But there is a catch. The public's acceptance of new reactors depends in part on the performance of the old ones, and lately several of those have been discovered to be leaking radioactive water into the ground.

Near Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells.

In a survey of all 10 of its nuclear plants, Exelon found tritium in the ground at two others. On Tuesday, it said it had had another spill at Braidwood, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago, and on Thursday, the attorney general of Illinois announced she was filing a lawsuit against the company over that leak and five earlier ones, dating to 1996. The suit demands among other things that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents.

In New York, at the Indian Point 2 reactor in Buchanan, workers digging a foundation adjacent to the plant's spent fuel pool found wet dirt, an indication that the pool was leaking. New monitoring wells are tracing the tritium's progress toward the Hudson River.

Indian Point officials say the quantities are tiny, compared with the amount of tritium that Indian Point is legally allowed to release into the river. Officials said they planned to find out how much was leaking and declare the leak a "monitored release pathway."

Nils J. Diaz, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he would withhold judgment on the proposal until after it reached his agency, but he added, "They're going to have to fix it."

This month, workers at the Palo Verde plant in New Mexico found tritium in an underground pipe vault.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which is critical of nuclear power safety arrangements, said recently that in the past 10 years, tritium had leaked from at least seven reactors. It called for a systematic program to ensure there were no more leaks.

Tami Branum, who lives close to the Braidwood reactor and owns property in the nearby village of Godley, said in a telephone interview, "It's just absolutely horrible, what we're trying to deal with here." Ms. Branum and her children, 17-year-old twin girls and a 7-year-old boy, drink only bottled water, she said, but use municipal water for everything else. "We're bathing in it, there's no way around it," she said.

Ms. Branum said that her property in Godley was worth about $50,000 and that she wanted to sell it, but that no property was changing hands now because of the spill.

A spokesman for Exelon, Craig Nesbit, said that neither Godley's water nor Braidwood's water system was threatened, but that the company had lost credibility when it did not publicly disclose a huge fuel oil spill and spills of tritium from 1996 to 2003. No well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards, he said.

Mr. Diaz of the regulatory agency, speaking to a gathering of about 1,800 industry executives and government regulators last week, said utilities were planning to apply for 11 reactor projects, with a total of 17 reactors. The Palo Verde reactor was the last one that was ordered, in October 1973, and actually built.

As the agency prepares to review license applications for the first time in decades, it is focusing on "materials degradation," a catch-all term for cracks, rust and other ills to which nuclear plants are susceptible. The old metal has to hold together, or be patched or replaced as required, for the industry to have a chance at building new plants, experts say.

Tritium, a form of hydrogen with two additional neutrons in its nucleus, is especially vexing. The atom is unstable and returns to stability by emitting a radioactive particle. Because the hydrogen is incorporated into a water molecule, it is almost impossible to filter out. The biological effect of the radiation is limited because, just like ordinary water, water that incorporates tritium does not stay in the body long.

But it is detectable in tiny quantities, and always makes its source look bad. The Energy Department closed a research reactor in New York at its Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, largely because of a tritium leak.

And it can catch up to a plant after death; demolition crews at the Connecticut Yankee reactor in Haddam Neck, Conn., are disposing of extra dirt that has been contaminated with tritium and other materials, as they tear the plant down.

After years of flat employment levels, the industry is preparing to hire hundreds of new engineers. Luis A. Reyes, the executive director for operations at the regulatory commission, told the industry gathering last week, "We'll take your resume in hard copy, online, whatever you can do," eliciting laughter from an audience heavy with executives of reactor operators and companies that want to build new ones.

In an exclusive interview, Hugh Kaufman, an expert on toxic waste and responses to environmental disasters at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said the way the polluted water was being pumped out was increasing the danger to health.

The pollution was far worse than had been admitted, he said, because his agency was failing to take enough samples and was refusing to make public the results of those it had analyzed."Inept political hacks" running the clean-up will imperil the health of low-income migrant workers by getting them to do the work.

His intervention came as President Bush's approval ratings fell below 40 per cent for the first time. Yesterday, Britain's Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, turned the screw by criticizing the US President's opposition to the Kyoto protocol on global warming. He compared New Orleans to island nations such as the Maldives, which are threatened by rising sea levels. Other US sources spelt out the extent of the danger from one of America's most polluted industrial areas, known locally as "Cancer Alley". The 66 chemical plants, refineries and petroleum storage depots churn out 600m lb of toxic waste each year. Other dangerous substances are in site storage tanks or at the port of New Orleans. No one knows how much pollution has escaped through damaged plants and leaking pipes into the "toxic gumbo" now drowning the city. Mr Kaufman says no one is trying to find out.

Few people are better qualified to judge the extent of the problem. Mr Kaufman, who has been with the EPA since it was founded 35 years ago, helped to set up its hazardous waste program. After serving as chief investigator to the EPA's ombudsman, he is now senior policy analyst in its Office of Solid Wastes and Emergency Response. He said the clean-up needed to be "the most massive public works exercise ever done", adding: "It will take 10 years to get everything up and running and safe."

Mr Kaufman claimed the Bush administration was playing down the need for a clean-up: the EPA has not been included in the core White House group tackling the crisis. "Its budget has been cut and inept political hacks have been put in key positions," Mr Kaufman said. "All the money for emergency response has gone to buy guns and cowboys - which don't do anything when a hurricane hits. We were less prepared for this than we would have been on 10 September 2001."

He said the water being pumped out of the city was not being tested for pollution and would damage Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi river, and endanger people using it downstream.

=A9 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.

This seedy block in New Orleans's Ninth Ward, adjacent to the tourist-trap French Quarter, was always one of the most deprived and decrepit corners of the city.

But receding floodwaters have left an appalling scene, foul brown rings where two-foot-high floods seeped away from homes and evidence of vandalism from the dangerous post-Hurricane Katrina days when looters ran riot.

This is just the kind of neighborhood city authorities seem to have in mind when they say Katrina rendered 160,000 homes unfit for habitation.

"Don't go out onto the water," says staff sergeant Jim Ellifrit of the Oregon National Guard, as his men syphon fuel out a boat left high and dry by receding floods, still tied to a lamppost.

"Things that go in there don't live very long. ... We just saw a dog come out of the water and he died within 30 minutes," Ellifrit said.

Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, agreed that the festering, waste-filled waters clogging New Orleans posed a serious health risk for both rescuers and survivors of Katrina.

"It is dangerous," he told AFP. Human waste contains a lot of harmful bacteria, and there is a lot of that in the water covering the city, he said, warning that survivors or rescue workers with open cuts or sores on their bodies were particularly vulnerable to sickness and disease if exposed to the reeking liquid.

To make matters worse, there are also a lot of chemicals that have spilled into it which have caused skin rashes among people in shelters who were exposed to it, he added.

In this dirty district, pigeons peck away at the sewage like winged rats, and a scrawny terrier sniffs at the carcass of another dog.

Many of the simple wooden homes here have hurricane or fire damage, windows smashed or debris on their front steps. Many are daubed in graffiti, much of which seems to have been penned after the storm hit.

"Take care of 1 another," says one slogan on the peeled white paint of a tatty home. "The fire next time," warns another.

On the grass verge between two lanes of traffic strewn with branches, garbage, burned metal and glass, someone has fashioned a cross out of empty beer bottles.

A team of dog catchers from the Albuquerque, New Mexico Department of Environmental Health cruises the streets, catching unfortunate strays, and takes them to a holding center for a wash.

"I guess we have pulled in about 15 this morning, just in these four blocks, said environmental health officer Martin Griego, holding a lasso-type device on a stick he uses to snare the frightened strays.

"We have been getting calls from owners, telling us, 'We don't care, break down the doors, get our dog.'"

The dogs largely have the street to themselves, as only four or five people from 12 blocks or so of tightly packed, run-down houses are still defying the call to abandon their homes, Ellifrit said.

Like many American cities, pockets of poverty and wealth are often just a few streets apart -- the fabled French Quarter, with its jazz dens and tourist bars is just down the road from this downtrodden district.

Nearby is the French Market, a cornucopia of cheeses, cold meats, fish, bread and spices, on the banks of the Mississippi.

But reminders of the New Orleans tragedy are everywhere. On the outer wall of the market, three soldiers stand over a decaying body wrapped in a sheet, lying under a slogan daubed on the wall reading "RIP ... F---(expletive) You Whore Katrina."

One soldier dons purple rubber gloves to turn over the body, looking for identification, as a shocked sergeant waves away watching journalists.

THE ARROGANCE OF DOMINANCE

There's little dispute that the U.S. today is the preeminent world power and unlike any that ever preceded it. It now admits to being an empire. In fact, it's the first ever world global empire. To expand its reach and influence, it now spends nearly as much on its military as all other nations combined and has built and maintains a military capacity no other nation dare challenge. It also reserves for itself the sole right to develop and use the most dangerous and destructive weapons, even those banned from use by international law or custom. Some of those now in charge at the highest levels believe they have a divine right to use them, even a duty. George Bush may be one of them. A self-proclaimed and so-called born-again Christian, he says he gets his direction from the Almighty. That's real arrogance, the supreme kind only an unchallengeable power and its leaders dare arrogate to itself.

Up to now, the U.S. has effectively used its power to dominate other nations either by persuasion, economic isolation or conquest. We claim to be a model democracy, but our policies and actions prove otherwise. At home we're a democracy for the few - the privileged and powerful. It's they who govern and run our institutions including the most dominant one of all - the giant transnational corporations whose interests all administrations serve including waging war for their benefit. Wars are good for business - as long as they're easily winnable, the public supports them, and they don't cause undo economic stresses that may disrupt the economy, in which case they're bad for business.

There's a striking term often used in the plural and in a business context that's also appropriate more broadly. The term is "externalities." In business it refers to the unfortunate side effects or consequences of a company's action that may have a detrimental affect on others. A typical example is an industrial plant that produces a dangerous substance as an unsalable byproduct from its production process. To avoid the cost of disposal, storage or treatment, the plant dumps it into waterways, unused land areas or through smokestacks. In so doing it harms the environment. Wars also have "externalities" - with far greater consequences. Overall, death, disease and destruction are the best examples. But so are the dangerous residues and their side effects from the use of weapons like toxic chemicals, biological agents and all types of nuclear munitions. We're all aware of the danger from the first two categories, although when used they only affect small areas and are not "weapons of mass destruction." We've also seen the destructive capability of a nuclear bomb and have heard of DU. But, the public has little or no knowledge about the real danger and threat from the use of any nuclear device or substance. That information has been willfully and deliberately suppressed because the potential harm is so great and irreversible. Even when there's clear evidence of widespread problems as there was in the case of the Agent Orange effects on Vietnam veterans and "Gulf war syndrome" on the military from that conflict, our government has denied any connection and stonewalled efforts to help those in need - until they no longer could hide the truth and had to act.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a "dense metal" that increases its ability as a weapon to penetrate a target, thus enhancing its destructive capability. Pentagon propaganda and disinformation falsely describe all DU weapons as only being coated. In fact, they are solid missiles, bombs, shells and bullets weighing up to 5,000 pounds in a single "bunker buster" bomb. All these weapons have solid DU projectiles or warheads in them, and their use in combat as the U.S. military has done in 4 wars and is now doing every day in Iraq is the "de facto" use of nuclear bombs. From Nagasaki in 1945 until the 1991 Gulf War, these weapons were effectively banned by common consent (and common sense) and never used (except for one time in the 1973 Yom Kippur war). No longer.

Above I asked why are these weapons used if they're so deadly and dangerous well beyond the areas they target? The answer's simple - because they work so well, and the enemy forces attacked don't have them and can't retaliate against us with them. The fact that we understand the danger from their use and the "externalities" left in their wake is someone else's problem to deal with. Just like a public corporation worries only about meeting Wall Street estimates of next quarter's earnings, our government and the military only worry about winning the next battle and next war - too bad if in the process we irradiate the planet and threaten all future life on it. That's someone else's problem later on. That's how big business thinks and also how our political and military leaders do as well.

OUR PRECIOUS PLANET AND HOW BADLY WE TREAT IT

Today we're threatened by many natural and "man-made" disasters we could act to prevent but don't. To the ones mentioned above add polluted air, water and soil. Include the unsafe food we eat from the chemical and other contaminants and unsafe additives in them. Don't ignore ozone layer damage, deforestation, the destruction of precious natural habits and endangered species, the reckless ways we develop and use our natural resources including wasteful overuse of a finite supply of fresh water that could run out and is irreplaceable. And don't forget wars that get more recklessly destructive as new technologies and weapons are developed to fight them and powerful nations having them show no restraint in their use.

In November, 2005 this nation lost a great man unfortunately unknown to most of the public. His name was Vine Deloria, Jr, a renowned Native American intellect, historian, author, scholar and activist. With great eloquence Deloria spoke and wrote about how for all its existence the planet was well preserved by those who lived on it - until about 200 years ago when western technological development began and changed everything. It was then transformed from being pristine to poisoned. He expressed such great wisdom in his writings and talks, it's worth quoting. Below are some examples:

"Progress is the absolute destruction of the real world in favor of a technology that creates a comfortable way of life for a few fortunatelysituated people. Within our lifetime the differences between the Indian use of the land and the white use of the land will become crystal clear. The Indian lived with his land. The white destroyed his land, he destroyed the planet earth."

Deloria once said that Christian missionaries had "fallen on their knees and prayed for the Indians" before rising to "fall on the Indians and prey on their land." He also claimed the destruction wrought by corporate values and its technology was so damag that a return to Native American tribal standards and culture could be viewed as salvation.

He viewed a corporate run predatory society, like the U.S., as an "Adolph Eichmann of the plains", whose soldiers were tools "not defending civilization; they were crushing another society."

Deloria wrote 20 books, edited others, and published his memoirs and a two-volume set of U.S. - Native American treaties, all of which are devastating accounts of U.S. duplicity. Every treaty made was broken or ignored to this day, and the rights of our Native Indians willfully violated and trampled over through lies, deception and deceit. Just the latest example of this is in one of the accusations in the ongoing Jack Abramoff political and financial corruption scandal now making daily headlines. Abramoff, his partner, and other well-known Republicans are accused of bilking Indian casino gambling interests out of an estimated $85 million. Further, in his now disclosed emails, he referred to Native Americans as "monkeys, troglodites (people with a sub-human like nature), and idiots."

Deloria also wrote that unlike African Americans, Native Indians did not want to be equals in U.S. society. They wanted no part of it. Vine Victor Deloria, Jr., historian, scholar, activist and much more was born March 26, 1933 and died November 13, 2005. He will be missed.

The Industrial Revolution and its single-minded pursuit of profit (what Veblen called "the maximization of pecuniary interests") was Deloria's point. It produced along with it a vast array of toxins that have done untold ecological damage. The alarm was prominently sounded in Rachel Carson's landmark book "Silent Spring" published in 1962 that forced the banning of DDT, influenced President Jack Kennedy and led to legislation affecting our air, water and soil. It also launched an environmental movement that's grown into many and diverse advocacy groups that lobby and fight for environmental sanity and justice. Since Carson's time we know much more about the dangers we face, and we have many more of them. But despite our knowledge and the influence of many concerned scientists and a public supporting the need for a healthy environment, our political leaders from both parties, in service to the dominant corporate interests they serve, pay little more than lip service to this most important of issues along with war and peace. Although the Congress passed more than a dozen major environmental statutes and laws since the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, CERCLA establishing the Superfund to pay for toxic cleanups, the Endangered Species Act and more, those statutes have since been weakened or ignored. As a result, conditions today are much worse than 40 years ago and the dangers from them threaten our survival.

In his 2003 published book - "Hegemony or Survival" - Noam Chomsky cited the reflections of eminent biologist Ernst Mayr. Mayr observed that other species were better able to survive than humans and that the average life of a species is about 100,000 years. It's generally believed the human species has now about reached that limit and may be near becoming extinct. If so, and in light of our more recent behavior, we may, as Chomsky notes, turn out to be the only species ever to destroy ourselves and much else along with us.

THE NUCLEAR AGE CHANGED EVERYTHING

Since the atom was first split in a Berlin laboratory in 1938, the world has never been the same. The great scientist Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was instrumental in the nuclear development that followed creating the atom bomb. But his greatest influence was the letter he sent to Franklin Roosevelt in 1939 urging him to build it. Einstein feared the Nazis might do it first with disastrous consequences. He later regretted his action and said: "I made one great mistake in my life....when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made...." He also said "our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing the power to make great decisions for good and evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." If he were alive today, what might Einstein say about the threat from depleted uranium (DU) which when weaponized is possibly the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. But even if he said it, would the public be allowed to hear him? And most important, would his words change anything?

DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) - WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT'S USED

To use uranium as a fuel for commercial reactors or for nuclear weapons it must be enriched. The enrichment process is then followed by gaseous diffusion in two streams - one is enriched and the other depleted. Before a use was found for it, DU was just stored in vast amounts as a byproduct. However, when it was discovered that solid "dense metal" DU projectiles in all forms (missiles, bombs, shells and bullets) greatly increased their ability to penetrate and destroy a target, the Pentagon had a new technology it hoped to use in combat and now has for the past 15 years.

The first DU weapon system was developed for the Navy in 1968, and DU weapons were first given to Israel for use in the 1973 Yom Kippur war under U.S. supervision. These weapons were later sold to 29 countries but never used until the 1991 Gulf War when the U.S. broke an international taboo prohibiting them. Since then the U.S. has fought wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and again in Iraq. In all these conflicts, thousands of tons of solid DU weapons have been used causing far more devastation thus far from its radiation and chemical toxins than from the targets destroyed and those killed in target areas. Worst of all, the lingering and spreading affects from DU contamination never end, resulting in all those exposed to it and their loved ones with whom they have intimate contact and their offspring the likelihood of having one or more of virtually any illness, disease or disability imaginable often leading to early death or at the least a lifetime of pain, suffering and great expense. In Orwellian language, DU is the (deadly and unwelcome) gift that keeps on giving - and killing.

USING DU AS A WEAPON IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

Poison gas in various forms was first used as a weapon in WW I by both sides. It's effects were deadly causing well over 1million total casualties and nearly 100,000 deaths. After the war, the revulsion over their use led to the 1925 Geneva Protocol and other succeeding Geneva Weapons Conventions that specifically outlawed the use of chemical and biological agents in any form for any reason in war. The 1925 Geneva Convention Gas Protocol specifically prohibits the use of poison gas weapons. Although no Geneva Convention or other treaty bans the use of radioactive uranium weapons, including DU weapons, these weapons are, in fact, illegal de facto and de jure when judged by the standard of the Hague Convention of 1907 which prohibits use of any "poison or poisoned weapons." DU weapons in all their forms and uses are radioactive and chemically toxic, and thus clearly fit the definition of poisonous weapons banned under the Hague Convention. The U.S. is a signatory to the Hague and Geneva Conventions (which are binding treaties under international law). In using DU weapons in combat or for any purpose, the U.S. has violated its sacred treaty obligations and is guilty of a war crime. Further, all DU weapons also meet the U.S. federal code definition of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) in 2 out of 3 categories:

[The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows: "The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity." Because the U.S. is a signatory to the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the U.S. military is violating its own military code. By using depleted uranium (which is clearly a WMD and thus illegal) in combat in 4 wars, the U.S. is clearly guilty of the very crime we claimed our right to go to war against Iraq to prevent.

In addition, under various UN Conventions and Covenants that are binding international law for its signatories, the use of any weapons that cause harm after the battle including away from the battlefield, harm the environment, or kill, wound or cause harm inhumanely are illegal and banned. DU weapons are poisonous under international law and violate all the above conditions. Even the seminal Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is legally non-binding to its signatories, implies a moral duty never to use any weapons as potentially harmful as DU.

KNOWN EFFECTS FROM DU USE THUS FAR - AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING, THE WORST IS YET TO COME

I'm very indebted to Leuren Moret for the data discussed throughohis article and below. Leuren is an independent scientist and internationally recognized expert on radiation, DU and public health. She's done extensive research on the environmental and public health effects of low level radiation from atmospheric testing fallout, nuclear power plants and DU weapons radiation in 42 countries, has written detailed reports and articles on her important findings, given testimony on the harmful affects of DU poisoning and is an outspoken critic of DU use. In an article she authored in July, 2004 she wrote: "The use of depleted uranium weaponry by the United States, defying all international treaties, will slowly annihilate all species on earth including the human species, and yet this country continues to do so with full knowledge of its destructive potential."

Leuren's work has revealed some shocking facts. Since the U.S. military first used DU weapons in the 1991 Gulf War, it has released the radioactive atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki nuclear bombs into the global atmosphere (that's no misprint) causing permanent contamination with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Furthermore, that DU radiation is 10 times the amount released by all atmospheric testing which in total equaled 40,000 Hiroshima bombs (again, no misprint). The 2 atom bombs used against the Japanese killed a likely 300,000 or more people from the initial blasts and subsequent radiation and chemical poisoning deaths. To this day, there are still reported deaths attributed to the bombings. Now imagine the potential threat to all planetary life from all the DU weapons used since 1991 and their continued use in Iraq and Afghanistan - the equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombings and increasing daily as U.S. forces now are conducting 4 to 6 daily bombings of target sites in Iraq alone using DU bombs.

Leuren calls DU "The Trojan Horse of nuclear war - it keeps giving and keeps killing. There's no way to clean it up, and no way to turn it off because it continues to decay into other radioactive isotopes..." As it decays, it continues to release more radiation. DU when used as a weapon in war, as the U.S. has now done 4 times and continues to do so in Iraq and Afghanistan and intends to continue using, is Stanley Kubrick's fictional Doomsday Machine for real (from his 1964 film Dr. Strangelove). DU may be the ultimate weapon of mass annihilation. Unless there's a mass worldwide public awakening to this threat to demand an immediate end to its use for any purpose, we're left with little more than the message from the subtitle of the Kubrick film - stop worrying and love the bomb--and likely prepare to die.

The greatest damage from DU comes from the radiation residue after its use. When a DU weapon strikes a target, it penetrates deeply and aerosolizes into a fine spray which then contaminates the air and soil around the target area. The residue is permanent, and its microscopic and submicroscopic particles remain suspended in air or are swept into the air from the tainted soil and are carried by winds around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust. That dust falls to earth indiscriminately everywhere causing radiation contamination that affects every living thing and cannot be remediated. The contamination causes virtually every known illness and disease from severe headaches, muscle pain and general fatigue, to major birth defects, infection, depression, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer and brain tumors. It also causes permanent disability and death. In June, 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO), without specific reference to DU, announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase by 50% by 2020. WHO is usually conservative in its estimates. Might they believe things are potentially far worse? And are they closely examining the effects of DU to those in combat areas where these weapons are and have been used?

Those individuals (military and civilian) at or near target areas are most immediately affected by DU contamination, especially if they remain there for an extended time. During the 6 week 1991 Gulf war only 467 U.S. personnel were wounded and about 150 killed. Out of the 580,000 military personnel who served in that war, 325,000 were reported to be on permanent medical disability by the year 2000. It was also reported then the number was increasing by 43,000 each year. In fact, the annual increases were even greater, and by 2004 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) reported over 518,000 Gulf-era veterans to be on medical disability. It also reported over 500,000 veterans were homeless. Studies were also done on veterans whose wives had normal babies before the war. It reported two-thirds of post-war births of those studied had severe birth defects, such as missing brains, eyes, legs and arms and blood diseases.

There are already scattered early reports of DU caused health problems from the current Iraq conflict (and probably Afghanistan) as well as an above normal rate of still active duty military and veteran suicide and family violence. As deployments in the current conflict are much longer than the short Gulf war and most serving go back for a second or even third tour of duty, it's easy to imagine a literal holocaust that will eventually devastate all military and other personnel who have or are now serving or will serve in Iraq and the region. And it likely will have a similar effect on the wives and husbands of veterans and their post-service offspring. Once again it must be emphasized. The U.S. government prior to 1991 had full knowledge of the devastating effects DU would cause and still used it, still does and still intends to keep using it. Beyond belief? You bet. If someone wrote this as a work of fiction or science fiction, no one would believe it, and probably no one would publish it.

DU USED AS WEAPONS - A WILLFUL ACT OF GENOCIDE

From its use already in 4 wars, the use of DU weapons is an act of insanity as well as possibly the greatest ever crime against humanity (and all other living species) and a war crime. Those responsible include 3 presidents, scores of high government officials and the Pentagon high command to include a lot of generals and admirals. These people are criminals. They're guilty of mass murder without end. They all should be made to answer for their crimes through indictment and trials both in our federal courts and at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at the Hague which was established in 2002 to try individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. These people, or at least most of them, are guilty of all three crimes and should pay the highest price for them with no leniency. Their convictions should once and for all serve as a reminder to all future leaders that this type reckless behavior will never again be tolerated.

Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, a distinguished author and man of great honor, passion and eloquence, in his 2005 acceptance speech made these comments about the current Iraq war. Too ill with cancer, he was unable to travel to Oslo for the award ceremony and instead read his comments on videotape. Pinter is a sharp critic of the Iraq war and the U.S. and his U.K. government's role in it. In his Nobel award address he called the invasion of Iraq a "bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law." He stressed "the United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious......It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant."

Pinter is right, and he said much more in his 46 minute acceptance speech. He also could have added the Bush administration since 9/11/01 has governed recklessly and arrogantly. With obsessive secrecy and contempt for the Constitution, the Congress, the courts and the U.S. public, George Bush has governed by Executive Order or Decree, a tool of tyrants when used to excess as this president has. He's done it to pursue a policy of permanent imperial war for U.S. global domination. The tragedy of 9/11 aside, the Bush administration created a fear-induced sham world terrorist threat to fight a so-called "global war on terrorism" for decades to come. It also created a near police state at home with baseless mass roundups, illegal detentions and deportations as part of a racist war against dark-skinned immigrants, illegal warrantless domestic spying and systemic use of torture of those detained and those held in offshore prisons and "renditioned" to mostly unnamed countries tolerating this practice. The Bush administration did all this based on a foundation of willful deception, deceit, and endless web of lies, and an utter contempt for political, economic and social justice at home and abroad and the rule of law.

Until recent months, Bush has gotten away with it all. Now with his poll numbers plummeting, the Iraq war a hopeless quagmire (despite the disinformation to the contrary), the possibility of further high level administration officials being indicted beside Lewis Libby along with the potentially huge political and financial Jack Abramoff corruption scandal, and the Democrats and some Republicans finally stirring and expressing their ire, the administration may be nearing its Waterloo. Like many other regimes in the past guilty of imperial arrogance and overreach (like the last one that tried - the Nazis - and thought they'd rule for 1000 years but only lasted 12) this administration and its reckless and heartless agenda may meet a similar fate.

Great thinkers and perceptive observers have ventured to guess what our fate may be as a result of our actions. Without predicting it, Noam Chomsky in a recent talk cited the worst of all possible outcomes - a nuclear holocaust, environmental destruction or the end of even nominal democracy.

Yale Senior Research Scholar Immanuel Wallerstein in his important 2003 book, The Decline of American Power, believes the U.S. "has been a fading global power since the 1970s, and the U.S. response to the (9/11) terrorist attacks has merely accelerated this decline." He goes on to say "the economic, political and military factors that contributed to U.S. hegemony are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming U.S. decline." He later wrote he can't predict the outcome of "this chaotic crisis of our capitalist world system", but the U.S. attempt to stop it will fail. At best, they'll only delay it as they've been trying to do. Wallerstein sees a future that will go one of two ways (if we survive) - either one based on progressive values or something that's quite the opposite.

Retired professor Chalmers Johnson, in his important 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, also predicts the dissolution of the U.S. empire if its present path continues. Unlike imperial Rome that took hundreds of years before it fell, he sees U.S. sorrows arriving "with the speed of FedEx." He predicts 4 sorrows if the present trend continues that will create an ugly alternative to our present constitutional form of government: imperial overreach with a "state of perpetual war" leading to more terrorist retaliation against us; a loss of democracy and our constitutional rights; the end of truthfulness "replaced by a system of propaganda, disinformation, and glorification of war, power, and the military legions"; finally, he sees the nation going bankrupt from its inability to maintain ever more "grandiose military projects." The U.S. national debt now exceeds $8.2 trillion. It's growing unsustainably by over $400 billion annually as is the current account deficit that in 2006 may reach $1 trillion. Both deficits rely "on the kindness of strangers" (foreign governments and investors willing to keep buying our treasury securities and invest in our equity and fixed income markets) to sustain us. They'll do it only as long as they believe they're making sound investments. Johnson doesn't believe the present trend is irreversible. There's still time to change it, but so far he says we're not even trying. He thus believes the only hope for us and the planet is for the world community of nations to act together to "checkmate" us. If they don't or won't or can't, nuclear war may eventually ensue and "civilization will disappear."

To prevent the above scenarios from happening, the world community of nations must coalesce soon and go for "checkmate." And united they should demand that this kind of behavior will never again be tolerated by any nation. They should strengthen the international laws now in place enough to insure it, require every nation to be a signatory and force all nations to abide by these binding laws with the severest consequences for those who don't. But even if all this were to happen, the damage already done is overwhelming and spreading. It may already be too late. In the U.S. alone, 42 states are now contaminated with DU from its manufacture, testing and deployment. Also, the manufacture of millions of DU bombs and their deployment to U.S. military bases around the world continues.

Leuren Moret just learned from a declassified document a Hawaii based Quaker group obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that the U.S. military has 2.7 million DU bombs in U.S. still occupied South Korea (over 50 years after the end of the Korean War). She says it's little wonder North Korea wants nuclear weapons. She believes these bombs were moved there in the 1990s from U.S. still occupied (Japanese) Okinawa (60 years after WW II) because the Japanese (who abhor nuclear weapons) refused to domicile them any longer. And she speculates further that we very likely have many millions more DU bombs deployed in other countries where we have bases. That could include a great many more according to Chalmers Johnson. In The Sorrows of Empire, Johnson mentioned the existence of at least 725 known U.S. bases in 153 countries, besides hundreds more in this country. He also believes we have secret bases so the real total could be much higher and now likely is with all the new bases we're building in Iraq, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and plans for Africa. Even without these weapons being used, imagine the potential danger we're placing the people of these countries in (and our own citizens as well) just because the weapons are there (and here). There could be accidents, the military engages in exercises where they likely test and use these weapons, and, of course, they could be stolen or even sold by rogue military or other personnel looking for a quick buck.

Imagine for a moment a reverse scenario. What if the U.K, France, Russia or China had bases in this country (bad enough) and additionally stored millions of DU bombs or other nuclear weapons on our soil. Would we citizens tolerate just the bases, let alone with DU bombs? Unlikely. Also imagine if the public here knew thousands or millions of these weapons were being stored on U.S. bases here, near where they lived.

They might also consider the 104 current operating commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S. They're all dangerous, but especially the aging ones. Every one is a potential unstable nuclear bomb and possible disaster waiting to happen, either from an inevitable accident or from sabotage. Responsible experts believe it's just a matter of time before a major nuclear disaster occurs somewhere in the world, possibly or even likely a full nuclear core meltdown - the worst possible kind of nuclear catastrophe other than a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion or widespread use of DU weapons.

If a core meltdown happened (or more likely when one happens), a vast area would be contaminated and made uninhabitable forever. Where I live in Chicago I'm surrounded by 11 nuclear power plants, many of them aging and all of them with histories of safety violations caused by aging and shoddy maintenance. Even without an accident, these facilities (and all others everywhere) discharge enough radiation daily in their normal operations to contaminate the food we eat (even organic food), the water we drink and the air we breathe into our lungs. If one of these plants had a core meltdown and metropolitan Chicago was downwind from the fallout, the city and suburbs alone would become uninhabitable forever and would have to be evacuated quickly with all possessions left behind and lost (including our homes) except for what we could carry in suitcases or in the trunks of our cars. Everyone should thus ask the obvious question - is this kind of insane "nuclear Russian roulette" risk worth taking? There are much cleaner, safer alternatives available or that can be developed, if we'd just be willing to invest heavily in alternative energy sources other than the nuclear option and fossil fuels. There are also common sense ways to practice conservation, without significantly impeding our western lifestyle.

Up to now, our leaders have been irresponsible and derelict in their duty to inform us of the risk and act responsibly to remove it to protect us from potential harm. They've also shown no restraint in their actions or respect for the people in countries we seek to dominate. Those countries are never the developed ones in the Global North with the power to respond. They're always weak, less developed and overexploited ones, usually with darker skinned people and a non Judeo-Christian faith. In this country, especially without a draft and with few good career opportunities for the poor and underprivileged, military service with the promise of education and other benefits (that most inductees never get) becomes the temporary career choice of expedience. The rich and well-off only wage the wars but don't fight in them. Instead they send the poor to fight and die for them to make them richer. When our Vietnam era military came home sick and dying from the toxic effects of Agent Orange (highly toxic dioxin), Henry Kissinger, a Nobel Peace prize recipient and accused war criminal, arrogantly insulted them all when he called them "just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." Used, abused and discarded like worn out shoes. Kissinger's past has come back to haunt him. Before travelling abroad now, he must check with the State Department to be sure there are no warrants out for his arrest.

The world today is closer to the tipping point than ever before. We may, in fact, have passed it and it's already too late. The price we've paid for our technological advances has been an equal growth in the threat to our survival. Up to now we've found no way to end this destructive path. We're fast running out of time, and unless we do it and soon, we may not get another chance. The U.S. today is like a giant Gulliver Agonistes and the rest of the world like the Lilliputians - in Jonathan Swift's classic satire. Despite the mismatch, the Lilliputans (who stood 6 inches high) were able to tie down this giant and prevent him from wrecking their homes. In the end, they got Gulliver to leave and were able to go on with their lives. The lesson is clear. People everywhere need to understand the great peril we all face - our survival. Then, like the Lilliputians, we need to hog-tie this out-of-control predatory Gulliver to save ourselves.

Two final thoughts to consider - the first one from Dr. Helen Caldicott, president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, an expert on the medical hazards of nuclear energy, author, activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee from her 1978 book Nuclear Madness (updated in 1994): "As a physician, I contend nuclear technology (military and commercial) threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue (and they have and have gotten worse), the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced."

The second is from the great British journalist, Robert Fisk from his year end London Independent column entitled War Without End: "Only justice, not bombs, can make our dangerous world a safer place."

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net

None of the Bushista NeoCons running this miserable Genocide in Central Asia care one whit. In fact, it is what they ordered from the US Military's list of services. Mostly, the remaining 300 Million "good Americans" do not care, do not know and do not want to know.

Those Iraqis not yet radiologically contaminated must leave Iraq as soon as possible. Before they too get radiation poisoning, their genetic line is kaput, they die and become just so much radioactive sand in the deserts of Iraq.

The only hope of the US-UK Troopers in Iraq is that they get out before they take a fateful breath in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The not yet dead say there is a very slight metallic taste at the time.

Meanwhile the 140,000-pound A1M1 Death Machine Tanks keep dispensing Poison Uranium Oxide Gas that lasts forever in the Occupied Territories of Iraq, as per the Bushista NeoCons' Instructions.

That's the bottom line. The US Military, funded by the US taxpayer who borrowed up to 80% of the world's savings at one time, killed the Iraqi people. The Iraqis don't even know it yet. Most scientists and just plain people are afraid to look them in the eye and tell them the truth.

Censorship at Work

(America, Land of War Criminals) Radiation Poisoning is a miserable way to die. It means adult diapers, unbearable and unimaginable pain and Morphine as a Goddess, if you can get it. Poisonous, radioactive, ceramic uranium oxide gas colors everything else. There is no treatment and there is no cure.

Radiation Poisoning is a Death Sentence, courtesy of the US Political Class delivered on target and on time by the US Military, the most lethal military in the history of the world. .

See for yourself how people are faring in the shadowy world of Government Censorship, lies payola and grim everyday officially sanctioned propaganda. You and your family are subject to these NeoCon lies daily. If you are an American, chances are you believe them. You are wrong, dead wrong. You could not possibly be more wrong.

Google these phrases at www.google.com

"depleted Uranium" On May 14, 2005, it received 971,000 Internet page hits. Lie: "Depleted Uranium is really OK! After all, the Pentagon would not call it depleted if it wasn't, would they?"

"ceramic uranium oxide gas" + battlefield Truth: This stuff is deadly. It is Bad, Radioactive and Kills people - forever. It is not OK a year from now. It is not OK, ever. It use is always a War Crime. Only 19 Google Net page hits.

May 14, 2005, the Google count was a minuscule 19 Hits. It's on fewer than 19 web sites. Nineteen is hardly any at all. That's it! Total for the world as reflected by Google. But, still, I'm right and you are wrong.

Again, that's 971,000 vs 19 hits. That's a totally overwhelming advantage. Yet, the US Military and Intelligence Agencies keep investing more and more resources and money to counter the miserable little 19 stories, articles and references to the Genocidal Product "ceramic uranium oxide gas" used by the US Military in Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq - In other words, Central Asia.

Why are they worried? In the world of "Big Media" what effect can a mere 19 articles have against the Tsunami of 971,000 page hits? Well, a lot, actually.

Now Google the phrase "Zyklon B" That is the poison gas the Nazis used to kill millions of Concentration Camp victims during the Holocaust of World War II. WW II lasted from 1939 to 1945.

You see, the United States Political Senior Class joyfully joined, 60 years later, the German Nazis of World War II in the decision to use Genocide as an Official Government Policy (OGP.) This was not done by mistake. No, these modern day butchers knew exactly what they were doing.

What's genocide? Dictionary.com reports - Genocide: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Weaponized Ceramic Uranium Oxide Gas betrays the motives of its users in the US Military and its advocates in politics, government and society. Just as surely as the Nazi's poisonous hydrogen cyanide gas does for an impartial war crimes investigator.

Genocide is the kind of international crime that has a big down side, if knowledge of it gets out of a tightly controlled orbit of enthusiastic and dedicated cult-like supporters. Of course, the CIA can easily control the big media to manage the spin. It's pretty simple, they do so every day. William Colby, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, once stated "The CIA owns anybody of consequence in the national media." It is obvious on its face.

Folks, the CIA cannot control you, though: Tell your neighbors about the US Military's Kill Everything Uranium Weapons.

It's known unofficially as the "Kill'em All Policy." also: "Waste Them," "Whack Them," and "Nuke 'em." Once set free in the political environment that is the kind of searing truth that burns out corruption: the infection, pus, and bloody raw wounds of a democracy turned fascist.

Currently in the deepest, darkest, blackest part of the fascist theocratic government in the United States the slavishly obedient US Military sees little reason to revolt and say "No!" to the well-known genocidal policies of the senior politicians. Even though poisonous Uranium Gas sickens and kills their own troops, the officer corps goes along with it as necessary because the civilian political leadership wants it that way.

It is also, as a practical matter, an efficient method eliminating ailing Vets that cost billions of dollars in budgetary appropriations for the Veterans Administration. They are just following the advice of US Foreign Policy guru Henry Kissinger.

In 1973 in General Alexander Haig's presence, Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor, referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.[10] Kissinger set the public stage for the war managers to sacrifice the gullible, but patriotic and "stupid" American Troopers to the use of weaponized uranium oxide gas. American General Norman Schwarzkopf from the First Gulf War stated they were not told anything about harmful uranium munitions.

As seen in the overwhelming comparison of 971,000 articles to 19 articles, the "depleted uranium" metal the US Military and Government actively encourages the meek and submissive academic sector to study is most often called "mildly radioactive." The same metal in most of the rest of the world is =93highly radioactive.=94

The "big media's talking heads" simply do as they are told, read what they are handed and collect their millions in payola bribes; and, of course, they smile - a lot.

In short, the lying big media have you and your family controlled perfectly. That makes the Professional Hairdo News Readers on your tube guilty of being an Accessory to Genocide and an Accessory to Mass Murder.

These media celebrities should utterly disgust everyday Americans, anywhere, anytime. Wait just a few minutes and everywhere in America, you will see their bright shiny faces on the boob tube. The men are strong, confident and well fed. The women look gaunt, anorexic and coping.

In the Ivy Covered Halls of Academia, the US Government has thousands of frightened scientists busy studying the wrong radioactive metal, on purpose. The War on Central Asia is a large well-organized industrial killing operation. God forbid the over educated, worthless clowns should study the poison uranium gas that is actually crippling and killing our own Troopers on the ground in Iraq and Iraqi men, women and children.

Yes, you see: poisonous radioactive ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust is all together different than the elemental uranium block of metal from which the more lethal version is derived.

This metal [uranium] humbly makes itself available for the having, by anyone with the gumption to dig it out of the ground and "process" it one time. No big deal, eh? Your watch dial might even glow with a cousin metal. It has a pretty, soft glow, doesn't it?

Guess what? Glowing watch dials have absolutely nothing to do with the lethal, crippling and killing radioactive uranium oxide gas used everywhere on American battlefields in the last fifteen years. And, that is the only place you will find this kind of uranium gas - in the air on American battlefields.

Killing is all it is good for. Killing for an eternity. The US Military uses millions of pounds of the weaponized version of it promiscuously in Iraq and Central Asia by order of senior American politicians.

That's a trick of the propagandists' art. See how easy you were to get off the track? Stay focused. These monsters are really good at diverting your attention. It's officially called "mis-direction" in propaganda classes. The real subject is "ceramic uranium oxide gas" + battlefields. Remember!

When you talk to your neighbors tell them that is what all the fuss is about. Guarantee you, when your neighbor Googles it, they are going to find one of the 19 articles. In this case, being right is not a consolation prize. It just means more threats and harassment for authors who dare to write and speak about it's use as a war crime.

Since 1943 American War Planners have known "The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a person's body would be fatal. There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty." [9] This is from a Declassified document from the secretive "Manhattan Project."

I invite you to try an experiment. Spend a while contemplating the following two questions. Write to me with your conclusions. Send them to: bobnichols@cox.net

Two Questions. 1. What kind of a person purposefully selects a Genocidal Weapon for use in Central Asia; then orders massive quantities of it used in battle.

2. What kind of person orders a government and military cover up of the resulting Slow Genocide?

The only statements throughout history that speak to the very issue we all face in the world today are these few sentences from the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal at the end of World War II.

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience... therefore have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950

Since the obliging and compliant Congress will not stand up to the President as they are supposed to, we have a serious problem in this country.

I would not want any weak-minded souls to think I do not respect the processes of Government created by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and his friends before 1776. Read all they wrote and said.

The Nuremberg statement is now international law and by extension, U.S. law. It is now the duty of all loyal American citizens. The fascist government controlling the United States and the US Military can no longer be allowed to exist; it must be replaced. The world and international law holds all Americans accountable, and the price to pay is dear.

As you think about the "problem" we have in the United States I send you this greeting "Welcome to hell."

The following sources were consulted for this article.

Listen to the former Director of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project Dr Doug Rokke Ph.D., former Nuclear Weapons Lab Scientist Leuren Moret, former Army Sgt Dennis Kyne, human rights and war crimes lawyer Karen Parker, Canadian nuclear celebrity Susan Riordan, well-known nuke power plant investigator Russell Hoffman and Project Censored Award Winning Writer Bob Nichols discuss these thought provoking questions and more on the following recent World Wide Talk Radio Program:

Depleted Uranium: Cause and Effect 4 Hour Special on The =91X' Zone Radio Show and TalkStar Radio Network http://www.talkstarradio.com http://www.xzone-radio.com

1. Nichols - "There Are No Words" www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Nichols0327.htm

2. Nichols - "My God! My Country Is Using Poison Gas In Iraq" www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug04/Nichols0807.htm

3. Russell Hoffman "Poison Fire, USA" www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

4. Moret - Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml

5. World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference: www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/

6. International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan written opinion of Judge N. Bhagwat: also at www.traprockpeace.org/tokyo_trial_13march04.doc

7.Gsponer and Hurni "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles Of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion, And The Quest For Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons" www.inesap.org/publ_tech01.htm

8.Ingri Cassel "An Interview with Amy Worthington" 5-15-2005, Rense.com www.rense.com/general65/amy.htm

9.Declassified documents, the Manhattan Project, 1943 Memo to Gen. Leslie Groves. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Groves-Memo-Manhattan30oct43.htm

10. Kissinger's quote regarding military men comes from Chapter 14, which extensively discusses Al Haig, Kissinger and other Nixon staff advisors' negotiations and differences over national security issues during the 1969-1974 period. The exact, direct quote marks begin with the word 'dumb' and terminates after the word 'used'. SOURCE: Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein, The Final Days, second Touchstone paperback edition (1994), Chapter 14, pp. 194-195.

Copyright by Bob Nichols. Credit the source and leave everything intact, including notes to re-publish. Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner and lives in Oklahoma where 20% of the people cannot read. He is a contributor to OnLineJournal.com, AxisofLogic.com, DissidentVoice.com other online publications and the "San Francisco Bay View" newspaper. Nichols is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Nichols can be reached by email at bob.bobnichols@gmail.com

The CDC website contains a massive amount of anti-smoking propaganda. Every so often, however, they slip up and post something that contradicts their own message.

On the site, there are some maps, showing lung cancer death rates for different parts of the country. There is a caveat attached, declaring that the maps will no longer be available after June 21, 2001. However, somebody evidently slipped up and failed to delete the maps, because, as of early December, 2001, they were still there.

The first map purports to show LCDR's for "white males" during the time period 1950-1969. The only other map posted for males is for Black males, which leads me to believe that any male who was not "Black" was classified as "White" (because, back in 1950, the government had not yet begun to classify people as "Asian", "Hispanic", "Native American", etc.).

What we see are the areas with high LCDR's shaded in red and those with the lowest LCDR's shaded in blue. Practically all of California is red or pink. All of Florida is red or pink. The area around New York City is deep red.

The next map shows LCDR's for "white males" for the years 1970-1994. Here it is:

Note that there has been a remarkable change! The parts of Florida around Miami have turned blue. The area around New York City has turned blue. The area around Los Angeles, CA (the smog capital of the world) has turned blue. Most of northeast Texas is red, but the areas along the border with Mexico are blue.

The CDC would have us believe that in the blue areas, fewer people are smoking cigarettes. There is, however, another explanation, which I believe to be more logical. All of the blue areas are areas where there has been a heavy Hispanic immigration.

It is well known that the lung cancer rate in American Indians is very low. Like Asians, they seem to possess a genetic resistance to the disease. The Hispanics who have immigrated into the blue areas are descendants of the same ancestors as our Native Americans. Thus, the changes in demographics more likely account for the changes in LCDR's than do any other single factor.

Many factors contributed to this meteoric rise in popularity of the cigarette, including improved cigarette paper, automatic manufacturing machinery that lowered the price, and intensive nationwide advertising campaigns for the new cigarette brands. But the major factor was the appearance of a new type of tobacco--- known variously as "bright," "flue cured," or "Virginia"--- which made cigarette smoke more readily inhalable. Cigarettes made of the new tobacco were called mild ("not a cough in a carload") because the smoke could be drawn deep into the lungs. The size of the new cigarettes was also admirably adapted to the nicotine dose most people prefer. It was therefore easier for women and children to learn to smoke cigarettes; the likelihood of nicotine overdose among novices, with such acute toxic side effects as pallor, sweating, nausea, vomiting, and even loss of consciousness (fainting), was minimized.

The explosive increase in cigarette smoking after 1910 can also be attributed in part to the public-health campaigns of that era against the chewing of tobacco and its inevitable accompaniment, the cuspidor. The sputum of tobacco chewers, according to repeated public-health warnings, spreads tuberculosis and perhaps other diseases. Most of those who gave up tobacco chewing no doubt turned instead to cigarette smoking. The ashtray replaced the cuspidor, and lung cancer replaced tuberculosis as the major lung disease.

Perhaps because of their attractiveness to children and women, the new "mild" cigarettes aroused renewed hostility against nicotine. Beginning in the early 1900s, new anticigarette leagues, patterned on the politically potent antisaloon leagues, were founded and flourished both nationally and locally. Smoking by women and children was particularly assailed. This view was taken even by many confirmed pipe and cigar smokers--- including Thomas A. Edison, himself addicted to cigars. In 1914 Edison wrote a widely publicized letter to Henry Ford alleging that unlike cigar smoke, the smoke from a paper-wrapped cigarette "has a violent action in the nerve centers, producing degeneration of the cells of the brain, which is quite rapid among boys. Unlike most narcotics, this degeneration is permanent and uncontrollable. I employ no person who smokes cigarettes." ²

FIGURE 11. Production of Cigarettes, 1880 to 1968 ²

Buttressed by such authoritative statements from respected public figures, the anticigarette campaigns were remarkably successful among lawmakers. By 1921--- the year after alcohol prohibition--- fourteen states had enacted cigarette prohibition, and ninety-two anticigarette bills were under consideration in twenty-eight state legislatures. The campaigns were not as effective, however, among cigarette smokers. Men, women, and children went right on smoking (as in the realms of the czar, the sultan, and the mikado centuries before), and in 1927 the last of the statewide cigarette prohibition laws was repealed. ³ Only laws against sales to minors remained.

Examples of these laws are cited below. All of these laws were in effect in the early 1960s, and some may indeed remain in effect today.

A Florida law made it illegal for anyone under the age of twenty-one to smoke cigarettes. It was also illegal in Florida to provide anyone under twenty-one with a cigarette, a cigarette wrapper, or a substitute; a twenty-year-old caught in possession of a cigarette could be hauled into court and compelled to testify concerning its source.

In Georgia, Kansas, West Virginia, and perhaps other states, the legal age for smoking was also twenty-one. In Idaho, incredible as it may seem, the minimum cigarette age for men was twenty-one, but girls could smoke at eighteen.

In Maine an offer to sell cigarettes to a minor was punishable. In Florida it was unlawful to advise or counsel anyone under twenty-one to smoke. In Massachusetts snuff and cigars were forbidden to young people under sixteen; the ban against cigarettes continued until eighteen. In North Dakota it was unlawful to permit minors to gather in a public place to use tobacco. In Pennsylvania, a minor who refused to divulge the source of cigarettes or cigarette paper could be fined, imprisoned, or certified to the juvenile court; refusal to serve as an informer against his cigarette supplier also made a child a criminal in South Carolina.

These laws led, of course, to ridicule and contempt on the part of law defying young people.

If the anticigarette laws had been effective, one might view them from a different perspective. But here are the cigarette production figures during the decades when anticigarette campaigns were at their height and anticigarette laws were mushrooming in the state legislatures:

Years	Cigarettes per Year (Billions) a
1900-1909	4.2
1910-1919	24.3
1920-1929	80.0 5

^a The comparable 1970 figure was 583 billion. ⁴

As we shall show in Parts VII and VIII, the laws and campaigns of the 1960s against LSD and marijuana helped to popularize those drugs. In retrospect, it seems reasonable to conclude that the anticigarette laws and campaigns earlier in the century were similarly among the significant factors popularizing the cigarette. The prohibition served as a lure.

Thomas Edison was no doubt wrong in alleging that cigarettes permanently damage the cells of the brain--- but he was right in his view that cigarettes are more damaging than pipes or cigars. In part at least, this is because cigarette smoke is usually inhaled deep into the lungs. Some cigarette smokers do not inhale the smoke, while some cigar and pipe smokers do inhale. In general, however, the conversion to cigarette smoking meant a phenomenal increase in smoke inhalation.

Evidence of the added hazard this introduced was soon forthcoming. In 1921, for example, Dr. Moses Barron reported that there had been only four cases of death from lung cancer found among 3,399 autopsies performed at the University of Minnesota from 1899 through 1918. Between 1919 and July 1921, in contrast, there were nine lung-cancer deaths in 1,033 autopsies--- an 800 percent increase. * ⁷ In 1927, Dr. F. E. Tylecote reported in the British medical journal Lancet that almost every patient with lung cancer he had seen was a regular smoker, usually of cigarettes. ⁸ Thereafter confirmatory evidence accumulated rapidly, and lung cancer among smokers reached epidemic proportions.

* By 1952, the rate at the University of Minnesota had risen to 264 lung-cancer deaths in 8,332 autopsies--- almost a 3,600 percent increase over the pre-1919 rate. ⁶

Conclusive evidence that cigarette-smoking is by far the most important cause of lung cancer, and is also a major factor in deaths from coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and other diseases, was collected during the 1950s and 1960s in a brilliant series of large-scale studies conducted by Dr. E. Cuyler Hammond and his associates of the American Cancer Society. The ACS studies also revealed greatly increased illness rates among smokers and a notable shortening of life expectancy; cigarettes were more damaging in many of these respects than cigars or pipes. Finally, and of the utmost importance, the ACS studies established the fact that ex-smokers live longer than smokers, and that the longer they go without smoking, the closer their life expectancy approaches the life expectancy of those who have never smoked.

Recent studies have also shown that cigarette smoking during pregnancy adds to the hazards of the unborn baby. An English and in American researcher, C. M. Fletcher and Daniel Horn, summarized the evidence in a 1970 World Health Organization publication, "Smoking and Health":

There is now clear evidence from seven large independent surveys that the babies born to women who smoke during pregnancy are, on the average, 150-240 grams lighter than those of non-smokers and that smokers have two or three times as many premature babies [defined as babies weighing less than 2,500 grams]. By their first birthday, these small babies have caught up with and are as heavy as those of nonsmoking mothers.

Recent studies of over 8,000 pregnancies have, however, shown that the risk to the fetus from a mother's smoking may be more serious than this, for the babies of mothers who smoked during pregnancy were about twice as likely to be aborted, to be stillborn, or to die soon after birth as the babies of nonsmoking mothers. The risk to babies of mothers with pre-eclamptic toxemia was increased if the mother smoked. In one study it was calculated that one in five of babies lost would have been saved if their mothers had not smoked. ⁹

The data incriminating cigarette smoking as a health hazard were reviewed in a report of the Royal College of Physicians of London in 1962, and in the Consumers Union Report on Smoking and the Public Interest in 1963. These reports, however, reached only hundreds of thousands of people; publicity was relatively limited in the mass media.

On January 11, 1964, a turning point was reached. The Report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health, published amid unprecedented worldwide fanfare in the mass media, convinced even most smokers that cigarette smoking shortens human life, causes lung cancer and other forms of cancer, and exacerbates heart disease, emphysema, bronchitis, and a number of other illnesses--- gravely increasing the risk of dying of them.

For a brief few weeks, this report had a major nationwide impact. Within a few days after its publication, some chain supermarkets announced that cigarette sales had fallen 20 to 25 percent. In Iowa, where the impact of the report was most noticeable, tax officials reported that the number of taxed packages fell 31.7 percent in February 1964, the month after the report was issued. Nationally, the drop in taxed packages was between 15 and 20 percent. The true impact of the report was much greater than even these figures suggest. For casual smokers (of less than a pack a day) were more likely to stop smoking than heavy smokers (two packs or more a day). Thus a 20 percent decline in number of cigarettes smoked may have represented a 25 or even 30 percent decline in number of smokers still smoking. ^l0

But the curtailment was short-lived; what has been called "the Great Forswearing" of January and February 1964 was followed by the "Great Relapse" of March--- further evidence that in the twentieth century, as in the sixteenth, nicotine remained an addicting drug. Within a few months cigarette consumption was back almost to pre-1964 levels.

The failure of the Report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee to curtail cigarette smoking more than briefly was naturally a disappointment, but health agencies did not despair. The United States Public Health Service, the American Cancer Society, and countless other national and local agencies launched campaigns with three major and related goals: to inform people that cigarette smoking is dangerous, to persuade people to stop smoking, and to help those who were having trouble in stopping. The possibility that nicotine, for a large percentage of users, might be an addicting drug--- the possibility that many people might not be able to stop, even though they wanted to, decided to, and tried to was not given serious consideration. It was during the same years 19641970, it will be recalled, that the public was similarly being assured that heroin addiction is curable.

Judged by their effect on attitudes, the antismoking campaigns launched following the 1964 Report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee were notably successful. A survey conducted by the United States Public Health Service in 1966 revealed the following attitudes among a nationwide cross section of males who were current cigarette smokers: ¹¹

71.3 percent agreed that smoking is harmful to health.

67.3 percent disagreed with the statement that cigarettes do more good to a person than harm.

59.5 percent hoped that their children would never smoke.

57.7 percent agreed that cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer.

56.3 percent disagreed with the statement: "The chances of getting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes are so small that it's foolish to worry about it."

54.6 percent agreed that smoking is a dirty habit.

44.9 percent agreed that there is something morally wrong with smoking cigarettes.

43.1 percent agreed that cigarette smoking is a cause of emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

33.4 percent agreed that cigarette smoking is a cause of coronary heart disease.

Among women who were currently smoking cigarettes, and among nonsmokers, the percentages decrying cigarettes were even higher on every one of those questions. *

* Also noteworthy was an increase in support for cigarette prohibition. In 1964 and again in 1966, only 23 percent of respondents in a National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health survey agreed with the statement, "The selling of cigarettes should be stopped completely." In a 1970 survey, 38 percent of respondents agreed with this prohibitionist position. ¹²

These figures, clearly, are a tribute to the effectiveness of the antismoking campaigns. Even many confirmed cigarette smokers were persuaded by the campaigns that smoking is a dirty habit, harmful to health and morally reprehensible. But the prevalence of negative attitudes toward smoking among smokers, unfortunately, had little effect on their actual smoking. Here are the cigarette consumption figures. ¹³

Year	Number of cigarettes smoked (in billions)	Daily per capita consumption (aged 18 and over)
1958	449.8	10.8 cigarettes
1959	467.4	11.2 cigarettes
1960	484.4	11.4 cigarettes
1961	502.7	11.7 cigarettes
1962	508.4	11.7 cigarettes
1963	523.9	11.9 cigarettes
1964	511.2	11.5 cigarettes
1965	528.7	11.7 cigarettes
1966	541.2	11.8 cigarettes
1967	549.2	11.7 cigarettes
1968	545.6	11.5 cigarettes
1969	528.9	10.8 cigarettes
1970	542.0	11.0 cigarettes

In short, the number of cigarettes consumed in 1970 was up 3.4 percent since 1963, while per capita consumption was down 7.6 percent.

The increase in cigarette consumption, moreover, occurred despite an increase of more than 40 percent in retail cigarette prices between 1964 and 1970. ¹⁴ Retail expenditures for cigarettes increased from an estimated $7.2 billion in 1964 to an estimated $10.5 billion in 1970. ¹⁵ Thus despite the anticigarette campaigns and despite the increased awareness of smoking hazards, Americans were spending 45 percent more for cigarettes in 1970 than in 1964.

The Report of the Surgeon General's Advisory Committee and the subsequent anticigarette campaigns did have one major effect, however. Vast numbers of smokers turned from plain to filter-tip cigarettes and from high-tar-high-nicotine to low-tar-low-nicotine brands. While the data are not conclusive, it seems probable that the increase in number of cigarettes smoked per smoker was related to this switch; some smokers no doubt increased their daily cigarette quota to compensate for the smaller amount of nicotine in each cigarette. Other smokers no doubt compensated by taking more puffs on each cigarette and leaving shorter butts.

In the eighteenth century, Charles Lamb described his own addiction to nicotine in striking language:

For thy sake, tobacco, I
Would do anything but die.

The current evidence indicates that Lamb seriously understated the case.

Meanwhile, what of the effects of current public health anticigarette campaigns on children and young people? A 1970 survey made for the American Cancer Society by Lieberman Research, Inc., shows that, as in the case of adults, the campaigns--- including the anticigarette TV commercials of 1968-1970--- were enormously effective in molding the attitudes of young people toward cigarettes.

The Lieberman study covered a nationwide cross section of young people aged thirteen through eighteen, both smokers and nonsmokers. More than two-thirds of these teenagers (70 percent of the nonsmokers and 66 percent of the smokers) recalled anticigarette presentations to which they had been exposed in school. ¹⁶ More than half had seen anticigarette educational films and posters. Almost all of them had seen the powerful anticigarette messages then being aired on television; indeed, the teenagers in the sample reported having seen an average of 8.9 anticigarette television spots during the previous four weeks. ¹⁷

The vast majority of these teenagers, moreover, were convinced by what they had seen and heard. When asked whether cigarette smoking causes cancer, for example, 86 percent of the teen-age nonsmokers and 65 percent of the teen-age smokers agreed that it did. ¹⁸ Similarly, 71 percent of the teen-age nonsmokers and 66 percent of the smokers agreed it was "definitely or probably true" that cigarette smoking triples the likelihood of a heart attack. ¹⁹

As in the case of adults, however, a firm conviction that smoking causes cancer and heart attacks had very little effect on teen-age smoking habits. "When children enter their teen-age years," the 1970 survey noted, "the rate of cigarette smoking is relatively low. By the time they reach the end of their teen-age years, the rate of cigarette smoking is not far from the rate for the general adult population." ²⁰

Two surveys made for the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, a unit of the United States Public Health Service, suggest that during the years from 1968 to 1970, the proportion of teenagers recruited to cigarette smoking was actually increasing* Here are the figures.

* The 1970 Lieberman Report also revealed that more than half of all teenagers who smoke had their first cigarettes by the age of twelve and 85 percent had smoked before the age of fifteen. ²¹

Age at First Cigarette	Percentage of Total Who Ever Had Smoked
8 years or under	14
9-10 years	14
11-12 years	27
13-14 years	30
15-16 years	12
17-18 years	2
Don't know or no answer	1
	100

PERCENTAGE SMOKING
Year	Boys	Girls
1968	14.7	8.4
1970	18.5	11.9 22

Why do boys and girls convinced that cigarette smoking causes cancer and heart attacks nevertheless start smoking cigarettes? One answer fairly leaps from the pages of the Lieberman survey. The single most important fact about smoking has been kept a secret from them. They have not been told that nicotine is an addicting drug. As a result, most of them think that they will smoke for a while and then stop. Indeed, among the teen-age smokers in the Lieberman survey, only 21 percent thought it "very likely" that they would still be smoking five years hence; and an additional 27 percent thought it only "fairly likely." ²³ The majority confidently expected to stop in five years or less.

The thought that many smokers can't stop seems not to have occurred to these teenagers. They believed not only the campaigns stressing smoking as a cause of cancer and heart attacks, but also the campaigns insisting that it is possible to stop smoking if you "make up your mind" to stop. So why not smoke for a few years and then swear off? That in effect was the majority view among the teenagers in the Lieberman sample.

The campaigns do not, of course, tell children that it is easy to stop smoking. They suggest that it requires considerable effort of will and perhaps some suffering. As noted in Part I, this is precisely the kind of challenge that attracts voting people. A majority of the teen-age smokers in the Lieberman sample envisioned themselves as confronting that challenge a few years hence, and winning.

The role of cigarette advertising in exacerbating the problem of nicotine addiction is difficult to evaluate. Smoking does not depend on advertising. In Italy, where all cigarette advertising has been banned, there has been little change in cigarette consumption. ²⁴ People who already smoke go right on smoking, largely because they are addicted to nicotine.

But why do young people start smoking? Here the answer is more complex. Fifteen-year-olds start in part because their elders smoke and in part because other teenagers smoke. But it seems highly likely that cigarette advertising--- which associates smoking with youth and music and joy and sex--- is an auxiliary factor, perhaps a quite potent one.

For almost all of these children, of course, smoking was illegal; for many of them, smoking a cigarette was their first experience with an illicit drug.

It may be, of course, that a ban on all cigarette advertising would have little or no immediate effect on the recruiting of youthful new smokers; the other factors may be sufficient to maintain recruiting at present levels even in the absence of advertising. But no other methods of discouraging young people from beginning to smoke offer any likelihood of success so long as cigarette advertising remains licit.

The view here presented--- that cigarette smoking is an addiction to the drug nicotine, that the overwhelming majority of those who smoke more than a few cigarettes become addicted, and that relatively few addicts quit permanently--- seems to fly in the face of common sense. Some readers of this Report, for example, have no doubt quit smoking themselves perhaps with relatively little difficulty. Most readers no doubt know personally quite a few individuals who have quit. And most people, especially in 1970 and 1971, read repeated newspaper stories announcing that millions of cigarette smokers had quit smoking--- stories emanating in large part from the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health. Surely, some readers may feel, the case for the addicting nature of cigarette smoking is being exaggerated in this Consumers Union Report.

Since United States statistics concerning ex-smokers are currently in dispute, let us start with a British view.

"In the 10-year period 1958-68," Dr. Hamilton Russell of the Addiction Research Unit notes,

there was little change in smoking prevalence among men in the United Kingdom--- about 69 percent were smokers, 15 percent ex-smokers, and 16 percent had never smoked. In such a sample the ex-smokers form 18 percent of the smokers and ex-smokers combined. . . . Using the 1968 statistics for women, a similar figure is obtained. Thus some 18 percent of smokers have stopped smoking and become ex-smokers. This so-called natural discontinuance of smoking tends to occur after the age of 30 and rises further with increasing age. The average daily cigarette consumption also tends to drop quite sharply after the age of sixty. The ex-smoker status, however, is not a stable one and many relapse to regular smoking. This relapse rate is related to the duration of the ex-smoker status. Among ex-smokers [who have abstained for less than one year] 37 percent relapse within two years compared with 19 percent of those [who have abstained for one to two years] and 5 percent of those [who have abstained for more than two years]. There is therefore a sizeable turnover, with regular smokers discontinuing only to relapse later. The evidence suggests that in the present social climate of this country [Britain] it is unlikely that more than 15 percent of people who smoke regularly undergo natural discontinuance to permit non-smoking status before the age of 60. Furthermore, this situation has not changed appreciably over the past ten years. ²⁵

This analysis of ex-smoker statistics should serve to warn against excessive optimism when superficially impressive figures are publicized. A headline announcing that a substantial percentage of all smokers have quit, for example, must be viewed with extreme caution. If the same percentage of all smokers had also quit ten years ago, the progress made against smoking is clearly nil.

Dr. Hamilton Russell's analysis also explains the instinctive commonsense error in judgment people make when they decide that the war against cigarettes must be going well because they see around them so many former smokers who have quit. If they had looked around them a decade ago, they would also have noted many ex-smokers.

Data concerning current smokers, nonsmokers, and ex-smokers in the United States are available from the National Center for Health Statistics, a unit in the United States Public Health Service.

	Percentage	Percentage	Percentage
	1955 *	1966 *	1968
Current smokers	41.8	40.6	38.5
Never smoked	50.9	47.6	48.0
Ex-smokers	7.3	11.8	13.5 26

* There were minor changes in data-gathering methods between 1955 and 1966, but not enough to impair the comparability of the figures.

The above figures do not suggest a major victory over nicotine between 1955 and 1968. They are subject, however, to an important qualification. The surveys on which they are based asked each respondent to reply not only for himself but also for other members of the same household. It is easy for a respondent to report accurately who in his household smokes and who does not smoke; but in such a survey ex-smokers are sometimes reported as having "never smoked." Two 1970 surveys, one by the National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health and the other by the Social Research Group of George Washington University, asked each respondent to report only for himself. As a result, the number of exsmokers is larger than in the statistics cited above, while the number of current smokers remains about the same.

	Percentage	Percentage
	National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, 1970	Social Research Group, 1970
Current smokers	36.2	38
Never smoked	40.3	39
Ex-smokers	23.5 27	22 28

The "ex-smoker" figures in these two studies seem to offer a ray of hope. But this apparent increase in ex-smokers since 1955 is not balanced by a decrease in current smokers; the ex-smokers in the 1970 surveys seem to come mostly from the "never smoked" category in the earlier surveys. Little comfort can be drawn from the fact that the proportion of current smokers in the country has declined from 41 to 42 percent in 1955 to 36 or 38 percent in 1970.

Footnotes
Chapter 26

1. James L. Hedrick, Smoking, Tobacco and Health, prepared for National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, fare, Public Ilea Service, March 1969 (revised), p. 4.

2. Jerome E. Brooks, The Mighty Leaf (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1952), p. 274.

3. Ibid., pp. 274-275.

4. Statistical Bulletin No. 467, "Annual Report on Tobacco Statistics 1970," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer and Marketing Service, 1971, Table 16, p. 30.

5. James L. Hedrick, Smoking, Tobacco and Health, p. 3.

6. Ruth and Edward Brecher, Smoking--- The Great Dilemma, Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 361 (New York: Public Affairs Pamphlets, 1964), pp. 2, 3.

7. Moses Barron, reported to Minnesota State Medical Society, August 25, 1921, cited in Ruth arid Edward Brecher et al., The Consumers Union Report on Smoking arid the Public Interest (Mount Vernon, N.Y.: Consumers Union, 1963), pp. 13-14.

8. F. E. Tylecote in Lancet, cited in Ruth and Edward Brecher et al., The Consumers Union Report on Smoking and the Public Interest, p. 25.

9. C. M. Fletcher and Daniel Horn in WHO Chronicle, Geneva, Switzerland, 24 (1970): 345-370.