State subsidies for water, electricity, pesticides and fertilizers encourage land, water and energy abuse, further destroying the soil and inflating fiscal deficits.  Dwindling water will lead to wars in the long run if laws for fair water usage are not established now.  Less than 0.08% of all the Earth's fresh water is useful for human needs.  In the next two decades, human use is estimated to increase about 40% (graph 1, 2).  In 1999, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)  showed a report from 200 scientists in 50 countries that pointed out that water shortages was one of the two most urgent problems (the other was global warming) and now growing.  About 70% of the water is used in agriculture now.  The World Water Council calculates that by 2020 we shall need 17% more water than is available if we are to feed the masses ( graph A and B).In Israel, water is treated as a precious commodity.  Its agricultural methods must be followed.

                PROJECTION OF WATER USE IN 2010 GRAPH (A) (B)  (Printed with permission)

4)   FARMING, GOVERNMENTAL SUBSIDIES, AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION:   According to the Heritage Foundation, U.S. farm policy "is based on the premise that a surplus of crops has lowered crop prices too far and farmers need subsidies to recover lost income”. However, the federal government's remedy is to offer subsidies that increase as a farmer plants more crops. This creates greater crop surpluses, driving prices down even further and spurring demands for even greater subsidies.  It estimates that this subsidy will cost US tax payers $462 billion over 10 years, i.e. $4,377 per average US household.  These subsidies are making the USA unpopular at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where USA negotiators have been trying to get other countries to reduce their agricultural subsidies.  Abolishing subsidies ( which are trade barriers)  would enable poorer nations to sustain their economies by exporting more of their own products and free trade would rule, causing prices to reflect the real market needs and not the artificial prices established by politicians.  Many a foreign farmer cannot compete with the US and European highly subsidized and modernized farm products, so he is out of business, causing further poverty in these poor countries.  In most poor countries, all they have is their farms and hands to seek a living ( photo A and B).  Their countries are too poor to subsidize them.

5)   GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEEDS:   (referred to as GM or GE):  There is a new threat to food production and biodiversity: genetically altered seeds.  Once planted, some are engineered to  produce infertile seeds, so farmers cannot save the “seeds” for the next year’s crops.  This causes dependence of farmers on the seed companies.  These plants have caused cross pollination with natural seeds, altering the fertile plant’s ability to be fertile in the future.  One such multi-national conglomerate that produces such seed is Monsanto.  Some of these companies are  purchasing seed companies worldwide in order to monopolize the market, and only sell non-fertile varieties of seeds. There is danger of famines with these type of seeds, as mentioned under our chapter on CLONING.  These GE seeds are expensive, and should farmers not be able to afford them for next year’s crop, can cause disastrous declines in food production.  Monsanto has successfully sued farmers whose crops contain some of the genetically altered plants i.e. Monsanto found some of their GE plants in fields belonging to farmers who did not purchase their seeds because their seeds had cross pollinated and appeared in some fertile farmers’ land.  This new litigious era in the agribusiness will further erode our ability to feed the masses.  The Secretary to the Advisory cause Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) presented a paper that shows declines in farmland, wildlife and serious concerns regarding genetically modified crops.  The document outlines initiatives to combat the current GM seed situation (23).

               Geerta Ritsema, GM Campaign Coordinator of Friends of the Earth/ Europe said in reference to the genetically modified seeds: “For the European Commission to allow GM seed proposals is a recipe for disaster.  These seeds will lead to the widespread contamination of Europe's food, farming and environment and take away the consumers ability to avoid GM.  European member states must step in where the Commission has failed and ban these GM seeds if they prove dangerous to the environment after no less than 5 years of testing.  Friends of the Earth welcome this decision and believe that the Governmental Commission now has a golden opportunity to bring out better proposals that will protect people and the environment.  Public safety must come before the financial interests of the biotechnology industry and monopolies must never be allowed”.       

6)   GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS:   (GMO) is a genetically engineered plant or animal to which other species’ genes have been introduced in order to have them express a specific trait.  For example, some tomatoes have fish genetic material engineered in their make-up, so that they have longer shelf life.  Mixing species is altering our natural biodiversity in ways in which we cannot tell what their future impact will be. We do not know if these will endanger natural species.  We must advocate to have years of testing before they are considered “safe”.  This unfortunately is not done, and therein lays the danger.  Human meddling with nature can bring surprising problems that sometimes are deadly. One example of how unexpected problems can take place:  when farmers started feeding proteins (meat scraps) to cows in the hopes that they would fatten faster. Since cattle are not physiologically able to digest meat, mad cow disease appeared as a complication.  These new man-created diseases are totally unpredictable, but their impact is deadly to economies and species.  Susan Davidson, organizer of The Vermont Genetic Engineering Action Network mentions that: “very little testing is being performed on genetically engineered seeds and their resulting crops before they are released to market – and the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA have shifted or bypassed regulatory standards in their zeal to support these firms and their new technologies.  The FDA currently does not require labeling of genetically engineered foodstuffs; the consumer right to know is only enforced by the FDA when it deems that the food has undergone a ‘qualitative change’ by virtue of an ingredient or a process.  The FDA has thus effectively stated that willfully manipulating a plant’s genetic structure by mating it with a species that would not naturally be a viable breeding partner, thereby creates a new life form, and does not constitute a qualitative change to the plant itself” (24).  In light of this, new regulations must be written to prevent future disasters.  GMO’s and GE seeds should be tested as stringently as human medicines are prior to their release into the market for assurance that no danger will ensue from their utilization.

AGRO POLITICS:   Unfortunately, politically connected companies are the ones who obtain permits, and governments with their regulatory offices look the other way, as these billionaire companies purchase connections and politically get their agendas approved.  Most of the public is unaware of this.  In reference #25, there is a complete list of multi-national companies that produce genetically engineered seeds and organisms.  These are some of the leading companies: Monsanto, DuPont, Aventis, Novartis, and Syngenta.  A list of some products where products from these seeds are utilized mention: Coca Cola, Fleishmann’s margarine, Fritos, Green Giant Harvest Burgers, Karo Corn Syrup, Kraft Salad Dressings, McDonalds French Fries, Nestle Crunch, Nutrasweet, Quaker Oats corn meal, Roundup and Similac Infant Formula among others  (24) (25).   About 20 years ago, approximately 7000 world seed companies reached 10% of global markets.  Since then, only 10 companies survived and now control over 40% of the worlds’ market (26).

AGRO EDUCATION:   Governments must aid farmers with education regarding better agricultural techniques, including encouragement for reforestation, alternating crops, mixed crops and planting/tilling techniques to prevent soil erosion.  Water conservation using Israeli techniques should be taught.  Cooperative marketing, based on free enterprise farming, allows farmers to share equipment, buy and sell products as a team. This stimulates farming, increases incomes and makes the middle man unnecessary.  Public schools and health care facilities must be brought to the country to assure settlements.  Logistic and distribution systems must be made available in rural areas and offered to all farmers to enable commercialization of their products.  Systems, such as farmers markets must be encouraged by governments to enable farmers to sell their products directly to consumers.  The alternatives are decreased food supply and human migration to the cities, creating subhuman slums like those in Mexico City, Manila or Calcutta.

FORESTRY: Trees and plants are the lungs of the world since they are our oxygen producers.  They clean the atmosphere of C02, retain moisture, prevent land erosion and provide habitats to wildlife.  Worldwide massive deforestation is aggravating desertification, drop in water tables and global warming ( graph C, D photo C).

(Printed with permission)  PHOTO C    http://www.tcha.org.au/Starvation-creek.jpg

               Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower USA’s 48 states have been cleared away.  The majority of the remaining old-growth forests are on public lands.  In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is earmarked for logging under the current administration.  

The following are estimated worldwide yearly average rates of deforestation in acres during 1990-1995        
                                                                                                         
(Printed with permission)                                                                                                                                     GraphD                                 

               Land protection of arable and forest has been so successful in Japan that their ideas can be used as a blue print.  This includes encouraging vertical dwelling in order not to diminish arable land and allowing for plant and animal habitat (27).

A major part of the deforestation problem is that many people take the short-term profit even though patience is more profitable.  The New York Botanical Garden and Yale University reported in the l989 issue of Nature that one hectare of Brazilian rainforest can produce $6,330 dollars if it is left as is, selectively harvesting its fruit, latex and timber over 50 years.  The same hectare, transformed into a timber plantation, would produce $3,184 during 50 years; if that hectare were used for cattle farming, it would produce $2,960 during that same period.  But, because that same hectare would produce $1,000 immediately when it is logged, the owner invariably takes that one-time income, leaving nothing for his children's future.  Bad governance has shown how forests and peoples depending on them have also been harmed.  Some of the funds loaned by the World Bank have caused disastrous effects in Cambodia, for example, as reported by Brettonwoods org. (28)

INTERNATIONAL DEBT:   The World Bank loaned $22.3 billion to foreign countries in 2005.  Developing countries owed $2.28  trillion in 1990 in international debt according to the World Bank.  This debt also requires interest payments, which these countries can hardly afford.  Valuable forests had to be cut or burned to raise crops for farms ( photo A) or logging in order to pay the debts to make ends meet. To a great extent poverty and hunger are political .  Farm subsides in the USA make it so that it is impossible for many poor farmers in third world countries to compete with the US products; thus they go hungry.  These poor countries have then to ask for foreign aid, and end up paying interest to the lender nations that caused them this unfair competition.  What is needed is a fair playing field.  Stop the farming subsidies in the USA and elsewhere and give the local farmer’s worldwide a chance to make their products competitive so they can feed their own.  In July, 2005 during the G8 meeting, some of the billions of foreign debt were forgiven realizing the desperate situation these loans are causing poor economies. (29).

WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES:   Barber Conable, President of the World Bank said: "Sound Ecology is good economics”.  Ecological niches are disappearing due to city sprawl, over hunting and over fishing are decimating our natural resources.  Destruction of one species causes repercussions in others that we cannot predict.  The creation of national parks in order to save one's natural heritage can create pockets of wildlife reserve, a genetic bank of invaluable proportions.  Modern medicine, agriculture, veterinary sciences have gleaned enormous knowledge from plants and animals for treatments, food supplies etc.  Preserving countless species will, in time, give us further opportunities to discover more natural wonders.  Natural habitats can never be replaced by zoos  Vertical dwelling is urgently needed to stop this environmental degradation.  Farmers, in order to subsist, cut or burn forests to raise crops, cattle, or for logging and to pay debts ( photo A, C)  Developing countries owed $2.28 trillion in 2005 in international debt according to the World Bank in 2005’s report.  At 1% annual interest, the interest alone is $22.8 billion annually which these countries could hardly afford.  Thomas Lovejoy, counsel to President Bush and later to President Clinton and deputy chairperson for the World Wildlife Fund recommended the novel idea: “Debt for Nature and Development Swap”.  The idea recommends that countries or private organizations purchase part of their debts, and in return the debtor countries conserve these valuable lands to allow native species and plants to remain in their natural habitats.

CLONING and ETHICS: Evolution has learned through millions of years that survival of the species depends on biodiversity.   Cloning is the opposite of genetic development.  We endanger genetic biodiversity and progress of the species by encouraging cloning.  One end of the spectrum for example is the amoeba.  Amoebas clone themselves with the exact same genetic material over and over, so there is no chance for evolution and biodiversity.  Humans, in the other end, survive by having genetic diversity. This is done  in order to strengthen the species, assures new generations the ability to adjust to environmental and life’s changes by never replicating one’s same genes.  It is because of this that we never marry our own siblings or the species would weaken.  The Irish potato famine that killed 2 million people could have been prevented had there been a greater variety of potatoes in their crops. Some varieties that would not have been susceptible to the fungus that killed the crops could have made the difference and millions of people would have survived. However, Ireland planted very few varieties, and none were able to survive the blight, causing this catastrophe.  This example teaches us that limiting genetic pools can be devastating to populations and economies.  Genetic engineering is creating seeds and animals that are limited in their genetic pools for they are replicated or cloned, threatening the essence of biodiversity and evolution.

               In a world that lives with prejudice, racism and is facing limiting families, genetic manipulation could lend itself to people the likes of Hitler to use cloning for population control and choosing only the ones they conclude are "ideal prototypes" and eradicating those that are not the “chosen” ones.  Because of these reasons, human cloning is unethical.  The movie THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL is a chilling reminder of what mankind is capable of dreaming up in order to control the world.

               Science uses animal, vegetable bacterial, viral, microorganism’s DNA for diverse uses in cloning.  In this narrow scope, cloning is useful and ethical.  For example, some day, we will be able to clone microorganisms that carry genetic material capable of producing certain exact enzymes or substances necessary for our health that can be introduced into humans who lack them.  By cloning these cells, one can assure pure standardized material production that can be regulated and lifesaving.  The future of many branches of medicine is in the hands of genetic engineering. 

              To think that cloning a loved one would replace him/her is folly.  The clone will have the same genetic material, but the circumstances surrounding it will not be the same, thus it will never be able to replicate the essence, "the spirit" of the loved one.

ABORTION:   Lack of knowledge of family planning, and poor mores show that in 2002, the World Health Organization registered 46 million reported abortions worldwide, 20 million under unsafe conditions. 
               Maternal mortality from abortion is low in developed countries, where the procedure is legal (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions).  In developing regions where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher than in countries where these are legal (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions).  The high mortality is due to "unsafe" abortions.  The World Health Organization defines "unsafe abortion" as a procedure for terminating an unwanted pregnancy that is performed by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both.  Abortions face varied degrees of maternal and infant mortality. The USA spends $13 billion/year for the expense of its unwanted pregnancies, according to Profefssor James Trussell, PhD, a Princeton University economist and director of the school's Office of Population Research (ref B).
               An estimated 150 million women in developing countries want to delay or stop childbearing, but cannot afford contraceptives, are unable to find family planning services readily because some governments will not provide them, some because they fear their partner’s retaliation, and some, and some find themselves pregnant because no contraceptive method is perfect. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute annually, there are about 46 million reported abortions worldwide.  These represents 22% of the 210 million pregnancies that occur yearly that we know of, as often abortions are not reported. The Safe Motherhood Initiative, launched by the United Nations Population Fund UNFPA, UNICEF, WHO, UNDP, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and the Population Council provide contraceptive and family planning aid, comprehensive education, information on sex communicable diseases and prevention services and follow-up care. 
               Abortion is not morally accepted by some religious organizations, carries mortality and morbidity, and must not be considered a form of family planning.  Many women have physical and emotional scars from this.  To bring into the world a child where one does not have food to feed it, funds to cloth or time to love it because one’s time is already taken to make ends meet to feed the other siblings that are already here, is a terrible dilemma, something that best be prevented by family planning.  However, under the circumstances, facing an unwanted pregnancy, if the woman chooses abortion based on her personal belief, laws and governments must respect her choice.
               Statistics show how sex education makes a positive impact in all aspects of its population.  For example, countries like Japan and Sweden, where sex education is part of the school curriculum, have a much lower incidence of communicable diseases, unwed mothers, rapes and abortions when compared to th USA, where sex education is not enforced countrywide (chart 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A).

Legal Abortions Reflect Lesser Maternal Deaths

PRACTICAL  MEDICAL SOLUTIONS:    family planning, sexually transmitted diseases and infant mortality.

                1)   Prevention   by means of education is the most practical of solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and infant mortality.  Education starts at home and a person’s future happiness and success depend on parental teachings, love and devotion to their children.  According to a Canadian Correctional Research, good family relations may play a more significant role than criminal sanctions in deterring crime or on legislating social mores.  If marriage and good parenting reduce the numbers of criminal offences, family supports are much more important than legislation in deterring crime and recidivism rates.  This applies also to promiscuity, drugs, rape, abortions and unwed mothers.  The Canadian report shows that people are more concerned about losing their family's love and respect than about being arrested or imprisoned.  To expect laws to replace good parenting is irresponsible and harms lives.  Sexual mores, responsibility and obligations for respecting love, sex, marriage, and self, must be taught at home.  Parents who fail to educate their children in these arenas face the sad consequences along with their children and grandchildren.  Many families will not discuss sex education or responsible family planning at home, yet expect their children to know about this and are  surprised when they fail.  In a culture where sex education is lacking, the government has to step in, and teach basic principles to prevent social disintegration.  Current USA political thinking believes that teaching sex education in schools encourages promiscuity.  This is not true as the facts in the enclosed graph show.   (Impact of sex chart (A)   (CHARTS K))

                2)   Sex Education   Parental, or to a lesser degree, institutional education is the solution to prevent AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases and to avoid the 45 thousand children that die every day in third world countries from disease and starvation.  If families, because of personal or religious reasons, prefer to teach their children these concepts themselves, governments must respect their wishes, but national testing must be a requisite.  Lack of knowledge in family planning, and poor mores show that in 2002, the World Health Organization registered 46 million reported abortions worldwide, 20 million under unsafe conditions.  The USA spends $13 billion /year for the expense of its unwanted pregnancies according to Professor James Trussell, PhD, a Princeton University economist and director of the school's Office of Population Research (B).

               Statistics show how sex education makes a positive impact in all aspects of its population.  Countries like Japan and Sweden, where sex education is part of the school curriculum, have a much lower incidence of communicable diseases, unwed mothers, rapes and abortions ( chart 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A)

                                                                                                          (Printed with permission)

From the book: WHERE WE STAND by M. Wolff has a 1991 comparison the United States, Sweden and Japan, and some updated figures from UN, and WHO 2004   http://guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3202400.pdf

AIDS/HIV - SIDA is growing worldwide in part due to insufficient funds and lack of education.  Lack of sex education is not only costly in human suffering but in economic terms to tax payers.  Following is the average USA annual cost for treatment of sexually communicable diseases: $9.3-15.5 billion in the mid-1990’s:
 

 SEXUALLY COMMUNICABLE DISEASES PER 100,000

USA  vs. SWEDEN

               *Adolescent rates are calculated using the number of infection cases at ages 15-19 per 100,000 populations CHART (3A)

   CHART (4A)  (Printed with permission)

WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS:   The United Nations unanimously agreed in 1994 that overpopulation is the major problem facing the world.  However, they pointed out that this cannot be solved without addressing women and children’s rights. In a world where unwanted pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, steal food from the children already here, impose nations' expenses for their sustenance that they cannot afford, it is unconscionable to deny an abortion to the woman who wants to undergo said procedure under safe and legal conditions. 

               Hunger forces some parents to use and abuse their children.  In some, poverty, lack of education and women’s rights as well as worldly pressures brings out machismo or abusive male control.  Here are some examples of what violations are done to women and children as mentioned by the UN:

COMMON VIOLATIONS:

1)     About 60 million girls are” missing" mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect.

2)     Domestic violence is a frequent cause of suicides among women.

3)     Rape and other forms of sexual violence are increasing. Many rapes go unreported because of the stigma— less than 3 % in South Africa    to about 16 % in the USA report due to shame.

4)     Two million girls worldwide between ages 5 and 15 enter in the commercial sex market per year.

5)     At least 130 million women have been forced to undergo female genital mutilation.

6)     The majority of battered women worldwide are afraid of using contraceptives for fear of spousal retaliation.

7)     Malnutrition contributes to more than half of children’s deaths worldwide.

8)     70% child labor is in subsistence agriculture. (2002)

9)     211 million, i.e. 1/6 the of the world’s children under age 15 works.

10)  About 8.4 million children are in the worst forms of child labor: bonded labor, military service, and drug trafficking and the sex industry. Most common, especially in Asia, is forced and bonded labor. In the developed world and Latin America, the most prevalent is the sex industry.

                     1-6 data from: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html

                        7 data from: http://www.basics.org/pdf/MCM-English.pdf

                  8-10 Data from: The International Labor Organization's 2002 report     (ref G) and (ref H)

            One in four maternal deaths could be prevented by family planning according to the US Center of Disease Control.  Maternal mortality from abortion is low in developed countries, where the procedure is legal (0.2-1.2 deaths per 100,000 abortions).  In developing regions where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, abortion mortality is hundreds of times higher than in countries where these are legal  (330 deaths per 100,000 abortions see Chart 5A).  The high mortality is due to “unsafe” abortions.  The World Health Organization defines "unsafe abortion" as a procedure for terminating an unwanted pregnancy that is performed by a person lacking the necessary skills or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both.  Almost 20 million unsafe abortions occur each year (ref H). 

PERINATAL CARE:   Pre and post partum infant and mother care is most important for their health and well being, not to speak of the welfare for others in the family, which overall influences the national spirit.  Now young girls are getting infected with HIV and becoming mothers before reaching biological and social maturation.  Perinatal care includes finding and making available effective methods for dual protection - from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and from unwanted pregnancy.  Dr. G. Brundtal, director of the World Health Organization mentioned in 2002: “There were between 6 to 8 million perinatal deaths yearly.  This can be greatly reduced by implementing basic reproductive health approaches, including family planning, adequate diet, prevention and management of maternal infections.  Alleviation of hunger and malnutrition is a fundamental pre-requisite for poverty reduction and sustainable development.  More than 570 million of the world's women suffer from anemia that complicates pregnancy and affects infants too.  Under-nutrition in-utero permanently increases the risks of heart disease and stroke in adult life.  Improving nutrition of the whole family is important.  Long-term effects of fetal under-nutrition could be a drawback that will be carried forward through several generations.  Iodine is one such example.  It is the main single cause of preventable brain damage , goiter and vision loss. By adding iodine to salt, we eliminate the problem” (95).

 CONTRACEPTIVES:   There are various forms of contraceptive methods; none are 100% successful or safe. Enclosed are summaries of how various of these methods compare ( chart 6A)

             A)   NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING:   For religious or medical reasons, some choose not to use contraceptives or barrier methods for contraception but prefer these methods, called “the Rhythm”, symptom-thermal (Billings Method) and Calendar requiring periodic abstinence.  These have the highest incidence of pregnancy, as shown in the chart below.  The basic concept of these methods is that since healthy women have regular cycles, and ovulation takes place during mid cycle, abstinence during a 10 or more consecutive day period during mid-cycle, will reduce the chances of unwanted pregnancy.  Day one starts when menstruation starts, mid-cycle is usually around day 14 in a 28 day cycle.  In other words, abstinence has to be observed from day 10 through day 19 in a 28 regular menstrual cycling women.  Some women, however, have shorter or longer cycles, thus the calculation must shorten or lengthen the days of abstinence based on this fact.  If the woman is not regular, is ill or travels far, this will not work as cycles alter under these circumstances.

            B)   BREAST FEEDING:   Nursing mothers are protected from pregnancy during the first 3-6 moths after delivery.  Breast feeding, to work as a contraceptive method, must be done by healthy women in an uninterrupted fashion, provided no other food or liquid supplements are given to the infant and maternal milk is not to be given from a bottle according to Journal Contraception, 1994.  Maternal diet, no matter how poor, will not diminish natural milk's nourishment.  Baby food companies discredit mother's milk because of economic interest.  Nothing in nature is as healthy as breast milk.  Breast-feeding decreases maternal breast cancer and strengthens the mother child bond and improves the child's immune system as well as its psyche. for further reference read http://www.lalecheleague.org

            C)   MEDICAL CONTRACEPTIVES:   Since the advent of condoms and birth control pills, millions of unwanted pregnancies and abortions have been avoided.  There are more efficacious methods now.  For example: Norplant, a contraceptive capsule implanted in the skin, delivers a constant hormonal dose for a period of five years.  It can be removed with a small incision at any time, and will not damage reproductive ability of the user.  The “patch” type of transdermal adhesive contraception is popular.  However, it stigmatizes the user and often falls off with repeated washings.  The July, 2003 issue of Journal Contraception mentions that for adult women, the IUD Copper T and Merina hormone-releasing intrauterine device are less expensive and more effective than birth control pills, spermicidal, and diaphragms according to James Trussell, PhD, a Princeton University economist and director of the school's Office of Population Research.  Merina and IUD Copper T are about 99% effective in preventing pregnancies.  According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, The IUD Copper T remains effective for up to ten years and the Merina 5 years.  Professor Creinin, an Obstetrics and Gynecologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and director of its Family Planning and Research division, mentions: “IUDs are incredibly safe, incredibly effective, and easy to use.  They are extremely popular in other countries, but not widely used in the U.S.  This is likely because in the USA only about 20% of insurance companies cover their costs”.  Tubal ligation is irreversible and at times can produce adhesions. Professor Trussel calculates that the USA spends $13 billion per year for handling unwanted pregnancies alone.No figures are available of what the cost would be for the impact of these births after infancy on society.  Often these children are unwanted, and born into families with poor incomes where there is no time for them.  Some of these children, because of this, end up in institutions, have health problems, face poor education, end up on drugs, have psychological problems, face the wrong side of law,  end up in a life of crime and/or jail.  If one calculated these costs, in light that the planet that is running out of resources, not to teach sex education and withhold assistance in family planning is unethical (87).

            D)   Morning After Pill   method is recommended by the American College of Obstetricians in case of emergency when no contraceptive methods had been used.  This decreases between 75-89 % of pregnancies.  Of these, Preven and Plan “B” are the most popular in the USA.  These pills require a prescription.  They must be taken as soon as possible, no later than 72 hours after unprotected sex, and again 12 hours after the first set of pills.  Another emergency method is to take 2 regular birth control pills within the first 72hrs, and again two more 12 hrs after the first set of pills.  Repeated use of emergency contraception is not advised, for it will upset the normal hormonal cycle of the user since it provides a sudden surge of hormones. 

There was interest to determine if availability of the “morning after pills” would encourage promiscuity.  The January, 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association mentions a trial that included more than 2,100 women aged 15 to 24 found essentially the same rates of contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancies among those who were given a supply of the pill to take as needed, those who could get it directly from a pharmacy, and those who had to go to a clinic, proving that ready availability is not impacting sexual mores (87).

SUMMARY OF CONTRACEPTIVE EFFICACY 2004

% OF UNINTENDED PREGNANCIES PER YEAR USA
CHART 6A   (Printed with permission)

Source: Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. Contraceptive Technology: Eighteenth Revised Edition, Ardent Media, 2004 and other pharmacological and surgical sources. (M) Planned Parenthood of America * Data from Planned Parenthood USA; # needs prescription (office visit included/price) Lifetime, difficult to reverse (reversal surgery ranges from $3000-8,000)  (N) CONTRACEPTIVE TECHNOLOGY *** American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

CONTRACEPTIVES: ECONOMIC IMPACTS:   Planned Parenthood of America reports that for each dollar of government subsidy for birth control, it saves $11.10 in other medical and welfare costs. The savings do not include calculations for later live medical, educational and nutritional costs that arise from unwanted pregnancies or the ancillary social needs of numbers of children as they mature. In the USA only about 20% of health insurers cover the cost of birth control pills and other contraceptives, thus aggravating the population explosion. See reference:(ref O) and (ref P)

THE ETHICS OF WOMEN, and CHILDREN'S RIGHTS:   In 2002, the president of the World Health Organization, when speaking about the welfare of women and children said: “There is no room for complacency.  There are urgent tasks but it only works when the commitment comes from the president or prime minister.  The whole country must be able to speak openly about the danger, the causes and the solution.  Lack of open discussion and laws not providing protection for reproductive rights are not only unethical and a breach of basic human rights, but also lead to serious social and health problems for societies.  We must assist our colleagues in such countries so that they do not become unwitting or coerced accomplices to such practices.  These services are among the essential services of the minimal health system of every country.”  It includes finding and making available the effective methods for dual protection - from HIV and other sexually transmitted infections and from unwanted pregnancy”.  Contrary to this goal, in 2002, the US Government, however, announced a $15 billion package to fight AIDS, requiring that these funds be given so long as AIDS clinics are separated from family planning clinics.  Stand alone AIDS clinics could cause public shunning to many for the community would now know who is seeking AIDS help.  In the past, this was provided by healthcare facilities, where all reproductive, and prenatal needs were given, so one would not stand out in the crowd.  This idea thus deters many from visiting these facilities, which is medically unethical (Activities since 2000).
               The white house cut funding for family planning earmarked by congress to the United Nations’ Fund for Population Activities in 2000.  The UNFPA estimates that the withheld funds could have helped prevent as many as 2 million unwanted pregnancies and nearly 800,000 abortions; 4,700 maternal deaths and over 77,000 infant and child deaths in many countries.  The funds could also have been used to scale up promising maternal health and HIV-prevention efforts.  If we do not make health, sex education and family planning a priority, we might end up like China that waited too long, and now forces its people to limit families to only one child per family in order to avoid starvation.  The present devastation in Niger shows how lack of family planning is causing millions to flee their land, and starve to death. To see the impact of withholding sex educations in schools, we see how this is causing an alarming rate of sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the USA (See above discussions in various fields related to reproductive and sexual mores and charts A1,A2,A3,A4).

ENERGY and POLITICS .  Without energy, civilization as we know it would stop to a stand still causing chaos and economic havoc.  This fact was emphasized during the October symposium on energy and the environment by the University of Michigan in October, 2002.  For example, England on September 15, 2000, after cutting off petrol at the pumps for three (3) days, went into a total economic and social arrest.  (See the ECONOMIST magazine ,September 15, 2000 or (107).  It is because of scenarios like these that we devote so much emphasis to this chapter. Affordable, replenishable and environmentally safe fuel is paramount for economic stability and prosperity for all nations.  This is one of the biggest challenges for the future of civilization, aside from overpopulation and environmental degradation.
               Humanity flourished with the advent of antibiotics, vaccines, and by the industrial revolution (see graph in our home page: http://www.lifewatchgroup.org/).  The latter, fueled by coal, oil and hydroelectric power has caused mankind to be addicted to energy.  Now oil’s availability has peaked and shortly will be dwindling rapidly causing economic dislocations (30, 31).  The keynote speaker in his address to the National Energy Technology Lab of the US Department of Energy on February, 2005 said: "Liquid fuel prices and price volatility will dramatically and without timely mitigation affect the economic, social, and political costs to  unprecedented levels.  Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.”  Unfortunately, since no steps have been taken to mitigate this, time is not on our side.  The reason is political.  The fossil fuel industry is the most powerful political machinery affecting world policies today.  It is against their interest to warn us of impending shortages, to encourage conservation or to use alternate fuels.  President Jimmy Carter tried to take our economy toward fuel conservation and oil independence, and in so doing, paid the price by being maneuvered out office.  The Journal Science (December, 1972) confirms his ideas when it calculates that if we would cut our energy consumption by ¼ we would not have any significant changes in life-style.  This, however, would not be popular with the coal or oil cartels.

               The world is hostage to the oil industries. The threat of another Arab oil embargo can bring the world economy to a standstill if the oil supply is cut off, even for a few days: This sort of vulnerability is unacceptable.  The oil and coal industry have powerful economic connections with politicians, who would not dare upset this most rewarding relationship.  Therefore, no significant steps to encourage the establishment of policies that make alternative fuels price competitive are under way.  This is ever more pronounced in the case of the use of nuclear energy.  Fossil fuel industry’s propaganda against nuclear energy is shrill and well orchestrated (see: Politics of Nuclear Fuel in this page).  If we realize the staggering cost in health, military security and subsidies our oil dependence is costing, we would realize how costly this dependence is to our economies.  If we, however, would discourage subsidies for the oil industry and divert the subsidy funds for alternative fuels, these would become competitive, would break our oil dependence and diminish our concern from Arab or terrorist control that could cut off our fossil fuel supplies.  If we input these calculations and subtract the cost that our health and environmental degradation fossil fuels cost our world, we would realize that our current political path is against our national interest.   But since the politicians are being economically and politically rewarded to keep the status-quo, the voters are the losers.

               The economic impact of the OPEC is enormous.  It has received about $7 trillion USD from the USA’s consumers alone in the last 30 years by keeping the oil prices above their true value ( The Economist Magazine October, 2003).  If we add the cost of the recent Afghan and Iraqi wars, this adds 208 billion and the worldwide annual cost from global warming is and additional annual $300 billion plus countless other additional costs that this industry brings from health effects, oil spills, acid rain, etc.  These sums do not include the price of US military presence to protect the oil producing countries in that span of time or the sums from subsidies (data. from figures calculated by the US congress), and the global losses in crops, diseases, and pollution that fossil fuels are causing; the sums are staggering (32). 

               China’s National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) recently released a report that shows China has annual losses of $13 billion USD due to acid rain alone.  Dr. Rowland, a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and Noble Laureate calculates that China, alone, will have to spend $90 billion USD to curb acid rain.(33).

               The most serious impact of our fossil fuel dependence is the price in human lives, health and environmental damage (34).  A University of Michigan report shows the present exponential increase in human deaths caused by fossil fuel pollution and points out that:  the by-products that form from the burning of fossil fuels can exist in the air for indefinite periods of time.  They can enter the blood stream, irritating the lungs and carry with them toxic substances such as heavy metals and pollutants.  Over a lifetime of continued exposure, those affected could become afflicted with fatal asthma attacks and other serious lung conditions.  The World Resources Institute reports that between the years of 2000 and 2020, 8 million additional deaths worldwide will occur due to this impact if we fail to change our present conditions.  In 1990 alone, respiratory diseases were a leading cause of disabilities and illnesses worldwide.  Because the contamination is growing at an exponential rate, minor reductions now will greatly reduce the number of lives lost in the future.(35).

               In the 2004 Journal Nature, Thomas et al, in the largest multinational work regarding global warming caused by fossil fuel use, reports that the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction, and that when extrapolated globally, they conclude that more than a million species will face extinction.  Countless dollars are lost due to environmental damage caused by global warning worldwide.  The rising number of weather related diseases is charted by the US Environmental Protection Agency. (36).  To add up all the economic losses caused by exponential population growth, its fuel consumption, and our poor planning to address climatic changes, the figures will add up to trillions of dollars, something that politicians choose to ignore.

         Not long ago, government and tobacco lobbyists were colluding in the pretense that there was no real scientific proof that tobacco caused illness and death.  The leadership of the US Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop finally exposed this truth and tobacco companies have been the subject of countless suits for hiding the truth.  The fossil fuel industry follows the same tactics as tobacco companies, making allegations that global warming is not a real factor and that the losses are unrelated to fuel emissions.  Already, EPA Director Whitman, during the Bush administration, is now being sued by the state of Massachusetts for ignoring the clean air act while she held office.  This is the beginning of such awareness that is slowly coming to light and we predict that the industries that do no heed the clean air and water standards will suffer the same fate as tobacco companies.  The Prayer of this suit states:  “By so violating Section 304(ref a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(ref a)(2), EPA is unlawfully increasing the likelihood of harming the economic interests of the Plaintiff States ( Massachusetts), is unlawfully increasing the likelihood and severity of damage to property owned by each of the Plaintiff States, is unlawfully denying residents of each of the Plaintiff States the benefits due them under the federal Clean Air Act, and is unlawfully subjecting residents of each of the Plaintiff States to increased risks of harm to human health, welfare, and general economy that are associated with the continued unregulated emissions of carbon dioxide” (37).

        The damages  fossil fuels have brought reflected by global warming has caused great damage to us and to many species. The damage is already irreparable for some species that have become extinct, and many will follow by the time we switch to alternate energies.  In our chapter on the politics of fossil fuels and nuclear energy, one will see why admitting the fact that there is indeed global warming is not popular among the fossil fuel companies, as it will negatively affect their earnings. This is one of the reasons that the USA reneged on the Kyoto Accord to curb air and water pollution (63).

I)   FOSSIL FUELS:  Exponential population growth and unchecked fossil fuel use is causing global warming.  Fossil fuel, a finite sources of energy, is rapidly dwindling. WE HOWEVER WILL RUN OUT OF ENVIRNOMENT BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF FOSSIL FUELS as per the reports from the University of Michigan.  Worldwide, 40% of all energy comes from oil, 26% from coal and 24% from natural gas.  Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbors provide 2/3 of all oil supplies.  Because oil is dwindling, this is causing us to turn to the more plentiful natural gas now being used by about 90% of all new power plants in the U.S.  In addition, Big Oil is looking to hydrogen as the next major fuel source.  Hydrogen can be made from a number of raw materials, but the cheapest is to make it from natural gas.  The problem is that supplies of natural gas in the lower 48 states have been declining since 1976, when gas production in the U.S. reached its Hubert’s Peak.  This fact and the USA’s lack of infrastructure to import sufficient natural gas from abroad is reflecting dramatic price hikes, according to R Hirsch: Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management.

               The fragility of our economy is such that now that we do not have the 10 years advance notice to restructure our fuel needs, we urgently must encourage conservation and plan for alternative fuel supplies.  In spite of these facts, there is no political will to face the problems, and sometimes, politicians misinform us about the facts.  Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank, worried in June, 2003 that price spikes in natural gas prices could wipe out any economic recovery in the U.S.  On April 27th, 2005 Greenspan urged more access to natural gas, insinuating that there are vast untapped worldwide supplies, something that is  misleading. (38).

(A)   PETROLEUM, NATURAL GAS and HOW MUCH IS LEFT?:   In 1994 the University of Colorado correctly reported that the USA would run out of oil in about 15 years, gas in 30 years and coal in 200 years at the present and future rate of consumption.  This report takes into account the future population growth and that 58% of supplemental oil is imported.  According to the US Energy Information Administration’s 1995 Report, all the world's oil reserves will be exhausted within 43 years, gas within 66 years and coal within 150-235 years at the expected rate of the population’s increasing demands.  These reports take into account fossil fuel already discovered and yet to be discovered.  These figures seemed unreal but they have now proven to be true.  The latter data has also been confirmed by OPEC, OECD and British Petroleum. See charts (D and E). In a July, 2000 article of the Journal Science, Kerr mentions that a new 5-year assessment of the store of oil bodes ill for the United States.        

The graph(D) below (reference of the "Hubert Curve,") is based on an Ultimate Recovery of conventional oil of 1750 GB (Giga = Billion barrels) and depicts alternative scenarios of production.  The Swing Case assumes a price leap when the share of world production from a few Middle East countries reaches 30%.  This is expected to curb demand, leading to a plateau of output until the Swing countries reach the midpoint of their depletion when resource constraints force down output at the then depleted rate.  [From The Twenty First Centuries, the World's Endowment of Conventional Oil and its Depletion, by Dr. Colin Campbell, 1996] In the 2000 meeting of the Energy Institute of the Americas in Oklahoma, M. Simmons admitted: “We have an Energy Crisis as too many key parts of the world have run out of the ability to increase electricity demand, natural gas demand and petroleum demand. All three prime sources of energy converged into a limit against further growth almost simultaneously” (41).

(GRAPH D) Hubbert Peak Curve (Printed with permission)

Facing high gas prices at the pump makes many think that this is a political manipulation by Big Oil and that soon the prices will go down.  In 2004 some voters cast for continuation of our war in Iraq hoping this would bring oil prices down.  According to the results of a study by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC), the growing oil demand and dwindling oil supplies are the real cause of rising prices. The enclosed graph (D), courtesy of Hubbert Peak will help understand the dynamics of oil production, prices and availability taking into mind the growing consumption of known and untapped fossil fuel sources.  As oil production drops, natural gas is gaining popularity since it is cheaper than gasoline and propane and is relatively environmentally friendly.  A natural gas vehicle may cost slightly more than the non-NGV version.  Canada offers grants and rebates that allow offsetting for the vehicles’ prices.  The fuel costs show immediate savings.  These vehicles require less frequent maintenance due to cleaner burning fuel.  Nevertheless, this still has a negative environmental impact due to CO2 emission (42).

                The question, however, is not really whether we have or do not have oil to burn. The question is what oil is doing to our health, environment, and economy, for we will run out of environment before we run out of fossil fuels.  This was emphasized during the symposium on energy and the environment presented in October, 2002 by the University of Michigan.  In July, 2005 the G 8 Summit had all members, except for the USA, agreed that global warming and the Kyoto accord are urgent in their agenda.  However, the current US administration keeps refusing to see the implications of postponing the addressing of this problem of clean air and water that the Kyoto accord requires.  Contrary to these facts, the US Senate voted to allow drilling in the Alaska natural park as a “remedy” to increase its own oil supplies, perpetuating our oil dependence instead of legislating conservation and alternate fuels.  The Alaskan wells will take over 10 years to reach production and will produce about 2 years of the USA’s present consumption of oil supply, according to the May, 2005 issue of Scientific American.  If however we opted for fuel efficiency, it has been calculated that improving gas efficiency by 3 gallons per mile, the US would save PER DAY what the Alaska oil field would produce in its entire peak year, something our leaders do not want to encourage.(43).

                (B)   COAL   Coal fueled the industrial revolution transforming our civilization forever.  Coal is the world’s most plentiful cheap source of fossil energy, but it is dirty.  About 56% of the US electricity is coal generated and more so worldwide.  Coal plants, according to the National Council on Radiation Protection and (NCRP) Reports No. 92 and No. 95 show that the radioactive exposure’s effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.  Coal combustion emits not only uranium and thorium but also radium, radon, polonium, bismuth, and lead.  Also, radioactive potassium-40, mercury, arsenic, silicon, calcium, chlorine, lead, sodium, plus aluminum, iron, lead, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium and others are continually dispersed into millions of tons of coal combustion by air and water, causing disease and death. According to the (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, i.e., for example, in 1982 the total release of radioactivity from 154 coal plants in the United States was 2,630,230 millicuries.  Extrapolating these calculations worldwide, the projections from 1937 through 2040 can be determined to have a release of radioactivity 2,721,736,430 millicuries! (44)  Although not a fair comparison, one could calculate that this sum of radioactivity would represent 1.3 atomic bombs per year or 135 atomic bombs in that period of time (Hiroshima-type 20,000 ton atomic bomb based on a study performed for a hypothetical global nuclear war (P.R. Ehrlich, et. al., “Long-Term Biological Consequences of Nuclear War”, Journal Science, 222, 1293 (1983)

               Fossil fuel emissions are also changing weather patterns, causing more numerous hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, forest fires, and mud slides, increasing global temperatures that are, in turn, causing desertification and altering habitats.  According to Professor B. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh, coal plant emissions are responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year (45).

               Coal mining requires vast land excavation, thus causing ecological disruption.  There have been no incentives for coal companies to maximize their efficiency.  Studies show that they can be optimizing their efficiency up to a maximum of 8%.  New “clean coal emission” technology that captures CO2 emissions, controlling mercury and radioactive materials are slowly being implemented.  Since this is costly, many will not implement these regulations, especially in third world countries.  In order to impose emission reduction we must impose tariffs to their products to offset our cost of our national pollution control.  Not doing so will encourage their pollution and makes for unfair competition.  To expect other countries to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol to curb greenhouse gases is difficult for the USA because, as President Bush said in a 2001 speech: “For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases”.  So, in other words, he said NO  to clean air and no to clean water as per the Kyoto Protocol.  The USA refuses to accept the big picture and shrugs off  our debilitating oil dependence at the cost of its national security, its health and economy.  The losers are mankind and the environment.

(II)   HYDROELECTRIC POWER:   About 25% of the world’s energy needs are supplied by hydroelectric power and growing since it is economical and “clean”.  The USA relies on 11% of its needs from this source.  If we weigh the real impact of hydroelectric power, however, we realize that harnessing rivers upsets the ecosystem and destroys the flooded land.  For example, Egypt's Aswan Dam studies reported in the Journal Science, April, l988, that conservatively, within eighty years from now the dam's effect will cause the sea level to rise about one meter, leaving the delta region submerged within 30 Km off the coast.  The dam is trapping its silt, causing impoverished crops with negative long term impact on their agriculture.  The dam brought a higher standard of living to Egypt for now, as well as a more controlled irrigation but its long term effects are negatively impacting the entire region due to its environmental destruction.  Hydroelectric use is so popular that man’s redistribution of natural water sources is affecting even our orbit’s gyrations!! (Smithsonian Institute) (46) 

A)   Tidal Energy:   Few countries that have large tidal surges have harnessed hydroelectric power with turbines successfully.  This is environmentally clean and economic, but unfortunately very few nations have such wide tidal surges worth harnessing.

B)   Ocean Wave Power   can be an endless source of power.  A company called Power Buoy advertises that it has equipment whose total operating cost of generating power from an OPT wave power station is projected to be only (US) 3-4¢/ kWh for 100MW systems and (US) 7-10¢/kWh for 1MW plants, including maintenance and operating expenses, as well as the amortized capital cost of the equipment.  It is currently working in New Jersey, USA.  Other companies are making progress in this arena but it is uncertain, if indeed, they will be able to bridge the gap of fossil fuels and exactly what their impact on the environment will be as miles of shore will be occupied for this process(47).

III)   NUCLEAR:   Currently, most electricity in the US comes from coal and nuclear power.  All nations who presently have nuclear facilities produce nuclear fuel from specialized reactors where plutonium is irradiated, thus allowing for an infinite source of nuclear fuel.  In order to meet the requisites established by the Kyoto accord on clean emissions, M Stewart, President of the Canadian Nuclear Association, extols the virtues of atomic energy as a source of clean energy that will make it possible to fulfill the agreements established during the Kyoto accord (48.49).The  same conclusions have been pointed out during the October symposium on energy during the 2002 October meeting at the University of Michigan  When weighing the dangers of fossil fuels and hydroelectric, atomic generated power is the safer, cleaner and cheaper choice and is not subject to political Arab whims.  Another benefit is that Nuclear Power's ability to replenish itself with breeder reactors will not continue taxing our planet's limited resources.  In our chapter on “the politics of Nuclear Power” we explain why mankind is so afraid of nuclear power and how this fear has been planted by fossil producing companies.

               All living forms have, through the millennia, adjusted to pollutants and radiation as part of living on earth.  The earth’s core has radioactive uranium, the sun emits nuclear particles, and from another aspect, every time we breathe we exhale C0².  Every time we wash our hair we pollute etc., etc.  However, when we multiply the amounts of pollution caused by daily human activities of 6.3 billion people and to 3 additional billion people that will be born soon, the impact to our planet is beyond the ability of the planet to cleanse itself. The nuclear emissions are insignificant in comparison to all other sources of pollution. Nuclear fuel is also  relatively inexpensive and if properly managed, is safe.

               The following chart shows samples of nuclear energy price per kilowatt hour, and explains why Japan, the USA and France are its top users.  Notice that Japan prefers nuclear even though, there, it is not the cheapest of energy sources because they value their environment.

Some comparative electricity generating cost projections for year 2005-2010

US 1997 cents/kWh, Discount rate 5% for nuclear & coal, 30 year lifetime, 75% load factor.

 Source:      OECD   IEA   NEA    1998.

Part of the improvement in cost efficiency shown in CHART E is due to increased nuclear plant capacity and rising fossil fuel prices.  The study did show that nuclear power had increased its competitiveness since 1998.  The graph reflects the cost of nuclear plant construction costs ranging from US$ 1000/kW and the most expensive, in Japan, with an international averaged $1500/kW.  Coal plants were costed at $1000-1500/kW, and gas plants at $500-1000/kW.  The latter, however, did not input the future fossil fuel prices; thus this figure is questionable, not to speak of its sustainability as prices continue to rise.  The above chart actually should reflect the following : At 5% discount rate nuclear generating costs come out at EUR 2-4 cents/kWh depending on country, coal 3-5 c/kWh, gas 4-6 c/kWh and wind up around 8 cents.  Nuclear is cheaper than gas in all but one case.  At a 10% discount rate nuclear ranged 3-5 cents/kWh (except Japan: near 7 cents cheaper than coal in seven of ten countries, and cheaper than gas in all but two countries.  The new EPR if built in Germany would deliver power at about 2.38 c/kWh - the lowest cost of any plant in the study (50, 51).

Nuclear Waste:   Nuclear waste is a serious concern in the eye of the public and education on the safety of this disposal is most important in order to have public acceptance of this type of energy.  The United States’ EPA has a safe, well thought out plan on how to dispose of spent fuels.  However, there is no political will to enforce its inception (113).  France has a well-established nuclear waste management program that should be copied. In the USA  Yucca Mountain has been earmarked as a site for safe disposal of nuclear spent fuels.  Unfortunately, due to irrational fear planted in the public’s mind, locals refuse to accept this.  In the meantime, 43 states’ spent fuels keep piling up in populated areas where the nuclear plants are – a dangerous situation for communities for their storage is not as safe as it ought to be and they are reaching their space limits.  The public must put pressure on its representatives to send nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain where it well be handled safely (110).  In order to make nuclear waste safe, it has to be vitrified and contained in shields for safe disposal, a process that is well known and mature.

               Regarding the 600 Megawatt electric and 1,400 Megawatt thermal nuclear reactors; they have nuclear cores that, under no circumstances, would a Chernobyl-like meltdown ever take place.  Their size and core design also ensure that they cannot physically contaminate the environment even if an accident would occur.  The nuclear wastes are, as mentioned before, later vitrified and contained in shields for safe disposal.  The USA has about a 300-year supply of Uranium 238 already processed that can be successfully used for nuclear breeder reactors, as done in France.  Breeder reactors are 25% more expensive in their outlay to produce them.  Full size reactors, although more expensive to build than medium-sized ones, pay off in the long run as these reactors are less expensive to operate.

Politics of Nuclear Power:   It is our perception that fears of atomic power have been planted by oil companies and politicians with vested interests who do not want alternative fuels, or nuclear to interfere in their fossil fuels investments.  Japan, the victim of the atom bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is one of the greatest users of nuclear energy – because they do not have oil they are not pressured by political oil interest groups and not because it is a masochist society.  Japan knows that nuclear plants, when properly managed, are safe, clean, economical and are not subject to control by foreign powers.  Japan is one of the strongest world economic superpowers in spite of its small size, due to good governance and sound energy policies (52).

Fossil fuel companies use scare tactics in order to control world perception against nuclear energy, its serious competitor.  The Chernobyl nuclear plant accident has been used as an example of how “dangerous” nuclear power is.  The Chernobyl disaster was the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred.  It killed 30 people, including 28 from radiation exposure.  According to the Uranium Information Centre of Melbourne, Australia, it reports that the Chernobyl disaster caused an additional 209 radiation exposure reactions, of which, 134 cases were confirmed (all of whom recovered).  Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects. However, large areas of Belarus, the Ukraine, Russia and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees but no additional deaths related to this have been reported to date.  A comprehensive report taking up to 10 years since this accident occurred, can be viewed in the enclosed page:  (53)  and a report of 1995 by the World Health Organization in Geneva concurs with these findings.  Thyroid cancer, as a result from this accident, representing 0.01% of the total exposed population, has been cured, as this type of cancer is curable (108).  To put things into perspective, the annual US death rate caused by motor vehicle accidents are about 42,000.  The world’s death rate due to motor vehicles is far greater when added up.  Automobile accidental deaths are  much more deadly than any nuclear accident, however, we would never consider banning vehicles in spite of their deadly impact (54).  The annual cost for traffic fatalities in the USA alone is $ 230 billion dollars, not to mention the emotional damage these cause (109) and as another example, according to Professor B. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh, coal plant emissions are responsible for about 100,000 deaths a year (45);  Indoor air pollution accounts for 1.8 to 2.7 million annual global deaths.  All data proves that nuclear fear is due to fossil fuel companies' propaganda and not due to scientific facts.

               Nuclear generators can provide electricity for factories, engines and electric motor vehicles.  This will solve most energy and pollution problems.  Research and incentives for shifting from fossil fuels to atomic generators must be implemented; however, there is little political will to do so.  Presently, electric cars that can go at 80 miles per hour for 120 miles at one sitting are available.  The acceleration rate is comparable to gas fueled cars, while non-polluting and very quiet.  Electric cars available in the market, produced by various car manufacturers, range in cost with an average of about $20,000 dollars with clean air tax abatements.  The US Department of Energy and EPA estimate these to run at an annual electrical cost of about $420 while gas powered cars have an estimated annual cost of $696 with present fossil fuel costs.  If the demand grows and nuclear plants produce the electricity, their prices will decrease.  Hybrid cars are on the rise, but their small size discourages the US market as long distances and large trucks frighten drivers and large frame vehicles are thus preferred.  The impact on high fuel costs will change this situation shortly, however, as mass transportation and urban city dwelling will be in vogue soon.

               The economic burden of phasing out from fossil energy to alternate fuels will not be as costly if the subsidies to the fossil fuel companies are also phased out and finally suspended and these funds are given as ABATEMENTS for using alternate fuels to promote research and development to bring down costs.  The USA expense for the Afghan and Iraqi wars for oil control ($208 billion in 3 years) could have best been used for promoting better US Arab relations that would ease terrorist threats, investing in family planning and curbing global warming with much better results.

Nuclear Proliferation:   Adrien Guelke and Brian Jenkins, two terrorism experts, separately point out that there is no evidence that any terrorist organization ever attempted to purchase a nuclear weapon, besides, to deploy a nuclear bomb is tactically complicated, way beyond any of the terrorist's organizations means.  It is because of this that terrorist attacks limit themselves to car bombs (117).  Since the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki no more world wars have taken place.  Realistically, nuclear bombs have proven to be the best deterrent against nuclear war.

               The argument that small nations will provide nuclear bombs to terrorists, and therefore such nations must not have nuclear plants, is a political manipulation of the facts.  Fear against nuclear proliferation is used as a ploy to prevent nations from becoming independent from fossil fuels.  If nuclear was so dangerous, then how is it that Japan, who during WWII suffered the atomic blasts, is one of the largest users of nuclear power?  It is because it is safe and economical.

               To avoid nuclear proliferation International laws must be enforced so that countries obtaining nuclear fuel for their plants from countries with nuclear processors must be accountable for their spent fuel for reprocessing to encourage recycling and avoid mishandling of wastes.  This, not because of fear of them selling the fuel to terrorists, but in order to assure they are careful not to mishandle the fuels and pollute the environment.  Not cooperating with accountability of their nuclear material must be legislated as cause for closing the plants down under international rules.

               To avoid proliferation of surplus plutonium, immobilization is the only technology that could be used.  Surplus plutonium must be treated as waste and has to be available for international inspection, such as by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA).  Instead of going forward with MOX option, the U.S. Government should:  ensure safe, long-term storage of plutonium as the highest priority under international controls for ready inspection and regulation (116).

               Worldwide political pressure must demand that world powers lift bans for obtaining loans for nuclear power to ensure all nations the right to economic independence by way of nuclear power.  An international nuclear regulatory commission should have vast nuclear power worldwide and make all countries accountable to international laws.

IV)   Electric:   As shown below, our world is lit by electricity, however due to poverty and lack of infrastructure, about 50% of  humanity lacks electricity. The photo below taken at night, by virtue of the lights, shows human population distribution (courtesy of NASA) The photo however  is not showing about 60% more people that the planet actually has now. ( If you wish to see in details the beauty of our planet at night, go to our home page photo, push the click button, and see in detail this photo. Use the side arrows to move from one continent to another, sideways or up and down), Electricity  is run by hydroelectric, nuclear, coal or gas power. Oil is too expensive, thus no power plant uses this as a source of energy.

Photo D  (Printed with permission of NASA 2004)

The night photo above shows about 40% of the world's population since about 50% of the population has no access to electricity and all lights are not on.  

(V)   ALTERNATIVE FUELS:   Unfortunately, by 2005, no alternative fuel had been able to compete in price with hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel generated energy.  Wind is the most competitive, but is still expensive compared to these as shown in Chart F.

GRAPH F (1 and 2)  State of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism (55)

1)   Wind:   Of the renewable energies, this source is the cheapest, therefore it is gaining worldwide acceptance.  In 2005, with the latest equipment Hawaii is producing it at 4 cents per kWh—establishing wind energy as a power source that is now more affordable than natural gas.  (56).  Harnessing wind power creates ugly landscapes and is idle over 25% of the time depending on the location, due to damaged blades, turbulence, is difficult to store and, when idle, alternate sources of energy are needed.  This energy has proven to be destructive to birds.  In order to provide sufficient energy for large communities, large areas of land need to be utilized.  In Europe, citizens are signing petitions to have these wind plants removed due to all of the above reasons.  In time, protective barriers will solve the problems as we can ill afford fossils (57).

            2)   Shale oil:   Shale is a fossil fuel and causes the same ill effects as all other such fuels.  It is costly and requires massive amounts of water for its extraction causing polluting debris and landscape destruction.  Canada had curtailed extraction to a great extent because of these reasons (58).

            3)   Gasohol:   Gasohol, a mixture of 10 % ethanol and 90 % regular petrol, is being promoted as a cheaper, more environmentally friendly fuel.  FTI vice-chairman, Ninnart Chaithirapinyo, of Thailand says it (Thailand) will phase out petrol and replace it with gasohol by 2006.  The “friendly environmental” use of gasohol is elusive and raises an ethical dilemma: If we were to turn to gasohol for our energy needs, most forests would have to be cut down in order to make room to cultivate corn, sugarcane and beets that produces this fuel and in so doin we would be further destroying the ecology, causing soil erosion and decimation of biodiversity.  If we fall short of providing enough grain for people to eat, how can we justify “feeding” our engines while people starve?  And, where are we going to find the soil to cultivate enough gasohol to fuel all our energy needs?  Gasohol is inefficient since it must be supplemented by fossil fuel that accumulates.

            4)   Solar: We all hope to see a way to use solar technology , but to date, this has proven to be too costly, thus making this impractical for our vast needs  The down side of solar also, is unpredictable and is expensive to store and install.  Solar nano-technology is showing that, by means of sprays for roofs and walls of outer building wall applications that it will capture solar energy, thus diminishing use of other energies.  Unfortunately, this is about 20 years behind in development and expensive.  Subsidies for fossil fuel generation make alternate fuels less economical.  Even if these subsides were lifted, solar is still not economic.  Due to its poor portability, down-time alternate fossil fuels needed to pick up during their down-time, add to global warming (59).

               The best contribution of solar, to date, is in thermal water surface heating.  Average costs depend on sunny to cloudy regions; vary from the least at 8 cents/Kwh to 12 cents/Kwh.  In order to run their photovoltaic collectors, toxic material (such as cadmium, arsenic and gallium) are required and these remain toxic forever.  Therefore, their disposal is of great concern.  Solar reflectors needed to fuel large populations can disrupt air travel, and if misdirected, can cause eye (retinal) burns,  Require large land parcels limits their economic yield and the unpredictability of sunshine is not ideal.

(5)   Hydrogen:   This source of electricity is created by electrolyzing water in order to produce hydrogen and oxygen.  Hydrogen-based energy always involves conversion of the methane process or electricity (generated by fossil fuels, nuclear, solar or wind).  In the case of water electrolysis, modest advances have been made to produce hydrogen fueled vehicles.  This also has been employed to run the hardware of the space shuttle.  Utilizing solar cells to power the process is environmentally friendly according to Cooper Union's Professor Hollenberg.  However, cars fueled in this fashion hold an apparatus that is heavy.  Another source of Hydrogen has been experimented with by using genetically modified organisms.  One wonders, if there is exuberant growth of these organisms, and accidents occur, what will their impact be on the environment?  There is, however, a great deal of interest in using hydrogen rather than oil as a means of storage and transport of energy.  To date, hydrogen is inefficient to produce, expensive to store, transport and convert back to electricity.  The Fischer-Tropsch process of creating liquid hydrocarbons is possibly an alternative solution to the liquid transport fuels dilemma, making much better use of the existing distribution and storage infrastructure than hydrogen..

POLAR CAPS, GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE:  In 2010, the US National Academy of Sciences stated: "There is compelling comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend."
 
Now all reputable organizations agree. We cite only a few organizations in this list :
World Health Organization W. H. O
Journal  "SCIENCE"
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (N.O.A.A)
Journal "Nature"
Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change I.P.C.C.
International Energy Agency (I.E.A)
World Meteorological Organization ( W.M.O.)
Smithsonian Institute
National Museum of Natural History
NASA Goddard Science & Space Institute N.A.S.A.
Museo Antropologico de Mexico
Sindicatum Climate Change Fdtn. (S.C.C.F.)
National Geographic Society
 
 
WORLD’S  TEMPERATURE RISE
NASA’S map shows world temperatures tracked from 1884 through 2009, an unequivocal rise in temperatures, which is  now confirmed to be from human activities.  These are due to burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, global wrming that is melting polar caps, mountain snow and glaciers.Prior  periods of earth’s warming and cooling were not  due to human activities. For example, in 2010, temperature rise  in northern Russia and Alaska caused fires that decimated vast territories. Each time we breathe, turn on a light, start an engine ,burn fuels or trees, CO2 is produced, warming the  atmosphere. Trash, biomass and animals produce methane, which produce TWENTY times more heat than CO2. Fertilizers, refrigerants, and industrial processes emit nitrous oxide, which cause 300 times more heating than C02. All add up, causing environmental changes,  harming us all.

The National Research Council of the National Academies reported in 2005 that “global warming” is taking place unequivocally, partially due to human activities, but namely due to fossil fuel emissions and deforestation.  The progressive water shortage, decimation of land due to human use and abuse, soil erosion and pollution are causing weather pattern changes.  Storms are more frequent and hurricanes are more inclement.  Tornadoes, floods, mud slides, and forest fires are adding to the planet’s devastation that will eventually cause the planet to become uninhabitable (62).  Global warming can be curbed immediately by conservation, and in the long range, by changing from fossil fuel to wind and nuclear energy and other alternate sources (Details of why we say that nuclear is safe are mentioned in the chapter on energy).

	Graph G
(Printed with permission) Graph adapted from Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (60) compliments of NASA

NASA shows a temperature rise of 0.4C in the last 25 years.  This small increment has caused many glaciers and huge portions of artic ice to melt.  An increment of 5 degrees is expected in the next 150 years!  Following is the Rhone glacier in Europe in 2003 as compared to 1850.

Melting glacier in less than 153 years due to warming.

               The world community must declare the polar caps as sanctuaries because their thermoregulation is life sustaining.  Sparing this habitat will be a priceless investment for our future.  According to the United Nations Environmental Agency report from Arenday, Norway, it calculates that global temperature change will cost $300 billion dollars/year in losses worldwide (64).  To open the Tsongas National Park in Alaska close to the polar caps for oil drilling, however, would disrupt plant and animal wildlife with long term repercussions.  This additional pollution to our atmosphere is illogical.  The idea of the World Wildlife Fund, for Sweden and Holland etc., to purchase national debts of debtor countries in exchange for assured preservation of natural habitats can be a solution to the budget deficits of debtor countries, decreasing the ecological disintegration.  Creditor nations must forgive loans in exchange for a nation's promise to preserve their wildlife and forests (65).
            Climate change brought about by global warming is causing migration of species, some plants are disappearing in some zones and are moving to higher latitudes where climates are cooler.  This shift in climate will also affect populations and ensue human migrations.  In the July, 2005 G8 Meeting, all countries disagreed with President Bush’s disinterest in upholding the Kyoto Accord, pointing out to him the seriousness of the progressive deforestation, water shortages, decimation of land due to human use and the depletion of food due to demand outpacing supply.  This will cause the planet to become uninhabitable within 100 years unless we address these problems now.

WEALTH, HUNGER AND PEACE:   Families, like nations, more often than not become poor due to excessive numbers of children, poor education and poor governments- management.  For example, Germany with few children and Uganda with too many, are examples of that spectrum.  The ethics of hunger were mentioned earlier and pointed out that hunger is caused mainly by unethical politicians and inept governments.  Some claim that food shortages are due to political reasons, which to some extent is now true.  Soon, however, it will be due to the planet’s inability to continue sustaining the growing populations, for our demands are far outpacing the planet’s ability to supply our needs.

               Hunger causes war, migrations and the de-stabilizing of affluent societies due to the influx of hungry hoards, CNN television is replete of visions of Niger that illustrates this point.  History is full of such examples.  To ignore other people's hunger is to jeopardize one's own security and wealth.  Food and resource shortages will cause internal instability and ultimately drive countries to war.  Wars and famine paradoxically cause greater numbers of births, for man overcompensates in crisis; unlike most animal species that halt or decrease reproduction when there are food shortages or stress (66).  Mankind resorts to sex because it finds solace in it and is a form of stress relief (67).  Children, the innocent by-products, later pay the consequences of their parent's carelessness.  The graph compiled by the UN and the international census illustrates this human response after World War I and WW II causing "Baby Boom" explosions (See population graph in our cover page (http://www.lifewatchgroup.org).  Robert McNamara, ex-US Secretary of Defense and later, President of the World Bank, points out that "the exponential population growth is so far out of balance that this will impose heavy penalties on individuals as well as nations.  Ultimately, this will impose coercive measures of fertility regulation.  This can be avoided by increasing knowledge and availability of contraception.  If such measures are not made available, the penalties to the poor and nations will be enormous and the ripple effect will inevitably extend to the rich as well".

               Wealth is amassed in nations who promote free enterprise.  Such examples are Japan, at one end of the spectrum, giving people the greatest economic incentive and companies who give employees a share of the profits, job security and take part of their company's decision-making, increase productivity and insure a sound economy.  In his scenario, there is a sense of teamwork and self-worth.  It is this spirit that allows companies to survive even through hard times.  At the other end of the spectrum is communism where nationalization of industries – the usurpation of business and industries by the government which is what communist Russia did in the last 60 years - is proof of how to destroy an economy.  Russia collapsed in bankruptcy, ending its communist ideals.  There is a car bumper sticker that says: “If you want the MAFIA to go out of business, have the government run it" because governments are notorious for their poor business sense.  Even China has learned to allow free enterprise and is growing into a very powerful economy.  Social welfare states such as Sweden keep business in the hands of the people.  But, in order to maintain its social -welfare systems, such nations have high taxation, diminishing differences between the rich and poor.  This type of government allows for a more egalitarian society.  This assures better education, negligible poverty, universal health insurance and a low crime rate, thus creating a sense of national  well being - a priceless commodity.  The US tax payers have been made believe that taxation is bad for the nation. This notion can be dispelled by the statistics shown in Chart K  where three developed countries, Japan, USA and Sweden fare under their political thinking. The charts clearly show how the USA has lost its lead when comparing with the others in the last decades.  If a few rich amass the wealth at the expense of the majority, then a country cannot be considered a great nation.  The wealth of a nation is measured by a sense of egalitarianism, a sense of true democracy, and social well being.  Good governments are measured by their ethics and for doing what is best for the majority.  USA Conservatives explain that the USA is in poor shape due to a long line of democratic “liberal” presidents.  Both Sweden and Japan are more liberal than the USA.  If a liberal government was bad for a nation then why are Sweden and Japan doing better than the USA?  One of the reasons is that, in the USA, corporate social interests are being put above the national interests.  Wealth in the USA is getting to a narrower few while its poor population is growing and the masses are becoming more and more disenfranchised.

            Illustrate these points, CHART K below clearly shows this. (68.69).

COMPARISON BETWEEN DEMOCRACIES

*THE USA IS NOT A MODEL TO FOLLOW  (CHART K)

(Printed with permission) 

Sex education is more prevalent in Europe than America where conservatives oppose it on the grounds that it condones sexual behavior. The following statistics show the unintended consequences of this policy:

SEX

CRIME

INCOME INEQUALITY

HEALTH CARE

# Economic Prosperity measures productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods, consumption, trading, strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit worthiness.  The higher the number the better the prosperity.

ECONOMICS

POLLUTION