Watts Up With That?
Monday , January 11th, 2010

England Buried In Snow – image from The Times

According to the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab,
last month had the second greatest December Northern Hemisphere snow
cover since records were started in 1966.  Snow extent was
measured at 45.86 million sq. km, topped only by 1985 at 45.99 million
sq. km.  North America set a record December extent at 15.98
million sq. km, and the US also set a December record at 4.16
million sq. km.

click for interactive source 

Source: December Snow Cover from Rutgers University

Source: December Snow Anomalies from Rutgers University

This is not an isolated event for 2009, as can be seen in the graph
below.  Seventeen of the last twenty-one Decembers have had above
normal snow cover.

Source: December Snow Cover Anomalies from Rutgers University

Nor is it an isolated trend for the month of December.
 January, 2008 was the second snowiest January on record, and six
out of the last eight Januaries have had above normal snow.

Source: January Snow Cover Anomalies from Rutgers University

October, 2009 was the snowiest October on record in the US, and
sixth snowiest in the Northern Hemisphere.  Twelve of the last
fifteen Octobers have had above normal snow cover in the Northern
Hemisphere, similar to the pattern of the 1970s.

Source: October Snow Cover Anomalies from Rutgers University

A favorite mantra of the global warming community is that reduced
snow cover will reduce the albedo of the earth and provide positive
feedback to global warming – causing additional warming.
 Clearly that is not happening, at least not during the October
through January time period.

2010 is also getting off to a fast start.  Most of Europe and North America is covered with snow, as is much of Asia.

Daily Snow Cover from Rutgers University

Dana Gabriel
Online Journal
Monday , January 11th, 2010

NAFTA has extended from economic integration into a political and
regional security pact which has been achieved through the Security and
Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, Plan Mexico, as well as
other initiatives. Various pieces of legislation and reports, along
with influential individuals have called for closer trilateral
cooperation regarding common rules for immigration and security
enforcement around the perimeter of the continent. A major part of the
U.S. security agenda already includes the defense of North America, but
a full blown security zone would bring Canada and Mexico further under
U.S. control. A Fortress North America poses a serious threat to our
sovereignty and would mean the loss of more civil liberties.

Plans for a North America security perimeter might have seemed like
a pipe dream just a short time ago, but it could become a reality
sooner than one thinks. Some believe that a perimeter approach to
security would be a more effective way of providing safety while
ensuring the free flow of trade and investment. For those pushing for
deep continental integration, this move is seen as the next logical
step. A recent article from the Toronto Star, Canada warms to idea of a tougher ‘perimeter’,
suggests that Canadians might now be ready to debate the idea of
perimeter security. David Biette who specializes in U.S.-Canada
relations and is a member of the Woodrow Wilson Center stated that a,
“Perimeter is no longer a dirty word. It’s beginning to
come up again, at least in academic circles.” He went on to say,
“Canada held back when it first came up and I can certainly
understand why. There was still such bad feeling left over on free
trade and what that might mean for Canadian sovereignty that perimeter
security was just not palatable to Canadians.” Biette also added,
“You ask yourself, ‘What would a mutually improved
relationship look like?’ and really, there is nothing else.
Perimeter is the one big thing – the last truly huge step on the
horizon.” A North American security perimeter would be one of the
final steps needed in the creation of a North American Union.

Some of the recommendations from the 2005 report, Building a North American Community co-sponsored
by the Council on Foreign Relations, included a unified border, a North
American border pass, a single economic space, as well as a common
security perimeter by 2010. Many of the task force recommendations in
areas of trade, transportation, energy, immigration and security became
part of the SPP agenda. Despite the demise of the SPP, many of its key
objectives continue to move forward under the North American Leaders
Summit, as well as through other initiatives. In February of 2009, it
was reported that former Canadian international trade and foreign
affairs minister, David Emerson,
“called on the government to aggressively seek stronger
Canada-U.S. ties, up to and including a customs union. He said at
minimum, Canada should advocate a North American security perimeter
arrangement, a labour mobility agreement that modernizes NAFTA
provisions, and greater integration on regulatory matters.” U.S.
officials remain concerned on how risk assessments of people entering
Canada are conducted as well as the differences in its immigration and
visa policies. A common perimeter approach to border management and
security would require harmonization of Canadian-U.S. immigration and
customs standards.

It was clear before Obama became president that he wished to relax
immigration restrictions with Mexico and supported some sort of amnesty
program. In mid-December of last year, H.R. 4321
the Comprehensive Immigration Reform ASAP Act of 2009 was introduced in
the House of Representatives. The Obama administration has been
criticized for its lack of immigration enforcement. Many have warned
that the new legislation would not only grant amnesty to millions of
illegal aliens, but also increase legal immigration and create more
loopholes in the system. In Sec. 143. Reports on Improving the Exchange
of Information on North American Security, there is wording which could
further promote deep continental integration. This includes yearly
status reports, “in developing and implementing an immigration
security strategy for North America that works toward the development
of a common security perimeter.” Previous failed security and
immigration bills also contained similar language referring to a shared
security perimeter around the continent.

The Merida Initiative, also known as Plan Mexico is an extension of
NAFTA and has its roots in the SPP. It is based on America’s
failed war on drugs, which has been costly and ineffective. The Merida
Initiative relies primarily on military and law enforcement solutions
and is advancing police state measures. In a recent interview, Laura Carlsen
director of the Americas Policy Program in Mexico City described how
Plan Mexico, “was designed in Washington as a way to ‘push
out the borders’ of the US security perimeter, that is, that
Mexico would take on US security priorities including policing its
southern border and allowing US companies and agents into
Mexico’s intelligence and security operations.” She also
commented that, “The Obama administration has supported the plan
and even requested, and received from Congress, additional funds beyond
what the Bush administration requested.” The Plan Mexico strategy
is working towards the development of a common security perimeter and
is further encouraging the militarization of Mexico. Continued drug
violence in the country could be used as a pretext to set up a North
American security perimeter

The recent foiled terrorist attack on Christmas day is accelerating
the implementation of a high-tech control grid which could restrict,
track and trace our movements. With the war on terrorism back in the
forefront, the continued merging of North America might include Canada
and Mexico playing a bigger role in regards to perimeter security.
Canadian officials have announced that within the next several months, body scanners
will be installed in 11 airports across the country. Some proponents of
a continental security zone believe that it is the best way to secure
North America, but at the same time falsely claim that this could be
done with respect to each nation’s sovereignty. We are well on
the way towards a North American security perimeter where trade and
investment will be able to roam freely, while we are all forced to
endure new security practices dominated by U.S. interests.

Mike Adams
Natural News
Monday , January 11th, 2010

In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.

Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies
currently being used for the “digital strip searches” being
conducted at airports around the world. “The Transportation
Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked
images of air travelers – backscatter x-ray technology and
millimeter wave technology,” reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b…)

In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons — high-frequency energy “particles” that can pass through clothing and body tissue.

The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could “…unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.”

In layman’s terms, any time you’re talking about
interfering with “gene expression” and “DNA
replication,” you’re essentially talking about something
that could be a risk to human health.

Never approved as safe for humans

“At first glance, it’s easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging,” reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo…).
“But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only
record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our
exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering
is what level of terahertz exposure is safe.”

And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials
indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated
over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in
particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even
though these devices clearly qualify as “medical devices.”

(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you’ll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)

The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

There, study authors conclude: “Based on our results we argue
that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect
the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular
processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.”

In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.

(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)

Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?

Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don’t yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.

How many times in the past have the “experts” told us
technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were
dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes
would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are
perfectly safe, we’re told — but then why do children who
live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?

Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health — a preposterous notion — and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn’t hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities
during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that
full-body scanners are safe when they’ve never been proven safe?
Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.

What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers
who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some
currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the
history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been
subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.

Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an
airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you
can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole
(which they do, when you’re talking on them anyway). But if
there’s one thing we all should have learned about radiation by
now it’s that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who’s to say they’re going to be safe?

What about pregnant women?
Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners
won’t damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this
technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?

I’m not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn’t it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?

As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC…)

“[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer
attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed
to very low doses of radiation.”

Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle
which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to
the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be
erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an
unproven, “experimental” technology with unknown long-term
effects on human DNA.

And here’s the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists
because they can’t detect powder explosives in the first place. A
determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a
sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on
luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives
that won’t be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how
detailed the images are.

Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because
these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules
will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need
then, if you’re a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.

Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe

Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.

When it comes to radiation safety, you can’t trust radiologists.
They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the
room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have
zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical
imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don’t have any real
clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!

As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty…)

“The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave
scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety
study is warranted.

‘I am very interested in performing a National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of
millimeter-wave security screening systems,’ said Thomas S.
Tenforde, council president.”

The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h…)

“Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners
incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or
millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts
believe.”

NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.

Resources:

Physics Letters, January 8, 2010
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294

Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo…

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim…

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h…

Congressman says scandal proves need to strip Federal Reserve of its powers

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, January 11, 2010

Congressman Ron Paul has called for Treasury Secretary
Timothy Geithner to be fired for his involvement in the AIG bailout
scandal, adding that the fiasco proves the Fed should be stripped of
its powers and audited.

Explosive emails released last week could see Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner become embroiled in criminal charges for his role in a cover up that exposes the monumental criminality behind the $182.3 billion bailout of American International Group Inc.

In November and December 2008, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York
instructed the bailed out AIG to hide from the public details regarding
payments the insurance giant made to banks, including Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA.

Using Fed secured taxpayer bailout money, AIG paid several banks 100
percent of the face value of credit-default swaps, as other financial
institutions were negotiating deep discounts for the unregulated paper
assets that do not have to be backed by cash.

Via his Texas Straight Talk phone update, Congressman
Paul said today that Geithner had helped hide from taxpayers the fact
that banks were compensated for “making some horrifically bad
decisions”.

“These banks should have suffered the
consequences of the huge risks they were taking,” said the
Congressman. “After all, they kept plenty of rewards when times
were good. Instead, the Fed found a way to socialize these major losses
so these banks could survive and continue making more bad decisions, at
the expense of the American people and the value of the dollar.”

Paul pointed out that claims the bailout helped save
the economy are directly contradicted by the latest job figures, which
show 85,000 job losses in December and the unemployment rate, which
according to traditional calculations stands at a whopping 22 per cent.

“It is hard to argue that this sort of government
waste has done anything but harm to our economy,” said Paul.
Raiding Main Street to bail out Wall Street is a foolish idea. Main
Street productivity and the strength of the dollar is the bedrock of
the economy. You cannot gut this foundation without eventually toppling
everything else. This is what too many policy makers either don’t
understand or refuse to face. Or even worse, perhaps they do
understand, but don’t care!”

The Congressman added that the whole fiasco only
underlined the preposterousness of the claim that the Federal Reserve
should retain its independence.

“This claim that the Fed should have
“independence” is a canard,” said Paul. “They
very much enjoy their comfortable pattern of bailing out friends and
devaluing the currency with no oversight and no accountability.
Geithner specifically asked officials at AIG not to disclose to the SEC
or to the public particulars about this special deal for his friends.
We only know these details now because AIG was eventually forthcoming
when Congress demanded some answers.”

Paul said that Geithner has been “praised and
thanked” for his actions but instead should be “rebuked and
fired,” while the scandal proves that the Fed should be stripped
of its power to engage in “experimental” monetary policy in
the future.

Watch a clip of the Congressman’s comments below.