol -- the excessive damage that is occurring, the reason for the chronic inflammation."

I'll discuss how to do this later in the report, but first let's take a look at the dangers of low cholesterol -- and how it came to be that cholesterol levels needed to be so low in the first place.

If Your Cholesterol is Too Low ...

All kinds of nasty things can happen to your body. Remember, every single one of your cells needs cholesterol to thrive -- including those in your brain. Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on your psyche.

One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.[iv]

This may be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of your mood. On a similar note, Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter. [v]

Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behavior, through this same pathway: lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression. [vi]

And one meta-analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer, [vii] while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson's disease.

What cholesterol level is too low? Brace yourself.

Probably any level much under 150 -- an optimum would be more like 200.

Now I know what you are thinking: "But my doctor tells me my cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy." Well let me enlighten you about how these cholesterol recommendations came to be. And I warn you, it is not a pretty story.

This is a significant issue. I have seen large numbers of people who have their cholesterol lowered below 150, and there is little question in my mind that it is causing far more harm than any benefit they are receiving by lowering their cholesterol this low.

Who Decided What Cholesterol Levels are Healthy or Harmful?

In 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.

Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

Keep in mind that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.

Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine [viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.

Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.

So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?

Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.[ix]

The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.

Coincidence? I think not.

Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?

Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100. [x]

And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs.

The Dangers of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

If you are concerned about your cholesterol levels, taking a drug should be your absolute last resort. And when I say last resort, I'm saying the odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you don't need drugs to lower your cholesterol.

To put it another way, among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges of familial hypercholesterolemia that required it..

Contrast this to what is going on in the general population. According to data from Medco Health Solutions Inc., more than half of insured Americans are taking drugs for chronic health conditions. And cholesterol-lowering medications are the second most common variety among this group, with nearly 15 percent of chronic medication users taking them (high blood pressure medications -- another vastly over-prescribed category -- were first). [xi]

Disturbingly, as written in BusinessWeek early in 2008, "Some researchers have even suggested -- half-jokingly -- that the medications should be put in the water supply." [xii]

Count yourself lucky that you probably do NOT need to take cholesterol-lowering medications, because these are some nasty little pills.

Statin drugs work by inhibiting an enzyme in your liver that's needed to manufacture cholesterol. What is so concerning about this is that when you go tinkering around with the delicate workings of the human body, you risk throwing everything off kilter.

Case in point, "statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right," say Enig and Fallon.3

For starters, statin drugs deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is beneficial to heart health and muscle function. Because doctors rarely inform people of this risk and advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement, this depletion leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and eventually heart failure.

Muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, is actually the most common side effect of statin drugs, which is thought to occur because statins activate the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy. [xiii]

By the way, muscle pain and weakness may be an indication that your body tissues are actually breaking down -- a condition that can cause kidney damage.

Statin drugs have also been linked to:

-- An increased risk of polyneuropathy (nerve damage that causes pain in the hands and feet and trouble walking)

-- Dizziness

-- Cognitive impairment, including memory loss [xiv]

-- A potential increased risk of cancer [xv]

-- Decreased function of the immune system[xvi]

-- Depression

-- Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes (so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver function)

And recently a possible association was found between statins and an increased risk of Lou Gehrig's disease. [xvii]

Other cholesterol-lowering drugs besides statins also have side effects, most notably muscle pain and weakness.

IMPORTANT NOTE

If, for whatever reason, you or someone you know or love does not believe the information in this report and chooses to stay on statin drugs, then please make sure they at least take one to two Ubiquinols per day.

This will help prevent all the side effects mentioned above.

Ubiquinol is the reduced version of Coenzyme Q-10 and is far more effective if you are over 35-40 years old. It is the form of the supplement that actually works, and if you take CoQ-10 and your body can't reduce it to uniquinol you are just fooling yourself and wasting your money.

Are Cholesterol Drugs Even Effective?

With all of these risks, the drugs had better be effective, right? Well, even this is questionable. At least, it depends on how you look at it.

Most cholesterol lowering drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol numbers, but are they actually making you any healthier, and do they help prevent heart disease?

Have you ever heard of the statistic known as NNT, or number needed to treat?

I didn't think so. In fact, most doctors haven't either. And herein lies the problem.

NNT answers the question: How many people have to take a particular drug to avoid one incidence of a medical issue (such as a heart attack)?

For example, if a drug had an NNT of 50 for heart attacks, then 50 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one heart attack.

Easy enough, right?

Well, drug companies would rather that you not focus on NNT, because when you do, you get an entirely different picture of their "miracle" drugs. Take, for instance, Pfizer's Lipitor, which is the most prescribed cholesterol medication in the world and has been prescribed to more than 26 million Americans. [xviii]

According to Lipitor's own Web site, Lipitor is clinically proven to lower bad cholesterol 39-60 percent, depending on the dose. Sounds fairly effective, right?

Well, BusinessWeek actually did an excellent story on this very topic earlier this year, [xix] and they found the REAL numbers right on Pfizer's own newspaper ad for Lipitor.

Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:

"That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.

The NNT, in this case, is 100. One hundred people have to take Lipitor for more than three years to prevent one heart attack. And the other 99 people, well, they've just dished out hundreds of dollars and increased their risk of a multitude of side effects for nothing.

So you can see how the true effectiveness of cholesterol drugs like Lipitor is hidden behind a smokescreen.

Or in some cases, not hidden at all.

Zetia and Vytorin: No Medical Benefits

Early in 2008, it came out that Zetia, which works by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol from your intestines, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin drug), do not work.

This was discovered AFTER the drugs acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And also after close to 1 million prescriptions for the drugs were being written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion in 2007. [xx]

It was only after the results of a trial by the drugs' makers, Merck and Schering-Plough, were released that this was found out. Never mind that the trial was completed in April 2006, and results were not released until January 2008.

And it's no wonder the drug companies wanted to hide these results.

While Zetia does lower cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent, trials did not show that it reduces heart attacks or strokes, or that it reduces plaques in arteries that can lead to heart problems.

The trial by the drugs' makers, which studied whether Zetia could reduce the growth of plaques, found that plaques grew nearly twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor (Vytorin) than in those taking Zocor alone. [xxi]

Of course, the answer is not to turn back to typical statin drugs to lower your cholesterol, as many of the so-called experts would have you believe.

You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack and stroke.

But you can lower inflammation in your body naturally, without risking any of the numerous side effects of statin drugs. This should also explain why my guidelines for lowering cholesterol are identical to those to lower inflammation.

For more in-depth information about cholesterol-lowering drugs, please see my recently updated statin drug index page.

How to Lower Inflammation, and Thereby Your Risk of Heart Disease, Naturally

There is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. While it's true that fats from animal sources contain cholesterol, I've explained earlier in this article why this should not scare you -- but I'll explain even further here.

This misguided principle is based on the "lipid hypothesis" -- developed in the 1950s by nutrition pioneer Ancel Keys -- that linked dietary fat to coronary heart disease.

The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other "artery clogging" fats from their diets -- a radical change at that time.

What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only six countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time -- from 22 countries.

As a result of this "cherry-picked" data, government health organizations began bombarding the public with advice that has contributed to the diabetes and obesity epidemics going on today: eat a low-fat diet.

Not surprisingly, numerous studies have actually shown that Keys' theory was wrong and saturated fats are healthy, including these studies from Fallon and Enig's classic article The Skinny on Fats: [xxii]

A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with "bad" dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese. [xxiii]
A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine. [xxiv]
Of course, as Americans cut out nutritious animal fats from their diets, they were left hungry. So they began eating more processed grains, more vegetable oils, and more high-fructose corn syrup, all of which are nutritional disasters.

It is this latter type of diet that will eventually lead to increased inflammation, and therefore cholesterol, in your body. So don't let anyone scare you away from saturated fat anymore.

Chronic inflammation is actually caused by a laundry list of items such as:

-- Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)

-- Eating lots of sugar and grains

-- Eating foods cooked at high temperatures

-- Eating trans fats

-- A sedentary lifestyle

-- Smoking

-- Emotional stress

So to sum it all up, in order to lower your inflammation and cholesterol levels naturally, you must address the items on this list.

How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally...

1. Make sure you're getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. I prefer those from krill oil. New research suggests that as little as 500 mg may lower your total cholesterol and triglycerides and will likely increase your HDL cholesterol.

2. Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet. It is especially important to eliminate dangerous sugars such as fructose. If your HDL/Cholesterol ratio is abnormal and needs to be improved it would also serve you well to virtually eliminate fruits from your diet, as that it also a source of fructose. Once your cholesterol improves you can gradually reintroduce it to levels that don't raise your cholesterol.

3. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type. You can learn your nutritional type by taking our FREE test.

4. Eat a good portion of your food raw.

5. Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats that correspond to your nutritional type. This includes:

-- Olive oil

-- Coconut and coconut oil

-- Organic raw dairy products (including butter, cream, sour cream, cheese, etc.)

-- Avocados

-- Raw nuts

-- Seeds

-- Eggs (lightly cooked with yolks intact or raw)

-- Organic, grass-fed meats

6. Get the right amount of exercise, especially Peak Fitness type of exercise. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.

7. Avoid smoking and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.

8. Address your emotional challenges. I particularly love the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) for stress management.

So there you have it; the reasons why high cholesterol is a worry that many of you simply do not need to have, along with a simple plan to optimize yours.

If someone you love is currently taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, I urge you to share this information with them as well, and take advantage of the thousands of free pages of information on www.Mercola.com.

For the majority of you reading this right now, there's no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I've just outlined, you'll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome "side effects" of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.

Too good to be true?

Hardly.

For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.

As always, your health really is in your hands. Now it's up to you to take control -- and shape it into something great.

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

[i] American Heart Association January 23, 2008

[ii] Mercola.com, Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease, Ron Rosedale May 28, 2005

[iii] Fallon, S. and Mary Enig. "Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines," The Weston A. Price Foundation

[iv] Psychosomatic Medicine 2000;62.

[v] Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72

[vi] Annals of Internal Medicine (1998;128(6):478-487) The Journal of the American Medical Association (1997;278:313-321)

[vii] Journal of the American College of Cardiology July 31, 2007; 50:409-418

[viii] Annals of Internal Medicine October 3, 2006; 145(7): 520-530

[ix] USAToday.com October 16, 2004

[x] American Heart Association, "What Your Cholesterol Level Means," accessed May 22, 2008

[xi] MSNBC.com More than half of Americans on chronic meds May 14, 2008(accessed June 9, 2008)

[xii] BusinessWeek Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? January 17, 2008 (accessed June 9, 2008)

[xiii] The Journal of Clinical Investigation December 2007; 117(12):3940-51

[xiv] Mercola.com Sudden Memory Loss Linked to Cholesterol Drugs

[xv] Nature Medicine September, 2000;6:965-966, 1004-1010.

[xvi] Nature Medicine, December, 2000; 6: 1311-1312, 1399-1402

[xvii] Edwards, I. Ralph; Star, Kristina; Kiuru, Anne, "Statins, Neuromuscular Degenerative Disease and an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Like Syndrome," Drug Safety, Volume 30, Number 6, 2007 , pp. 515-525(11)

[xviii] IMS Heallth. IMS National Prescription Audit Plus July 2007.

[xix] BusinessWeek.com, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?" January 17, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xx] New York Times, "Cardiologists Question Delay of Data on 2 Drugs," November 21, 2007 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxi] New York Times, "Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say," January 14, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

[xxii] Enig, M and Sally Fallon, "The Skinny on Fats," The Weston A. Price Foundation,

[xxiii] Lackland, D T, et al, J Nutr, Nov 1990, 120:11S:1433-1436

[xxiv] Nutr Week, Mar 22, 1991, 21:12:2-3

13-08-2010 om 00:42 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

http://www.counterpunch.org/

August 11, 2010

Unhinged at the US State Department and Pentagon

A War on Wikileaks?

11-08-2010 om 23:17 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Votre nouveau compteur électrique peut vous espionner

• Transmettre des informations : un relevé sera envoyé toutes les 10 à 30 minutes à ERDF (Electricité Réseau Distribution de France), le gestionnaire du réseau depuis l'ouverture du marché de l'électricité, et ces données seront ensuite transmise aux fournisseurs d'électricité ;
• Piloter à distance votre installation électrique : ces relevés de consommation en temps réel permettent d'ajuster, par exemple, la consommation du chauffe-eau ou des radiateurs.

• Pour les clients : des relevés plus précis permettent de mieux maîtriser la consommation d'électricité, et beaucoup d'opérations ne nécessiteront plus qu'un technicien se déplace ;
• Pour les producteurs : EDF et ses concurrents pourront ajuster à la fois leurs offres tarifaires et la production de leurs centrales.

Le compteur connaît l'heure de votre douche

Pour ERDF, le compteur ne peut pas distinguer les appareils

11-08-2010 om 00:07 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

The complete list of prisoners currently on hunger strike in ward 240 is as follows:

1. Ali Malihi, student activist and member of Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat (student alumni organization).

2. Bahman Ahmad Amouie, journalist.

3. Hossein Nourinejad, journalist and member of the Participation Front (reformist party).

4. Abdollah Momeni, student activist and spokesperson for Daftar-e Tahkim Vahdat.

5. Ali Parviz, student activist.

6. Hamid Reza Mohammadi, political activist.

7. Jafar Eghdami, civil society activist.

8. Babak Bordbar, photographer.

9. Zia Nabavi, starred student and member of the Council to Defend the Right to Education.

10. Ebrahim (Nader) Babaie, civil society activist and an injured veteran of the Iran-Iraq war.

11. Kouhyar Goodarzi, human rights activist and blogger.

12. Majid Dorri, student activist.

13. Majid Tavakoli, student activist.

14. Keyvan Samimi, journalist.

15. Gholamhossein Arashi, arrested during an Ashura protest in Tehran.

16. Payman Karimi, arrested during an Ashura protest in Tehran.

17. Mohammad Hossein Sohrabi Rad, political prisoner arrested in relation to his follow-up activities on deaths and torture in Kahrizak prison and a member of Mehdi Karrobi’s election campaign. He received 74 lashes and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Detained journalist Keyvan Samimi

Bahman Ahmadi Amouie began his hunger strike three days ago. Five others including Majid Tavakoli, Abdollah Momeni, and Kouhyar Goodarzi began their hunger strike the next day. The rest of the prisoners went on hunger strike on Thursday to demonstrate their support for their cell mates. The prisoners have vowed to not end their strike until their demands are met. While seventeen prisoner names were leaked out of prison, there still may be others in solitary confinement who are also on hunger strike.

Reports also indicate that the phones in ward 350 were cut off to prevent prisoners from communicating with the outside world so the news does not reach the media.

Seventeen political prisoners began a hunger strike at the end of July to protest deteriorating conditions at Tehran's notorious Evin Prison. Here is the complete list of hunger strikers. Iran has arrested hundreds of journalists, human rights activists, and politicians after the protest movement emerged against the results of the June 12 presidential election in 2009.

Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, the two main opposition leaders called on the prisoners to stop the hunger strike. Iranian bloggers reported that Babak Bordbar, a jailed photographer who also went on hunger strike was released today.

Several human rights organizations announced their concern for the health condition of the hunger strikers, especially the detained journalists, Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei and Keyvon Samimi, and student activist Majid Tavakoli . These three individuals began a “dry” hunger strike on August 4.

Sight writes [fa] about the indifference of the world towards the hunger striking prisoners in Iran. The blogger writes:

What happened? Has the voice of the political prisoners become weak or is the world sleepy?… Bahman Ahmadi-Amouei and Keyvon Samimi are my countrymen and their bones are being broken in Velyateh Faghie's [Iranian regime] undergrounds

23 Khordad, a group that claims to have emerged after the presidential election to support the Green Movement, says[fa] that:

We are concerned for the health of the political prisoners who are on hunger strike, and we respect their will to either continue or stop. But we object to the invitation of a reformist group, Jebheye Moshrekat, who is asking people to do political fasting to support prisoners. Yes to hunger strike, no to political fasting. Why is it that this reformist group wants to give a political colour to their hunger strike.

Arash Ashouri, a leading Iranian photo blogger based in Iran, writes in his blog, Kosoof, about one of hunger strikers:

Bahman Ahmadi Amouee, a famous economy journalist of various reformist newspapers is in hunger strike nowadays in notorious Evin Prison of Tehran. Bahman, alongside his wife, Jila Baniyaghoub, a journalist and women rights activist was arrested after the disputed Presidential election in 2009. He was held for several weeks in solitary confinement in section 209 of Evin Prison without any official charges. Later, He was sentenced to 7 years and 4 months of imprisonment and 34 lashes in the revolutionary court.
Bahman Ahmadi Amouee, alongside 16 other political prisoners is in hunger strike in Evin prison, protesting against the terrible condition of section 350 of Evin prison and the harsh behavior of prison guards. Authorities do not let his family to visit him or have any contact with him and according to the sources from inside the prison, his physical health is in serious danger.

09-08-2010 om 23:19 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Back to the Land in France (One)

France's New Rural Ghettos

08-08-2010 om 23:34 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

08-08-2010 om 09:05 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Na het bijzonder boeiende verhaal van gisteren vonden we vandaag nog een interessante getuigenis. Het is geen groot nieuwsfeit. Want het komt er tenslotte op neer dat we nog steeds in een soort maat§schappij leven van kwakzalvers en would-be-uitvinders. Personages en situaties die we in alle kleuren geuren terugvinden in de tijd van de grote goldrush of in Céline's "Voyage au bout de la nuit". Het enige verschil is dat het nu geen individuele oplichtertjes meer zijn met een sympathiek kantje aan. Het is big business geworden met grijnzende managers en glunderende aandeelhouders...

uit de Huffington Post:

The Dark Side of Vitaminwater

Now here's something you wouldn't expect. Coca-Cola is being sued by a non-profit public interest group, on the grounds that the company's vitaminwater products make unwarranted health claims. No surprise there. But how do you think the company is defending itself?

In a staggering feat of twisted logic, lawyers for Coca-Cola are defending the lawsuit by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage."

Does this mean that you'd have to be an unreasonable person to think that a product named "vitaminwater," a product that has been heavily and aggressively marketed as a healthy beverage, actually had health benefits?

Or does it mean that it's okay for a corporation to lie about its products, as long as they can then turn around and claim that no one actually believes their lies?

In fact, the product is basically sugar-water, to which about a penny's worth of synthetic vitamins have been added. And the amount of sugar is not trivial. A bottle of vitaminwater contains 33 grams of sugar, making it more akin to a soft drink than to a healthy beverage.

Is any harm being done by this marketing ploy? After all, some might say consumers are at least getting some vitamins, and there isn't as much sugar in vitaminwater as there is in regular Coke.

True. But about 35 percent of Americans are now considered medically obese. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight. Health experts tend to disagree about almost everything, but they all concur that added sugars play a key role in the obesity epidemic, a problem that now leads to more medical costs than smoking.

How many people with weight problems have consumed products like vitaminwater in the mistaken belief that the product was nutritionally positive and carried no caloric consequences? How many have thought that consuming vitaminwater was a smart choice from a weight-loss perspective? The very name "vitaminwater" suggests that the product is simply water with added nutrients, disguising the fact that it's actually full of added sugar.

The truth is that when it comes to weight loss, what you drink may be even more important than what you eat. Americans now get nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquids. In 2009, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, finding that the quickest and most reliable way to lose weight is to cut down on liquid calorie consumption. And the best way to do that is to reduce or eliminate beverages that contain added sugar.

Meanwhile, Coca-Cola has invested billions of dollars in its vitaminwater line, paying basketball stars, including Kobe Bryant and Lebron James, to appear in ads that emphatically state that these products are a healthy way for consumers to hydrate. When Lebron James held his much ballyhooed TV special to announce his decision to join the Miami Heat, many corporations paid millions in an attempt to capitalize on the event. But it was vitaminwater that had the most prominent role throughout the show.

The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, alleges that vitaminwater labels and advertising are filled with "deceptive and unsubstantiated claims." In his recent 55-page ruling, Federal Judge John Gleeson (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), wrote, "At oral arguments, defendants (Coca-Cola) suggested that no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitamin water was a healthy beverage." Noting that the soft drink giant wasn't claiming the lawsuit was wrong on factual grounds, the judge wrote that, "Accordingly, I must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true."

I still can't get over the bizarre audacity of Coke's legal case. Forced to defend themselves in court, they are acknowledging that vitaminwater isn't a healthy product. But they are arguing that advertising it as such isn't false advertising, because no could possibly believe such a ridiculous claim.

I guess that's why they spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising the product, saying it will keep you "healthy as a horse," and will bring about a "healthy state of physical and mental well-being."

Why do we allow companies like Coca-Cola to tell us that drinking a bottle of sugar water with a few added water-soluble vitamins is a legitimate way to meet our nutritional needs?

Here's what I suggest: If you're looking for a healthy and far less expensive way to hydrate, try drinking water. If you want to flavor the water you drink, try adding the juice of a lemon and a small amount of honey or maple syrup to a quart of water. Another alternative is to mix one part lemonade or fruit juice to three or four parts water. Or drink green tea, hot or chilled, adding lemon and a small amount of sweetener if you like. If you want to jazz it up, try one-half fruit juice, one-half carbonated water.

If your tap water tastes bad or you suspect it might contain lead or other contaminants, get a water filter that fits under the sink or attaches to the tap.

And it's probably not the best idea to rely on a soft drink company for your vitamins and other essential nutrients. A plant-strong diet with lots of vegetables and fruits will provide you with what you need far more reliably, far more consistently -- and far more honestly.

To learn about inexpensive and healthy foods and beverages, and practical steps you can take toward greater quality of life and economic freedom, read John Robbins' critically acclaimed new book The New Good Life: Living Better Than Ever in an Age of Less. For more information about his work, or to sign up for his email list, visit johnrobbins.info

06-08-2010 om 23:22 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

"Koning Boudewijn wilde trouwen met zijn stiefmoeder"

•    
• Je moet weten dat Lilian er alles aan wilde doen om koningin van België te worden. Ze was een bloedmooie vrouw. Ze was getrouwd met Leopold III, die niet alleen veel ouder was maar ook nogal wat buitenechtelijke relaties had. Lilian zag in Boudewijn de kortste weg naar de troon. Boudewijn was zo verliefd op Lilian dat hij ernstig overwoog met haar te trouwen, maar dat is afgeblokt door de regering  
• Auteur Thierry Debels
•      
• Prins Alexander, prinses Lilian, Boudewijn en koning Leopold III.
•    
• Boudewijn was heel goed bevriend met de Spaanse dictator Franco, die veel bloed aan zijn handen heeft. Bovendien had Boudewijn een groot aandeel in de moord op Lumumba  
• Debels verklaart waarom Boudewijn niet zalig werd verklaard

05-08-2010 om 22:26 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Zottegemse burgemeester neemt het op voor zigeuners

• dinsdag 03 augustus 2010
• 
  
• Auteur: Koen Baumers en Johan Van Bever

04-08-2010 om 23:18 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

01-08-2010 om 00:00 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

The Sinking of the Cheonan and Its Political Uses

By GREGORY ELICH

Much has been written about the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan, and the evidence is widely regarded as clearly pointing to North Korean culpability. In the Western press, the case has generally been presented as solid and irrefutable. The tragedy is seen as one more example of North Korean perfidy.  Yet, doubts persist.

Following the sinking of the corvette Cheonan on March 26, the government of South Korea established the Joint Military-Civilian Investigation Group (JIG) to investigate and determine the cause of the sinking. Two months later, on May 20, the group completed its report and issued a press release outlining its conclusions. In its press release, the JIG firmly announced, "The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation."   

The JIG concluded that the Cheonan was sunk by a "shockwave and bubble effect" from an explosion set off by a homing torpedo, which caused "significant upward bending" of the center keel. A bubble jet effect is created when an explosion takes place underwater and creates a dramatic change in pressure, resulting in the formation of a strong column of water that strikes its target with great power. In addition to the upward bending of the stern and bow sections at the point of severance, the JIG found "water pressure and bubble effects" on the bottom of the hull, and the ship's wires had been cut with no sign of heat.

Furthermore, survivors reported "that they heard a near-simultaneous explosion once or twice," water splashed on the face of a sailor at the port-side, and a sentry  stationed on the shore observed a "pillar of white flash" rising about 100 meters for two to three seconds. No fragmentation or burn injuries were found on the bodies of the sailors who were killed, and seismic waves were detected at eleven stations. (1)

All of this evidence is consistent with the JIG's conclusion that a shockwave and bubble jet effect from a exploding torpedo was the cause of Cheonan's sinking. (2) As further damning evidence, components of a torpedo were brought up by a two fishing trawlers in the proximity of the site of the sinking. The components appeared to match that of a diagram the South Korean military had in its possession of the North Korean CHT-02D torpedo. Inside the propulsion system of the torpedo were written with blue magic marker ink in Hangul characters "1 beon" (number 1 ). This was similar to a North Korean training torpedo that the South Korean Navy had obtained seven years before, in which there was written "4 ho" (unit 4). According to one expert on North Korea, "North Korea does not frequently use the term beon." (3) However, it cannot be said that infrequent usage rules out the possibility.

The evidence appeared inarguable, yet from the first it was apparent that there was a troubling lack of transparency in the JIG's approach, typified by the secrecy surrounding the investigation. The report itself remains concealed, and the public is expected to accept on faith that the JIG's conclusions and brief explanations are backed by the evidence.

Various alternative causes of the sinking were briefly addressed by the South Korean Ministry of Defense. (4) The possibility of a floating contact mine was rightly dismissed due to the lack of signs of a contact explosion. However, most modern non-contact mines rely on creating a shockwave and bubble jet effect to sink ships. In general, the Ministry of Defense considers the possibility of a sea mine having caused the explosion as "unlikely," given the maritime conditions and fast currents in the shallow waters around Baengnyeong Island where the Cheonan sank. Moored mines are rarely used in deeper waters, where currents and swells are stronger than they are closer to shore. According to Retired Rear Admiral Chris Bennet of the South African Navy, "Their major use is therefore limited almost exclusively to coastal or territorial waters." (5) In other words, it is in areas such as around Baengnyeong Island where moored mines are best suited. But the South Korean Navy's "detailed search" of the seabed failed to locate the anchor that a moored mine would have needed. No details were given to indicate the extent of the search beyond that one phrase.

Bottom mines rest on the seabed and are ideally suited for deployment in shallow waters, but the JIG dismissed the possibility of such a mine striking the Cheonan because it "cannot split a ship when detonated at a depth of 47 meters." That was the depth of water at the location where the torpedo components were retrieved. However, when it sank, the Cheonan had been sailing in waters that were no deeper than 30 to 40 meters. (6) According to the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law, "bottom mines tend to work in relatively shallow water (less than 164 feet)."  That translates into just under 50 meters, well within the range necessary to have struck the Cheonan. (7) However, the JIG calculates the distance of the explosion as just three meters from the Cheonan's gas turbine engine. (8) If the JIG's calculation of the explosion distance is correct, then that would preclude the possibility of a bottom mine.

There is another type of mine, one which the JIG did not address in its summary of findings. That is the rising mine, which is similar to a bottom mine in that it sits on the seabed. Where it differs is that it contains an acoustic sensor, and when a ship approaches, the mine is programmed to float upwards and explode at a set distance beneath the hull. In essence, the result would be the same as a non-contact torpedo, creating a bubble jet effect. In shallow water, such mines tend not to be moored, hence there would be no anchor. (9) There is also the torpedo mine, which when detecting an approaching ship, opens up and fires a torpedo at its target. (10) This possibility, too, was not mentioned in the JIG's summary.

The centerpiece of the case against North Korea is without doubt the torpedo fragments retrieved by trawlers. At the JIG press conference announcing the results of its investigation, a diagram said to be that of the CHT-02D was displayed. It was not until over one month later, after critics had pointed to discrepancies between the diagram and the torpedo fragments, that the JIG admitted that it had shown a diagram of the wrong torpedo, the PT-97W. This was said to have been caused by a "mix-up by a staff member while preparing for the presentation." (11) That such a mistake could be made is indicative of a careless attitude concerning evidence.

This was not the only point of confusion. One day before the JIG's final results were announced, a Korean government official was quoted as saying that investigators had determined that North Korea sank the Cheonan with a Chinese-made torpedo, as Chinese characters were written on the torpedo fragments collected from the site. It was said that the torpedo was thought to be a YU-3G, the type North Korea had imported from China more than twenty years ago. (12) One day later, nothing more was said of the matter, and now it was claimed that the torpedo fragments originated from a North Korean-built CHT-02D, with a Korean word written in blue ink. It is true that at one time Hanja (Chinese) characters were incorporated into general usage in Korea, but that practice has long since passed, and not since 1949 have they been used in North Korea. (13) Because the JIG's report remains shrouded in secrecy, it is impossible to know whether or not Chinese characters were truly found on torpedo fragments. If so, that would be at variance with a report that U.S. intelligence had traced the propulsion system on the found torpedo to its manufacture two years ago at a North Korean factory. (14)

It should also be mentioned that the information South Korea had on the CHT-02D was obtained from an export catalogue, as the weapon is among those that North Korea sells abroad. In other words, the torpedo apparently has buyers, and therefore the source of manufacture does not automatically correspond to ownership. So, was the torpedo a Chinese-made YU-3G or a North Korean-made CHT-02D? Or perhaps something else altogether? It is a CHT-02D, the JIG now asserts, without addressing the discrepancy in its claims.

Traces of RDX, a high explosive chemical commonly used in torpedoes and mines, were found on the Choenan's smokestack, stern, and in sand taken from the seabed. South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young dismissed speculation that the RDX was residue from naval drills that had been conducted in the past in the area. Although one South Korean government source claimed that RDX is not used in mines, this was contradicted by the Defense Minister (15). Indeed, RDX has been used in naval mines since the Second World War. (16)

While the presence of RDX would be consistent with a torpedo attack, it cannot on its own be considered as proof of that. Consider that when Canadian authorities intercepted the Princess Easwary as it was transporting illegal immigrants, swabs taken from the ship showed traces of RDX. No torpedo or mine had struck the Princess Easwary. Its past history of gun-running meant that the mere presence of explosives had been enough to leave a residue. (17) The Cheonan, as a military vessel, routinely carried explosives and engaged in naval exercises. Among the Cheonan's armaments were six Mark 46 torpedoes, two Otobreda 76 mm guns, two 40 mm Bofors guns, and twelve Mark 9 depth charges. (18) Both torpedoes and depth charges utilize RDX, and the bursting charge of projectiles fired by Bofors contain RDX. (19) Certainly, explosions from test-fired depth charges would have spread RDX around rather liberally.

It is a striking anomaly that none of the 58 surviving sailors of the Cheonan witnessed a rising pillar of water, without which it is difficult to imagine that a bubble jet effect explosion could have taken place. (20) Perhaps all of those on deck perished during the incident. That might account for this oddity, although it does seem unlikely, given that most of the casualties were said to be of those who were below deck. There is, of course, the shore-based observer who reported seeing a pillar of water, but one would feel more comfortable with his veracity were it backed by other witnesses. Indeed, the Korean organization People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy reports that survivors who spoke at the JIG press conference said they saw no pillar of water. Those who spoke included port-side lookouts, who would have been hard-pressed to miss such a significant sight. (21)

The recovery of torpedo fragments in the vicinity of Cheonan's sinking appears persuasive. It is a strong point in support of the South Korean government's argument. Yet, it is not such an unusual event for torpedoes and components of torpedoes to be found underwater. All sorts of things get dumped at sea, including, it seems, dangerous weaponry. A live torpedo was inadvertently pulled up in a fishing net more than two years ago off the British coast, as was one off the coast of Rhode Island in 1985. (22) In a survey covering the period of March 2002 through February 2003, the British Royal Navy reported that "at least 15 items of explosives ordinance or their components had been recovered in the nets of fishing vessels operating in coastal waters around the British Isles." Among the ordinance recovered were "torpedo components." It was also noted that some items had been "dispersed from their original dumping or loss positions by water movements." Oceanographic factors "can lead to quite substantial movements of large munitions." In the 15-year period ending in 2000, German fisherman reported to officials in Lower Saxony having found a total of more than 11 tons of munitions, while Dutch fisherman net an average of ten explosives per year. (23) The torpedo recovered by South Korea may have been associated with the sinking of Cheonan, but it could also have been dumped at sea, or test fired during military exercises at some point in the past.

It should also be noted that the Cheonan was sunk in disputed waters. After the Korean War, the U.S. unilaterally drew the Yellow Sea border between the two Koreas with a line that curved sharply northward to North Korea's disadvantage, rather than in a straight line, as existed with the East Sea border and which would have been common practice. (24) The area has been the site of periodic naval clashes between the two Koreas, and it is not unusual for North Korean vessels to cross over this line that it does not recognize.

The JIG did conduct a simulation to demonstrate how a bubble jet effect would have impacted a ship's hull. it is an indication of the predetermined approach the JIG adopted that the simulation was not completed until after its report was finished and results were announced. Although a bubble jet effect is capable of severing a ship in two, the JIG's simulation failed to do more than deform and cause a small break in the hull. (25)

What tied the recovered torpedo fragments to the sinking of the Cheonan was not only its proximity to the site of the sinking, but also a chemical analysis of adhered substances on both the torpedo and the Cheonan's hull that were shown to be identical. (26) Two Korean-American physicists, Seung-Hun Lee and J.J Suh, managed to obtain a copy of one section of the JIG's secret report, in which it was stated that the compounds were a result of an explosion. These compounds were indeed the same on both the torpedo and the ship, the physicists concluded, but the data were not consistent with the conclusion that they had formed during an explosion. The samples, they asserted, "have nothing to do with any explosion, but are most likely aluminum that has rusted after exposure to moisture or water for a long time." Korean-Canadian geologist Panseok Yang determined that the spectroscopic analysis of the compounds reported by the JIG closely matched that of gibbsite, a mineral formed under intense weathering conditions, and often found in clay deposits. (27)

When a South Korean congresswoman asked the JIG to release its samples, only two out of the three were made available. The JIG claimed that they had used up all of the third sample, yet the spectroscopic and X-ray analyses done are non-destructive. Seung-Hun Lee and Panseok Yang observed that either the JIG had completely mishandled the samples or they were intentionally hiding them. (28)

The South Korean Ministry of Defense rejected their conclusions, pointing out that the physicists' laboratory tests did not fully replicate conditions during an explosion, and were thus invalid. (29) The physicists argued that their results were "consistent with previous scientific studies." In their experiments they had scaled down both the weight of the explosive and the weight of the water in a metal container to retain the proportion equivalent to that of a torpedo. Full access to the JIG's data and objective analysis would do much bring us closer to the truth, whichever direction it leads, but Seung-Hun Lee finds that the JIG's report contains "several serious self-contradicting aspects and their interpretations have serious flaws, to say the least." (30)

The propulsion unit of the torpedo was severely corroded, an apparent result of the coat of paint having been burnt away by the heat of the explosion. It seems odd that the "number 1" written in Korean by a blue magic marker would survive intact. The boiling point for ink is less than half that of paint, so it would be more vulnerable to loss. (31) One cannot be sure that the handwriting was not added later by South Korean military officials for enhanced dramatic effect when presenting their evidence.

In the opinion of Seung-Hun Lee, "The government is lying when they said this was found underwater. I think this is something that was pulled out of a warehouse of old materials to show to the press." (32)

It seems that the JIG's investigation was something of a rush job, intended to be completed in time to give a boost to the South Korean ruling party in local elections. Among the members of the JIG were a small number of representatives from the opposition Democratic Party, one of whom, Shin Sang-cheol, felt disappointed that members of the team were not given  briefing materials or basic information such as the navigation course record and other data. What struck  Shin was that the investigation began with the premise that there had been a torpedo attack, and during his time on the team no effort was made to examine other possibilities. (33)

With the South Korean military's mind made up before it began, little effort needed to be wasted on analysis. According to one anonymous South Korean military source, "If you leave out the time spent moving the torpedo, removing water and dust, and writing a report, the whole examination [of the torpedo components] only lasted about three days. The government has invited distrust by being excessively greedy." In that span of time, the JIG was not able to even determine how long the torpedo had been corroding underwater. (34)

Shin Sang-cheol was quickly booted out of the JIG for not singing the same tune as the military authorities. With years of experience as a ship navigator and as a shipbuilding inspector at various Korean shipyards, he was not entirely without expertise. He sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which he included maritime maps of the waters around Baengnyeong Island. These, he pointed out, are marked by shallow waters and rock fields. It was his contention that the Cheonan had run aground, backed out, and then collided with some object. Among the indications Shin cited as evidence were deep scratches on the hull and propeller blades bent forward; that is, toward the direction of the point where the ship split in two, rather than away from it. Perhaps not surprisingly, Shin is being sued for libel by the South Korean military. (35)

Shin's theory, however, does not seem particularly more convincing than that of the South Korean military. The JIG ruled out the possibility of running aground as the ship's sonar remained undamaged. Shin counters, correctly, that a hull can run aground at one point while another is unaffected. But it could be that the ship's propellers were damaged when the stern hit bottom after the Cheonan split in two. Or indeed, the damage to them may have resulted from some previous incident. It is far from certain that Shin's theory accounts for what actually happened to the Cheonan. The JIG's summary points out that there are no signs of collision on the Cheonan, and the hull damage does appear more consistent with that of an external explosion than of a collision. But the possibility of a collision did merit consideration. What is perplexing is that none of the various explanations that have been put forward quite seem to fit the totality of evidence.

One's already low level of confidence in the South Korean military's sincerity was undermined when it was revealed that it had deliberately fudged initial reports on the sinking of the Cheonan. The Naval Operations Command reported that the sinking occurred at 9:15 PM (which was later corrected to 9:22 PM) and that there was the sound of an explosion. The Joint Chiefs, however, altered the time to 9:45 PM and omitted mention of an explosion in order to cover up their slow responsiveness. Then the Ministry of Defense botched the release of thermal observation device recordings by using those from thirteen minutes after the sinking, while ignoring recordings taken from just three minutes afterwards. It was also eventually revealed that the on-duty Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was drunk that night, and only arrived at command control headquarters at 10:42 PM, where he managed to stay awake at a meeting for ten minutes before falling asleep. (36)

That high-ranking military officers would so causally lie and distort facts during a moment of crisis does not encourage confidence in their reliability to objectively analyze data and come to a considered conclusion in the investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan. Certainly not when political pressure to reach a predetermined conclusion would have been so intense. Interestingly, the investigators who probed into the military's mishandling of its initial response to the sinking of the Cheonan revealed only a portion of the problems they had found. Information which they considered militarily sensitive was excluded. (37) That would seem to imply that additional distortions or misrepresentations had taken place.

The South Korean military believes that it was a North Korean Yono (Salmon) class midget submarine that fired a torpedo at Cheonan. Of limited range, midget submarines must be ferried and launched by larger submarines. They can operate in shallow waters, unlike their larger counterparts. Even so, the waters around the sinking were too shallow even for a midget submarine, so it is thought that it had to have been operating from much farther away, in deeper waters. South Korea did track the departure of a Yono-class submarine and its mother ship from a North Korean port days before the sinking of Cheonan, as well as their return to base days after the incident. For the JIG, that constituted direct evidence of North Korean responsibility, although logically speaking, this is not in fact direct causal proof any more than a man would be proven guilty of murder simply because he was away from his  home at the moment the murder took place. The most that could be said of the submarine tracking is that it is suggestive of a possible connection.

Oddly, the Cheonan's sonar failed to detect anything unusual, but a South Korean military source pointed out that the ship's sonar "is an old model with a limited range, so there's a strong possibility that it failed to detect the torpedo which was launched from far away." (38) That may be true, but one must add that sooner or later a torpedo fired from long-range distance would approach closely enough to be detected. Kim Jong-dae, editor-in-chief of D&D, a defense journal, observes, "A submarine is supposed to be difficult to detect militarily, but most torpedoes can be detected. It is doubtful they would have been completely unable to detect the launch." (39)

No one would call the JIG's investigation a model of transparency.  It was led by South Korea, who chose the nations that would participate: the U.S., Great Britain, Australia and Sweden. On the Multinational Combined Intelligence Task Force, Canada replaced Sweden. Aside from Sweden, what all of these nations share is a uniformly hostile attitude towards North Korea. Sweden, according to CBS News, was "a reluctant partner in blaming the North Koreans." (40)

Unquestionably, the South Korean government is sincere in its belief that a North Korean submarine fired a torpedo at the Cheonan. But in one sense that is the problem. So convinced was the JIG, that the team had a set of blinders on during the investigation, so that only one outcome was possible. And nothing would seem amiss if, whether knowingly or blindly, evidence was fudged or ignored to strengthen that case, as that would not change the overall facts as the team perceived it.

The report itself remains secret, and all requests for it to be made public have been rejected. A copy did go to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pronounced the evidence against North Korea "overwhelming." If the evidence is truly so convincing, it would only help South Korea's case for it to be made publicly known. Or could it be the case that the evidence falls short of Clinton's assessment? South Korean legislators have not seen the report, nor have they been given access to even partial information of relevance. Assemblyman Choi Moon-soon of the opposition Democratic Party comments, "We asked for very basic information - interviews with surviving sailors, communication records, the reason the ship was out there." But no information was forthcoming from the government. (41)

North Korea vehemently denies the accusations being made against it. As the accused, North Korea is an interested party. It feels it has the right to see the evidence supporting the charges. North Korea asked on two occasions to send its own inspection team to operate under the joint control of both South and North Korea in order to conduct an investigation, but its requests were turned down by the South Korean government. North Korea sent a similar suggestion to the United Nations, only to be rebuffed by the United States, who indicated that the case against North Korea was already proven. Instead, the U.S. pushed hard for the strongest language in a UN Security Council statement, and attempted to browbeat China into going along. China, though, held firm in the interests of peace, ensuring that a more moderate UN statement resulted. With the U.S. and South Korea committed to taking a hard line, even North Korea's proposal to reopen talks on denuclearization was snubbed.

China, which has received a modicum of information from South Korea, remains unconvinced. "I have to say the majority of Chinese policymakers and academics feel that the Cheonan report does not hold water," remarks international studies scholar Zhu Feng. (42)

In order to bolster its case, South Korea agreed to allow a team of Russian naval military experts to visit and analyze the evidence. For the first time, there would be an objective assessment of evidence. There was good cooperation during the visit, and then the Russians returned home where they spent several weeks in analyzing the data. Russia, however, was in a delicate position when it came to publicizing its determinations. Openly backing Seoul would only encourage attempts by the U.S. to ratchet up tensions in the region, whereas dissenting from the JIG's conclusion could strain relations with South Korea, an important trading partner. So it was not surprising when it was announced that Russia would not publicize its own report.

There have been various leaks and comments made to the media which gave a fair indication of the Russian team's evaluation of the evidence, clearly regarded as inconclusive. Russia supplied its report to the U.S. and China, but not to the South Koreans, apparently in a bid to avoid antagonizing them. But it did not take long for South Korea to be apprised of the results, no doubt by the U.S. Whereupon the Russian ambassador was called to the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and given a heated reception.

According to a South Korean diplomatic source, "The Russian investigation team's primary interest was in whether North Korea, which had been unable to produce its own torpedoes until 1995, suddenly was able to attack the Cheonan with a state-of-the-art bubble jet torpedo." It has been pointed out that this technology is possessed only by a small number of countries, and the weapon has been successfully used only in test firings on stationary targets. (43)

If a North Korean source speaking on condition of anonymity in Hanoi is to be believed, Russia informed North Korean officials that it did not trust the results of the JIG investigation. "The Russian delegation said if the truth is revealed, then South Korea and the United States could be caught in an awkward position," an apparent reference to the manipulation of evidence. (44)

Yet there was still much that the Russian team was unable to determine. It sent requests for further information, but so far South Korea has failed to respond. "We still have some questions regarding the results of this work to which we have not received clear answers," Naval Commander Vladimir Vysotsky said. Whether or not answers would be supplied, he added, "doesn't depend on us." (45)

In an explosive recent development, the South Korean newspaper Hankyoreh obtained a copy of a Russian documented summarizing their investigators' findings. The Russians agreed with the JIG that the Cheonan sank as a result of a non-contact external explosion. Commenting on the propeller blades that were bent forward, the Russians noted that remnants of a fishing net were tangled around the right screw axle. They posited that while the Cheonan was sailing close to shore the ship touched bottom, damaging the propellers, and became entangled in a fishing net. As a result of the net and damage, the Cheonan "must have experienced restrictions in its speed and maneuvers." No definitive determination could be made as to the cause of the explosion, but the Russians felt that the most likely explanation was that as the Cheonan struggled to maneuver to deeper waters, it struck a non-contact sea mine. "The area of the ship's accident is at risk of ocean mines, which is indirectly proven by the fact that the docking locations and voyage paths are restricted to the west seacoast of the Korean Peninsula." (46)

As for the recovered torpedo components, the Russian investigators reported, "It may be possible that the presented torpedo part was made in North Korea, but the ink mark is inconsistent with the normal standards of marking (the locations and the method of the mark). Visual examination of the torpedo part indicates that the torpedo had been in the water for more than six months." In other words, long before the Cheonan sank. "We do not conclude that this particular torpedo was launched to and impacted on the Cheonan ship." (47)

The South Korean Ministry of Defense dismissed the possibility of sea mines being present around Baengnyeong Island, saying that it had disabled all of the mines that it had laid in the area. A retired South Korean admiral, however, testified that sea mines were present, and that if the sheath of the leading wire were removed on a mine, then the voltage going through the Cheonan would have been enough to set it off. (48)

It is interesting to compare the U.S. response to Cheonan's sinking with its reaction to the Israeli attack on a ship bringing aid to the Gaza Strip, in which several unarmed civilians were shot dead by soldiers storming aboard. Whereas in the case of the Cheonan, culpability remains uncertain and evidence is contradictory, there was no ambiguity about the Israeli action. It was an unprovoked attack on a ship operating in international waters. There was no question as to who attacked the ship. In response to that incident, U.S. officials worked behind the scenes to prevent the UN Security Council from giving the go-ahead for an investigation into the attack. U.S. officials argued that instead Israel should investigate its own action. U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff saved his harsh criticism for those who had been delivering aid, calling their effort "neither appropriate nor responsible." (49) Punishment for Israel is swift in coming. The proposed U.S. 2011 budget calls for $3 billion in aid to be provided to Israel. (50)

Contrast that with U.S. plans for North Korea. That nation is quite likely correct when it claims that it had nothing to do with the Cheonan's fate. But who needs an ironclad case when there are geopolitical goals to be achieved? The U.S. and South Korea launched large-scale joint military exercises in the East Sea, including the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, and for the first time U.S. F-22 stealth fighters flew in Korean airspace. The war games were clearly intended to be intimidating.

There are plans afoot for the possible deployment of an advanced airborne communications network on the Korean Peninsula, which would enable U.S. troops to overcome the limitations of communication in the mountainous terrain prevalent in North Korea. (51)  Also on the U.S. drawing board is an expansion of psychological warfare against North Korea, including the use of internet technology, leaflets and radio broadcasts. (52)

More importantly, as political commentator Stephen Gowans puts it in a nice turn of phrase, "The United States has announced that it is adding a new tranche to the Himalaya of sanctions it has built up since 1950 against North Korea." (53) The U.S. State Department and Department of Treasury plan to expand the list of businesses and organizations subject to sanctions, freeze bank accounts, work with various foreign governments to stop North Korean trading companies from doing business on the allegation that they are involved in illegal operations, impose travel restrictions, and implement a host of other measures. (54) Approximately 100 bank accounts linked to North Korea are to be frozen. "The U.S. has continued to consult the banks and will likely induce them to quietly close the accounts," a diplomatic source revealed. (55)

It is planned that the effort will induce foreign banks to stop doing business with North Korea, and thereby deny that nation the possibility of engaging in normal trade. According to a source speaking on condition of anonymity, the larger Chinese and other foreign banks dealing with North Korea could be adversely impacted, as all of their transactions are processed through the U.S. "This means that for everyone dealing with North Korea, it will become difficult for them to send money from the North." (56)

As a consequence of blacklisting North Korean organizations and individuals, a diplomatic source says, the U.S. will suspend ties with any banks dealing with them. "Think of Citibank or Bank of America suspending business ties with Bank of China or Bank of Shanghai. That will be a great burden to China." (57) There is debate within the Lee Administration as to how hard a line to pursue against North Korea. There are many who want to use the opportunity to topple the North Korean government, while those who favor dialogue are concerned that a harsh approach "could give rise to severe disorder." According to one South Korean source, "If the government decides to continue sanctions for more than six months even after the G20 summit, it could be interpreted as an important strategic choice to actively pursue regime change in the North." (58) Leaving aside the question of the inevitable hardship and misery for the North Korean people that would ensue from tightening the screws, there could be a heightened risk of conflict between the two Koreas if the situation deteriorates out of control.

The assertion that the North Korean accounts to be targeted are linked to illegal operations is reminiscent of similar efforts by the George W. Bush Administration, when North Korean accounts engaged in legitimate business were closed and banks throughout the world were threatened with harsh financial consequences if they continued to allow North Korea to conduct normal international financial operations. All that was done under the unproven (and in some cases clearly disproven) contention that the accounts were connected with illegal activities. The intent was to dry up North Korea's access to foreign currency, and thus its ability to import essential items such as food, spare parts and machinery.

Indeed, even before June the U.S already began freezing North Korean accounts held in foreign banks around the world. According to an unnamed diplomatic source, "The moves should be interpreted as a part of new sanctions on the North to hold it responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan." U.S. diplomat Robert Einhorn plans to visit a number of countries in an attempt to pressure them to enforce sanctions against North Korea. (59) It is not difficult to imagine the effect on the people of North Korea. Already existing sanctions have caused a shortage of raw materials, says Korean economic analyst Cho Boo Hyung, which has led to reduced output. And a decrease in food production will trigger negative economic growth. Cho feels that sanctions could produce another famine in North Korea, comparable to that of the 1990s. (60)

President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea has also seized the opportunity presented by Cheonan's sinking to further his goals. As a long-time opponent of the Sunshine Policy of his two predecessors, Lee never hid his ambition to dismantle all of the progress that had been made in recent years with relations between the two Koreas. No sooner had Lee taken office than he announced that he had no intention of observing the agreement signed by former President Roh Moo-hyun that set up a joint fishing area in the disputed waters at the Northern Limit Line, and which included measures to discourage military clashes there. Several economic agreements that had been reached were put on hold.

Once the JIG had announced the results of its investigation, Lee outlined a new policy with his northern neighbor. "From this moment," he said, "no North Korean ship will be allowed to make passage through any of the shipping lanes in the waters under our control, which has been allowed by the Inter-Korean Agreement on Maritime Transportation." In addition, "Trade and exchanges between the Republic of Korea and North Korea will also be suspended." Relations between the two Koreas have deteriorated to their lowest point since the period of military dictatorships in South Korea, and U.S. sanctions will only exacerbate tensions.

Did a North Korean submarine fire a torpedo at the Cheonan? I do not know, but it seems improbable. If it was a torpedo that sank the Cheonan, then it certainly was not the one that the JIG put on display. It would have been foolhardy for the North Korean government to order such a strike. It had nothing to gain, and absolutely everything to lose by such an act. It may be that a rogue commander ordered the attack as revenge for an incident near Daecheong Island the previous November, when South Korean ships chased a North Korean patrol boat, firing on it and sending it up in flames, thereby causing the deaths of several sailors. That attack, incidentally, failed to elicit any concern whatsoever from the same U.S. officials who so sternly pontificate on the unacceptability of allowing the sinking of Cheonan to go unpunished.

While reviewing the evidence, it began to appear to me that the most likely cause of the Cheonan's sad fate was having had the misfortune to inadvertently sail into the path of a sea mine, and this feeling has only been strengthened by the reports of the Russian investigation team's findings. Given the fast-moving currents in the waters near Baengnyeong Island, it may be that over time a rising mine gradually migrated from where it had been initially deposited, so that its position was unexpected. That is just speculation, of course, and other possibilities exist.  A broad-based international investigation needs to take place, and its results made fully public. The 46 sailors who lost their lives when the Cheonan sank deserve the truth, whatever it may be. As do the peoples of both Koreas, whose future is intertwined in so many ways. But geopolitical considerations guarantee that no such international probe will take place. Tensions are likely to remain high as long as South Korean President Lee remains in office. No conceivable change in U.S. administrations will bring about an improvement in the security environment on the Korean Peninsula, but the 2012 election in South Korea might. That is something to hope for.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.

NOTES

(1)   "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS 'Cheonan'," Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Korea, May 20, 2010.
       

(2)  The video at this site illustrates the impact of a bubble jet effect explosion on ships:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oUNt47G-08

(3) "Questions Raised Following Cheonan Announcement," Hankyoreh (Seoul), May 21, 2010.

(4)  "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS 'Cheonan'," Ministry of National Defense, Republic of   Korea, May 20, 2010. Much later, a video, photographs, diagrams and further details were appended to the May 20 press release.   

(5)  Chris Bennet, "Mine Warfare at Sea," African Security Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, 1998.

(6)  "How Did N. Korea Sink the Cheonan?", Chosun Ilbo (Seoul), May 22, 2010.

(7)  "Strait of Hormuz: Assessing Threats to Energy Security in the Persian Gulf," The Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law.

(8)  "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS 'Cheonan'," Ministry of National Defense, Republic of Korea, May 20, 2010.       

(9) http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-068.htm

(10) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3811379.html

(11)  "Cheonan Investigators Presented Wrong Torpedo Diagram,"  Chosun Ilbo (Seoul), June 30, 2010. Kim Deok-hyun, "Investigators Admit Using Wrong Blueprint to Show N. Korean Torpedo That Attacked Cheonan," Yonhap (Seoul), June 29, 2010.

(12)  "N. Korea Used Chinese-Made Torpedo in Attack on S. Korean Ship: Source," Yonhap (Seoul), May 19, 2010.

(13)   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja

(14)  "U.S. Pinpoints Where Torpedo that Sank the Cheonan was Made," Chosun Ilbo, July 23, 2010. "NK Torpedo Produced in Gaecheon 2 Years Ago: Sankei," Korea Times, July 22, 2010.

(15)  Chang Jae-soon, "Defense Chief Confirms Explosive Chemical Found in Sunken Ship," Yonhap (Seoul), May 10, 2010. "Torpedo Explosive Detected in Sunken Ship: Official," Yonhap, May 7, 2010.

(16) http://www.answers.com/topic/explosive-material Jung Sung-ki, "Defense Chief Confirms Explosive Residue Found on Sunken Ship," Korea Times, May 10, 2010.

(17) Walter Jayawardhana, "Canadian Authorities Tell Immigration and Refugee Board that LTTE Ship Contained Traces of High Explosives Like RDX," LankaWeb, November 25, 2009.
"Canadian Officials Find Three More Traces of Explosives on Tamil Ship," Colombo Times, November 24, 2009.

(18) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_(PCC-772)

(19) http://www.answers.com/topic/explosive-material        http://www.wwiiequipment.com/

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/

(20)  Jung Sung-ki, "Investigators Point to Air Bubble," Korea Times, April 25, 2010.

(21)  Junghye Kwak, Huisun Kim, Taeho Lee, "The PSPD's Stance on the Naval Vessel Cheonan Sinking," People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy Issue Report IR-20100601, Seoul.

(22) "Navy Detonates Torpedo Caught in Fishing Nets," Defence News, January 29, 2008.
"Navy Detonates Torpedo Caught in Fishing Nets," UPI, December 18, 1985.

(23)  J. Beddington and A.J. Freng, "Munitions Dumped at Sea: A Literature Review," Imperial College London, June 2005.

(24)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Limit_Line

(25)  Seunghun Lee, J.J. Suh, "Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies in South Korea's Cheonan Report," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 12, 2010.

(26) Seunghun Lee, J.J. Suh, "Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies in South Korea's Cheonan Report," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 12, 2010.

(27) "Investigation Result on the Sinking of ROKS 'Cheonan'," Ministry of National Defense, Republic of   Korea, May 20, 2010. Specifically mentioned in the detailed section appended to the May 20 press release.
       
(287) Seunghun Lee, J.J. Suh, "Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies in South Korea's Cheonan Report," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 12, 2010.

Seung-Hun Lee, "Comments on the Section 'Adsorbed Material Analysis' of the Cheonan Report Made by the South Korean Civil and Military Joint Investigative Group (CIV-MIL JIG),"
http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1006/1006.0680v2.pdf

Seung-Hun Lee, Panseok Yang, "Were the 'Critical Evidence' Presented in the  South Korean Official Cheonan Report Fabricated?"  

(29)  Seung-Hun Lee, Panseok Yang, "Were the 'Critical Evidence' Presented in the South Korean Official Cheonan Report Fabricated?", 

(30)  Shin Joo Hyun, "Ministry of Defense Responds to Cheonan Claims," Daily NK, June 23, 2010.

(31)   Seung-Hun Lee, "Comments on the Section 'Adsorbed Material Analysis' of the Cheonan Report Made by the South Korean Civil and Military Joint Investigative Group (CIV-MIL JIG),"     

(32) Seunghun Lee, J.J. Suh, "Rush to Judgment: Inconsistencies in South Korea's Cheonan Report," The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, July 12, 2010.

(33)  Barbara Demick, "Doubts Surface on North Korea's Role in Ship Sinking," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2010

(34)  Junghye Kwak, Huisun Kim, Taeho Lee, "The PSPD's Stance on the Naval Vessel Cheonan Sinking,"  People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy Issue Report IR-20100601, Seoul.

(35)  Lee Yong-inn, "Questions Linger 100 Days after the Cheonan Sinking," Hankyoreh (Seoul), July 3, 2010.

(36)  S.C. Shin, "Letter to Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State for PCC-722 Cheonan," May 26, 2010.For a clear view of the Cheonan's propellers.

(37) "Cheonan Probe Says Military Made Grave Errors," Dong-A Ilbo (Seoul), June 11, 2010.

"Uncovering the Truth About the Cheonan," Hankyoreh (Seoul), June 11, 2010. "Wide-Ranging Incompetence and Cover-ups Took Place Night of Cheonan Sinking, Audit Reveals,"
Hankyoreh (Seoul), June 11, 2010.

(38)  Ser Myo-ja, "Military Found Inept, Lying in Responding to Cheonan," JoongAng Ilbo (Seoul), June 11, 2010.

(39)  "How Did N. Korea Sink the Cheonan?", Chosun Ilbo (Seoul), May 22, 2010.

(40)  "Questions Raised Following Cheonan Announcement," Hankyoreh (Seoul), May 11, 2010.

(41)  "South Korea to Unveil Evidence of North Sinking Navy Ship," CBS News, May 19, 2010.

(42)  Barbara Demick, "Doubts Surface on North Korea's Role in Ship Sinking," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2010.

(43)  Sunny Lee, "China Has Different View on Cheonan," Korea Times (Seoul), July 18, 2010.

(44)  Lee Yeong-in, "Government Protests Russia's Conflicting Cheonan Finding," Hankyoreh (Seoul), July 10, 2010.

(45)  Yoo Jee-ho, "N. Korea Warns 'Physical Response' Against South - U.S. Military Drills," Yonhap (Seoul), July 23, 2010.

(46)  "Russian Specialists Have Questions on S. Korean Corvette's Sinking - Navy Commander," Interfax (Moscow), July 24, 2010.

"Russian Experts Unable to Give Answers on Cheonan Sinking - Navy Commander," RIA Novosti (Moscow), July 24, 2010.

(47)  Colum Lynch and Debbi Wilgoren, "U.N. Calls for Impartial Probe of Israeli Raid," Washington Post, June 1, 2010.

(48)  "Lee Administration Response to Russian Investigation Report," Hankyoreh (Seoul), July 28, 2010.

(49)  Colum Lynch and Debbi Wilgoren, "U.N. Calls for Impartial Probe of Israeli Raid," Washington Post, June 1, 2010.

(50)  Danielle Kurtzleben, "Despite Rift, Israel Gets More U.S. Aid Than Iraq," U.S. and World News Report, July 6, 2010.

(51)  Jung Sung-ki, "US to Deploy Airborne Network in South Korea," Korea Times (Seoul), July 2, 2010.

(52)  Michael Sheridan, "Clinton to Wage Digital War on Kim for Sinking Ship," Sunday Times (London), May 23, 2010.

(53)  Stephen Gowans, "The Real Story on North Korea and its Healthcare," What's Left, July 21, 2010.

(54)  "U.S. to Impose Sanctions on N. Korea in 2 Weeks," Chosun Ilbo (Seoul), July 23, 2010.

(55)  "US to Freeze 100 N. Korean Bank Accounts," Dong-A Ilbo (Seoul), July 23, 2010.

(56)  Kim Ji-hyun, "'Chinese Banks Cannot Escape U.S. Sanctions'," Korea Herald (Seoul), July 26. 2010.

(57)  Hwang Doo-hyong, "U.S. Closely Watching Front Companies North Korea Uses to Evade Sanctions: State Dept.," Yonhap (Seoul), July 27, 2010.

(58) "'Stronger Action on NK Aims for Regime Change'," Dong-A Ilbo (Seoul), July 26, 2010.

(59)  Kang Chan-ho and Ser Myo-ja, "U.S. Froze North Korean Bank Accounts Since June," JoongAng Ilbo (Seoul), July 23, 2010.

(60)  Steve Herman, "Sanctions Expected to Harm North Korean Economy," Voice of America, July 23, 2010.

28-07-2010 om 23:08 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

28-07-2010 om 22:53 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

27-07-2010 om 22:48 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Via de Internationale vakbond van Bouw- en Houtwerknemers (BWI - Engelse afkorting) werd ACV bouw – industrie & energie de voorbije dagen op de hoogte gebracht van een hevig escalerend sociaal conflict in Panama.

De aanleiding van het conflict is tweeërlei. Enerzijds is er de goedkeuring van de nieuwe nationale Wet nr. 30. Deze wet wil het recht op vereniging en het recht op staken en betogen aan banden leggen met forse straffen. Anderzijds is er het sociaal conflict op werven van het consortium ‘Bouwgroep verenigd voor het Kanaal’ (Grupo Unidos por el Canal).

Hoofdaannemer in het tijdelijke consortium is het Spaans bedrijf ‘Sacyr Vallehermoso S.A.’. Ook het Belgische baggerbedrijf ‘Jan De Nul’ maakt deel uit van dat consortium. Zo kon ‘Jan de Nul’ mee lucratieve contracten in de wacht slepen voor de verbreding en verdieping van het Panamakanaal en de bouw van het nieuwe sluizencomplexen.

Op de werven van het consortium brak begin juli een staking uit. De Panamese bouwvakkers, lid van de vakbond ‘SUNTRACS’, legden het werk neer om te protesteren tegen de loon- en arbeidsvoorwaarden. Eisen van de stakers zijn: meer loon, betalen van overuren, hygiënische was- en slaapgelegenheden, veilige werkomstandigheden. De staking werd massaal opgevolgd. Na 4 dagen gingen alle arbeiders echter opnieuw aan het werk omdat gedreigd werd alle stakende werknemers te ontslaan. Tijdens de actie werden alle toegangen tot de werven gecontroleerd door politie en moesten werknemers zich identificeren, dit met de bedoeling de stakingsleiders te kunnen arresteren. De volgende dagen werden meerdere vakbondsverantwoordelijken van ‘SUNTRACS’ aangehouden. Een aantal van hen bevinden zich nog steeds in de gevangenis.

Het conflict over Wet nr 30 en het sociaal conflict op de werven van het Panamakanaal raakten op een bloedige manier met elkaar vermengd. Ook al omdat de repressie van de regering tegenover de stakers en vakbondsverantwoordelijken een voorproefje lijkt van wat de nieuwe wet zal brengen. De voorbije 2 weken kwamen tijdens protesten al 9 arbeiders om het leven, honderden raakten gewond. Tegelijk werden minstens 300 betogers en stakers gearresteerd.

De Internationale vakbond van Bouw- en Houtwerknemers (BWI) volt de zaken op de voet en coördineert de internationale syndicale reactie.

Te midden van al deze gebeurtenissen wil ACV bouw – industrie & energie haar grote bezorgdheid kenbaar maken. Daarom zal ACV ACV bouw – industrie & energie actief deelnemen aan de internationale campagne van de BWI om de repressie een halt toe te roepen en werknemers te steunen in hun strijd voor waardig werk. ACV bouw – industrie & energie zal ook deelnemen aan de solidariteitsmissie van de BWI die eind augustus ter plaatse de feiten gaat natrekken. ACV bouw – industrie & energie ondersteunt de vraag van de BWI om een zo snel mogelijk een officiële IAO-delegatie naar Panama te sturen.

Ondertussen roept ACV bouw – industrie & energie de Panamese regering op om met hoogdringendheid het geweld te stoppen en de anti-syndicale Wet nr. 30 onmiddellijk in te trekken. Daarentegen vraagt ACV bouw – industrie & energie dat de Panamese regering en het consortium van werkgevers de internationale normen inzake het recht op vereniging, syndicale vrijheden en het recht op staken ten volle zouden eerbiedigen.

ACV bouw – industrie & energie zal zo snel mogelijk een onderhoud vragen met de directie van het Belgische bedrijf ‘Jan de Nul’ –als lid van het consortium– om haar standpunt in deze zaak te kennen.

ACV bouw – industrie & energie zal ook contact opnemen met de Panamese ambassadeur in Brussel om protest aan te tekenen tegen de gang van zaken en zal aan de Belgische Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, Steven Vanackere, vragen hetzelfde te doen.

ACT NOW! Panama: Anti-union repression and arrest of SUNTRACS leaders

PANAMA-CANAL/STRIKE

Union slams firing of 10 Panama Canal workers, breakdown in talks

09 de julio de 2010Ampliar fotografía

Panama City, Jul 9 (EFE).- A union denounced a Panama Canal contractor's decision to dismiss 10 workers and its apparent refusal to participate in talks to resolve a labor dispute.

"At this moment there are no signs. Talks have stagnated," said Marco Andrade, one of the Suntracs construction-workers union's representatives in talks with the Grupo Unidos por el Canal consortium, which was awarded a $3.1 billion contract to build a third set of locks for the international waterway.

"They (the consortium) didn't tell us anything; they just didn't show up," Andrade said, adding that the GUPC is "seeing if it can solve this problem by force."

The Suntracs representative said the consortium on Thursday fired 10 workers involved in the construction of the third set of locks and that police have been deployed to the area.

A spokesman for the GUPC consortium, which is led by Spanish construction firm Sacyr Vallehermoso, confirmed the dismissals and told Efe "there was no strike, that's the wrong term; instead there was an illegal work stoppage" and the Labor Ministry authorized the firings because those individuals had stopped working for six days.

"After an illegal work stoppage, we are legally authorized to proceed to fire" (workers), the spokesman said.

He added that the consortium acknowledges its lack of compliance with Panamanian labor law in some instances - violations that workers have denounced - and is working to resolve those issues.

The strikers began protesting Saturday to press for a salary hike, a solution to a lack of transportation for workers and more sanitary working conditions, among other demands.

The GUPC spokesman, meanwhile, said construction work on the third set of locks has resumed on the Pacific side, although he did not did not indicate why the consortium was no longer taking part in the negotiations.

Suntracs and executives from the four companies that make up the GUPC consortium said Wednesday that progress had been made in the talks and that there was a willingness among the different parties to reach an agreement.

In addition to Sacyr, the other members of the GUPC consortium - whose project is the most important component of a canal-expansion plan - include Italy's Impregilo, Belgium's Jan de Nul and Panama's Constructora Urbana.

Andrade said the workers will continue their strike until an accord is reached that meets their demands for better working conditions and a salary increase.

Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli said Thursday that the GUPC has not complied with some labor laws but that those problems were being resolved.

Andrade, meanwhile, also denounced the continued incarceration of 28 union members who were arrested Saturday in the Caribbean city of Colon during a protest in support of the strikers.

He said Suntracs will evaluate what actions to take to pressure for their release.

The goal of the canal-expansion plan, which encompasses several projects and is estimated to cost a total of $5.25 billion, is to double the waterway's annual capacity from 300 million tons to 600 million tons.

The canal, designed in 1904 for ships with a 267-meter (875-foot) length and 28-meter (92-foot) beam, is too small to handle the "post-Panamax" ships that are three times as big, making it necessary for some time to expand by building the new set of locks.

27-07-2010 om 22:23 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever   0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (0 Stemmen)
Categorie:Een uitgesproken "Grr#!!♪♫@||#♫♪☻"-Kitokojungle-Opinie !!

                                        WikiLeaks Founder On Afghan War Diary: Evidence Of War Crimes In Leaked Documents                                    

26-07-2010 om 22:38 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

26-07-2010 om 22:01 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

25-07-2010 om 23:36 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

Betreft:     Argumenten om de sociale zekerheid federaal te houden.

Het kan verkeren

-          Het aandeel Vlamingen in de Belgische bevolking zou in 2050 dalen tot 55,4% (vandaag 58%); het aandeel Walen stijgt van 32,6% naar 34,5% en het aandeel Brusselaars van 9,4% naar 10,1%.

-          De afhankelijkheidsgraad (aantal 65+ gedeeld door het aantal mensen op actieve leeftijd) situeert zich vandaag op 30,8% in Vlaanderen. Dit betekent dat er voor één oudere iets meer dan drie actieven zijn. De vergrijzing laat zich het sterkst voelen in Vlaanderen waar de afhankelijkheidgraad in 2050 61% zou bedragen. Dat betekent dat er net iets minder dan twee actieven zouden zijn voor één 65+ . In de twee andere regio’s zullen er in verhouding veel minder gepensioneerden zijn: in Wallonië zal de afhankelijkheidsgraad slechts 53,5% bedragen en in Brussel 40,4%.

●          Wallonië heeft wel een groter aandeel van de uitgaven voor kinderbijslag dan zijn bevolkingsaandeel: 34% tegen 55% voor Vlaanderen. Dit heeft uitsluitend te maken met de toekenning van sociale toeslagen voor werklozen. De reglementering en de toepassing ervan zijn volledig identiek voor elke regio.

●          Voor de werkloosheidsuitkeringen is er een groot verschil. De totale RVA-uitgaven nuanceren dit echter sterk: die bedragen respectievelijk 56,4% voor Vlaanderen en 33,8% voor Wallonië. Voor Brussel gaat het om 9,8% voor een bevolkingsaandeel van 9,4%. Er bestaat immers een belangrijk regionaal verschil tussen de basis-uitgaven in de werkloosheid en de andere uitgaven van de RVA m.b.t. het brugpensioen, de activering of werkgelegenheidsbevorderende maatregelen zoals de dienstencheques.

(Bron: jaarverslag RVA)

De meeste Vlaamse partijen pleiten er ondertussen ook voor om (delen van) de werkloosheidsverzekering te regionaliseren. Maar in elke gefederaliseerde staat wordt dit stuk sociale verzekering nu juist centraal gehouden! Voor evidente redenen: de verschillende economische sectoren zijn meestal geconcentreerd in een regio en een economische crisis van zo’n sector kan daarom beter opgevangen worden indien het risico gespreid is over een groter grondgebied.

●          Wat de pensioenen betreft blijkt uit een regionale verdeling dat de spreiding tussen pensioenen en inwoners momenteel nagenoeg gelijk is. Maar we toonden hierboven al aan dat in de toekomst meer pensioenuitgaven naar Vlaanderen zullen gaan.

●          De onevenwichtige verdeling wordt dus vooral door de bijdragen verklaard. Met 33% van de bevolking vertegenwoordigt Wallonië 26% van het bbp. De desindustrialisering is hiervan de oorzaak. Alhoewel de laatste cijfers wijzen op een geslaagde reconversie d.m.v. het Marshallplan, die resulteert in meer investeringen.

Het debat over de transfers binnen de sociale zekerheid heeft dus niets te maken met een debat over het al of niet misbruiken van de uitgaven, maar over de grenzen van de interpersoonlijke solidariteit.

Waar stop je overigens de solidariteit?

Transfers kun je ook op een lager niveau bekijken dan dit van de gewesten. Als de herverdeling op provinciaal niveau bekeken wordt dan zijn niet alle Waalse provincies netto ontvangers: Waals- Brabant draagt meer bij dan het terugkrijgt en West-Vlaanderen profiteert van de herverdeling. Zes van de acht West-Vlaamse arrondissementen ontvangen meer dan ze bijdragen. Enkel Brugge en Kortrijk dragen netto bij!

Transfers zorgen ook voor een ondersteuning van de koopkracht in Wallonië die de belang-rijkste handelspartner van Vlaanderen is.

Het probleem Brussel

Vooral voor Brussel met zijn miljoen inwoners (waarvan 30% migranten), maar ook tot ver daarbuiten, zal opsplitsing van de sociale zekerheid tot een onoverzichtelijke bureaucratie leiden. Geen enkel scenario van de voorstanders van splitsing geeft hierop een adequaat antwoord.

Nemen we het voorbeeld van de gezondheidszorg, want dat is de sector die het meest genoemd wordt om te splitsen.

In Brussel zijn vele (hooggespecialiseerde) gezondheidsinstellingen geconcentreerd. De patiënten met woonplaats in Vlaanderen en Wallonië, van buiten Brussel, maken dan ook elk zo’n 18% van de opnames in de Brusselse ziekenhuizen uit.

En de Brusselaars zelf laten zich dikwijls buiten Brussel verzorgen.

De steeds grotere specialisatie en de (kostprijs van) nieuwe technologieën pleiten veeleer voor schaalvergroting en internationalisering dan voor versplintering. Elk zichzelf respecterend ziekenhuis heeft zijn eigen specialiteit(en). In het universitair ziekenhuis van Leuven, bekend voor kankerbehandeling, worden jaarlijks zo’n 20.000 Walen en Brusselaars verzorgd. In Aalst worden hartoperaties voor inwoners uit heel België uitgevoerd. Luik is bekend voor hersenchirurgie, en Neder-Over-Heembeek voor zijn brandwondencentrum.

Welke prijzen zullen dan aangerekend worden? Het is nu al allemaal zo ingewikkeld! Zal elke dokter dan moeten rondlopen met twee of drie verschillende voorschriften- en attesten, naargelang zijn patiënt Waal, Vlaming of Brusselaar is? En hoe worden dan de kostprijzen tussen de verschillende Gewesten en/of Gemeenschappen verrekend?

Simpel op te lossen, zeggen de Vlaams nationalisten. Laat elke Brusselaar gewoon kiezen of hij tot de gezondheidszorg van Vlaanderen of Wallonië toetreedt. Die keuze zal natuurlijk door het goedkoopste systeem bepaald worden. Brussel geeft met één miljoen inwoners jaarlijks 2 miljard euro uit aan gezondheidsuitgaven; die uitgaven zullen dan volledig ten laste van het goedkoopste systeem komen… Gevolg: dat systeem zal zich aanpassen en duurder worden! We riskeren dus in een vicieuze cirkel naar beneden terecht te komen.

Regionale aanpak van de zorgverzekering

Vlaanderen baat zélf een stuk sociaal beleid uit: de zorgverzekering.

De zorgverzekering betreft een stelsel van tussenkomst in de niet-medische kosten van de zorg.

Door Europa wordt ze evenwel beschouwd als onderdeel van de sociale zekerheid.

Vlaanderen heeft  er al veel miserie met Europa mee gehad, dat ons discriminatie verweet. Uiteindelijk is de door Vlaanderen weerhouden oplossing dat Duitsers, Nederlanders, Fransen … die in Vlaanderen werken van de zorgverzekering genieten. Ook als ze in Wallonië wonen. Alleen de Walen die in Vlaanderen werken niet! Is dat dan logisch of rechtvaardig? Of eerder pesterij?

Werkt die zorgverzekering dan zoveel beter dan onze Belgische gezondheidszorg? Nu is onze Belgische gezondheidszorg bekend als één van de beste van de wereld: hoge kwaliteit, geen wachtlijsten en een gemiddelde kostprijs. Via sociale bijdragen en belastingen draagt iedereen bij naar draagkracht en vermogen.

De bijdragen die we voor de Vlaamse zorgverzekering betalen zijn echter forfaitair, dus voor elke Vlaming gelijk, ongeacht zijn inkomen, behalve voor de allerlaagste inkomens. Bij de Vlaamse zorgverzekering krijgt iedereen hetzelfde bedrag, zonder rekening te houden met de graad van zorgbehoefte van de persoon. Is dat dan zo vooruitstrevend?

Het zou veel logischer zijn om het pleidooi van Cantillon en Vandenbroucke te volgen en de thuishulp en de instellingen waar zorgbehoevende verblijven rechtstreeks te subsidiëren. Het geld zou dan toe komen bij wie het meest nodig heeft, de factuur voor rust- en verzorgingstehuizen zou betaalbaar worden en er zouden geen problemen met Europa zijn.

Geen duidelijkheid!

Over hoe die Vlaamse gezondheidszorg of sociale zekerheid er dan zou gaan uitzien, daarover zwijgen de Vlaamse pleitbezorgers als vermoord. Als maar gesplitst wordt, dat lijkt de enige zorg. Maar zal een splitsing automatisch leiden tot een goede gezondheidszorg of sociale verzekering voor iedereen? En hoe zal die betaald worden? Vragen waarover de mensen beter wakker geschud zouden worden. Geen antwoord, geen enkel uitgewerkt voorstel, geen garanties…!

Kameraadschappelijk.

Anne DEMELENNE,                                                               Rudy DE LEEUW,

Algemeen secretaris.                                                              Voorzitter.

16-07-2010 om 22:25 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever  

*

Tunnelvisie op brugpensioen

13 juli 2010

15-07-2010 om 22:53 geschreven door Vorser-Raadgever