SNICKERSNEE

The Unnameable Crisis: Overpopulation

by Lorna Salzman

The initial and most severe consequences of overpopulation will be felt by those countries and regions that are the most overpopulated. This is a point that the deniers overlook. Overpumping of aquifers, drought, floods, desertification, etc., which are clustered in Africa, Pakistan and India, are due to the clearing of forests for firewood, which in turn prevents soils from retaining rainwater, and to agricultural practices that necessitate maximum food production to feed local populations (and often primarily for export). The overpumping of deep aquifers and the threat to food supplies is one of the most important topics in World on the Edge by Lester Brown, and is clearly a response to overpopulation.

Dozens of countries are now dependent on the World Food Program because disastrous policies have drastically reduced their ability to produce sufficient food. But the WFP itself is dependent on secure, plentiful food supplies, primarily wheat and rice, and as exporting nations' supplies dwindle, where will these supplies come from? Brown's figures on the loss of self-sufficiency in many exporting countries are dismal and frightening. So while the poor nations will suffer first and worst, in fact the whole world is interconnected in terms of food. China is now a chief importer of American wheat. Some southeast Asian countries are now importers instead of exporters. Brown's figures on these are truly scary.

But Brown does not downplay the impact of overpopulation in these cases. . He has not written a book solely on the overpopulation crisis. Instead, he has taken a comprehensive look at the intersection of these things, of cause and effect, of unintended consequences, and has come up with a book that, to my eyes, will be far more convincing to many people, especially those on the left who are still in denial about population and consider any discussion of it to be racist. Brown has constructed a far stronger case against overpopulation than he would have had he changed his emphasis in the book. Perhaps his tone lacks the urgency that some believe is needed. But overall his discussion of the numerous other problems connected to overpopulation, overconsumption and climate change provide a far more credible picture precisely because he gives an integrated comprehensive explanation of the interconnections.

The main issue at hand seems to be the question of time frame. I don't think that Brown or anyone would disagree, if asked in private, with the premise that anything short of immediate stabilization (i.e. zero population growth) of population will save us. His use of the phrase "stabilization" is to me the problematic one. The word means STOP RIGHT NOW AND DON'T ADD ONE MORE PERSON TO THE EARTH beyond replacement. But that is not what most people think it means. When Jim Hansen talks of stabilizing CO2 emissions, he means DO NOT ADD ANY MORE EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE NOW. But again, this may not be clear to many people.

The ethical problem raised by this issue and others such as food supply, water resources, deforestation and habitat destruction is finding a process that

is not coercive, like China's one-child policy. But short of immediate adoption of drastic coercive measures we have nothing efficacious or timely enough to head off collapse.

Most scientists agree that we must act before we exceed the carrying capacity of the earth but if you accept Brown's figures, we have ALREADY exceeded this by 50%. And he also discusses the conflicts and catastrophes we have already reaped because of this: Russia, Pakistan, Somalia, New Orleans (Brazil and Australia were too recent to get into his book). I think he is perfectly aware that failure to adopt all of his prescriptions is dooming the world to disease, famines, and wars.

I don't think that failure to stabilize population is the only or first thing that will doom us, because all of the problems we face such as oil depletion, deforestation, food shortages, loss of freshwater supplies, epidemics, and economic recessions are equally likely (though Brown and others have strong evidence that the food crisis will hit first) and any one of them will take more time to resolve, if that is the right word, than we have left. The extra problem of overpopulation is the demographic overshoot problem: that we presently have billions of people of reproductive age who are now reproducing or will shortly. They are already born. This is what the various projections of population growth are based on. The only things that could restrain these numbers are the OTHER factors that are operative: disease, famine, war.

Social factors such as women's education and economic empowerment are effective and necessary in slowing population but this will take a long time, and possibly no less time than even forceable sterilization or birth control coercion would take. Those on the left who rely solely on policy changes - all of which have extensive political and economic implications in any given country - are blind to reality.

The onset of any given crisis - water, food, population, energy, disease, famine - is equally likely, and the time to address and mitigate these problems is insufficient. Population experts might well argue that it will take much longer to control population even by force than it would be to mitigate the water and food crises. These are simply matters of judgement and I don't think anyone can prove that any one solution would be enough to save the world, population control included. Zero population growth is nowhere in sight, except through natural forces and events. But climate stabilization is not in sight either, and one could make a valid argument that the impact of the continued rise in global temperature, compounded by positive feedback mechanisms and events, will doom civilization long before overpopulation does.

Let's look at some of the conditions that allow and encourage overpopulation.

--immigration into the USA. Millions of people each year, legal and illegal, possibly equal in number to the increase in annual births. All of these will eventually form households, have children and then grandchildren, purchase homes and cars, become over-consumers like the rest of us and add to the sprawl, overdevelopment and environmental problems already caused by our affluent society, a society whose impact on the earth exceeds that of undeveloped countries by orders of magnitude. Under the circumstances is quite legitimate to question America's role as a pressure relief valve for Latin American countries who refuse to house, feed and provide decent jobs for their own citizens. By not curbing immigration we are letting these countries off the hook. Only desperation forces men with families to leave them behind for the promise or illusion of jobs thousands of miles away.

--patriarchy. In Africa particularly, machismo makes men refuse to use condoms and force their wives to have children; families with six or more children are common. In Latin America large families are also the norm, especially in Brazil. Polygamy in Africa and the Muslim world, widespread prostitution, child slavery, poor disempowered women without rights and no education or job capability all put women at the mercy of men and repugnant ancient customs.

--Islam. Like orthodox Judaism, it bans contraception, and gives men the right to force sex on their wives, otherwise known as rape. Girls are married before their teens and thus start breeding early. Women are denied education and basic freedoms and thus have no future or sustenance outside of their husband's home.

--the Catholic church. If condoms are OK to prevent AIDS, as the pope says, then they should be OK to prevent pregnancy but this logic does not seem to have occurred to the church. A campaign in Latin America and parts of Africa against the Church's ban on birth control is imperative (and of course against the American Christians who want to ban funds for family planning abroad).

We treasure individual freedom and rights, but we also proscribe and often penalize anti-social behavior. Having more than one or two children is

anti-social today. It should be penalized.

Here are some possible solutions that are minimally coercive and deserve discussion and consideration.

1. Reverse Welfare: remove benefits to families with each successive birth after one child.

2. Ban new immigrants of breeding age (except to reunite

separated families) until we have reached no more than 1.2 replacement rate.

3.Track down and expel polygamist families, some of which now collect multiple welfare

benefits (yes, indeed, this is a fact, both here and in the UK but authorities look the other way).

4. Require all new immigrants to speak and read English.

5. End foreign aid except in cases of natural disaster and epidemics, and except for providing information on and access to birth control.

Remember Garrett Hardin's book The Tragedy of the Commons? In that case, those who took more than their share of the commons benefitted and

the rest of the community suffered as the commons disappeared. Today, overpopulated countries are demanding more than their share of the commons, that is, of the earth's space and resources. This is no less reprehensible than the overconsuming countries like the US taking more than their fair share and also

contributing more to climate change. Neither overpopulation nor overconsumption are socially responsible. Both need to be curbed drastically.

SNICKERSNEE

Religious Leaders See No Evil, Hear No Evil

by Lorna Salzman

Religious leaders are not alone in ignoring evil. Our mass media do it as a matter of course. In this month's Harper's magazine, in their famous Harper's Index, you can find the following two statistics:

Confirmed number of terrorist plots against the U.S. perpetrated by Muslims in 2010: 10

By nonMuslims: 25

Now look at an ad in the same issue placed by Negative Population Growth: present U.S. population 308.7 million.

Of these a generous estimate of American Muslims is usually given as 5 million.

Conclusion: while Muslims constitute about 1.6% of the U.S. population, they account for about 35% of total terrorist plots.

Harper's didn't see fit to comment on its own terrorist plot figures.

It is striking how reluctant religious leaders are to acknowledge evil in the world, except for the kind that violates their own doctrines. They denounce war (a fatuous denunciation in any case). Catholics denounce abortion and gay marriage. Muslims denounce everything not in conformity with sharia law. Protestant evangelicals denounce the devil. But when it comes to threats to secular society or sexual predation by their clergy they are silent at best and in denial at worst. It was left to the Pope to denounce Muslim violence and terrorism.

The silence of organized religion after 9/11 was deafening. Eventually sounds were made on the left to the effect that the American "imperialist" chickens were coming home to roost. While most Americans genuinely mourned the World Trade Center deaths, some on the left felt compelled to reach out ......to Muslims. Shortly after the attack, one colleague on Long Island went to meet with Muslims in her community as some perverted kind of outreach, presumably to let them know she didn't blame them personally for the atrocity.

As the visibility and influence of Muslims grew, the media felt compelled to print articles on Muslim culture and "moderate" religious leaders and in general sat up to salute Muslims as group in order to demonstrate their liberalism and tolerance. National Public Radio and the New York Times were repeat offenders in this grovelling display that managed to overlook the religious origins and motivation behind the WTC destruction.

As Homeland Security beefed up airport inspections, Muslims decided to fight back. Six imams on an airplane decided to test liberal tolerance on the airplanes and their strange behavior evoked a passenger complaint that led to them being led off the plane for further scrutiny. Result? The airline AND the passenger who complained were sued by the imams for discrimination. Then newspaper photos appeared showing the five imams in the terminal linking hands with Rabbi Arthur Waskow, head of the Shalom Center, as a gesture of interfaith relations.

Heartwarming.

Meanwhile, back at the liberal blog Tikkun run by ex-radical Michael Lerner, a different kind of X-ray was being deployed against me personally. Lerner asked if I would write a regular environmental blog for Tikkun on line and I agreed. But shortly after, his assistant (and later he himself) notified me that he had looked at my web site and seen articles critical of radical Islam. He said that Tikkun did not want to be attacked for publishing articles (on environment, mind you, not Islam) by someone who had criticized Islam elsewhere. So here is the supposedly brave, tolerant religious leader quaking in fear that he and his blog might be tainted by association with someone whose writings on other topics in other venues might put them in a bad light. So much for principles.

Last summer the Westhampton Beach synagogue sponsored a talk and slide show by a member of the group, Stand With Us. The presentation was powerful and devastating, with videos of Muslims (many of them blacks) delivering virulent tirades against Jews and Israel on American and Canadian campuses. It was as if

Nazi Germany in the 1930s were being revived here in America. I had printed out a handout on the suppression of free speech by Muslims and Muslim groups, and just before the talk started to put them on the attendees' seats, when the friend who had invited me to attend stopped me cold and asked me to not hand them out. I asked why; she said because the rabbi was making outreach efforts to local Muslims and this might offend him or hurt his efforts.

Why are Jewish religious leaders initiating "interfaith dialogue" with Muslims anyway? Shouldn't it be the Muslims reaching out to Jews and rebutting anti-Semitism and terrorism? What is the reluctance of religious leaders to acknowledge the existence of evil in the world?

The answer is simple. If one points out religiously inspired evil, one opens up one's own religion to similar scrutiny and criticism. Each religion has its doctrines, and if religious leaders question those of another religion, this raises the question of its validity...and the validity of other religions as well. Thus, evil can only be described in abstract terms, disconnected from motives and from the perpetrators themselves.

In a New York Times article of April 6th about a French panel discussion of secularism and Islam, Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois criticized the debate saying it could feed demagogy and could lead "to a refusal of all religious expression in our society". The Council of Bishops did not participate and the leaders of six major religions (Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists issued a joint statement of concern that it could "add to the confusion in the troubled period we are traversing". No mention of who is causing these troubles was made or why a panel on the relationship of secularism and religion would be "confusing". Unquestionably, organized religions are clustering tightly together for protection; their statement clearly is saying that secularism is a greater enemy than radical Islam.

But Muslim religious leaders do not observe this propriety. Anti-Semitic propaganda and anti-Christian pogroms are widespread throughout the Muslim world. Muslim tracts in mosques have no hesitation in attacking Jews (slickly referred to as "Zionists"). The qu-ran minces no words in telling Muslims how they should treat nonMuslims and apostates and those who "offend" Mohammed: slaughter them. Muslims have no qualms in squashing free speech practiced by nonMuslims while demanding the right to curse and issue fatwas against anyone and anything considered "offensive".

Meanwhile, Jewish and Christian religious leaders pretend that Muslim prejudice, hatred, violence and misogyny are aberrations, not attitudes embedded in Muslim law and beliefs. They have nothing to say about honor killings right here in this country. They have nothing to say about the growing threats to civil liberties from Muslim leaders. They have nothing to say about Muslim anti-Semitism. For them, evil is disembodied. It has no origin, no perpetrators, no crime scene, and its victims are nameless.

Religion of course was the first recognition by humans of the existence of evil. But at the same time it recognized that violence was an innate characteristic of humans and therefore ineradicable. All it could do was try and discourage it by threatening burning at the stake for heretics and hell fire after death for everyone else.

The beauty of this was that it could justify its grip on human beings in the name of salvation. Today this doesn't wash in nonMuslim religions but it still prevails under Islam. Yet nonMuslim religious leaders refuse to condemn the most atrocious acts committed in the name of Islam because they know that an attack on one religion is an attack on all of them. Best to cover your own ass in these situations than cast a stone.

Snickersnee: Cimate Capitalism

Capitalism Trumps Climate

by Lorna Salzman

How many of you actually think that there are sincere and meaningful efforts being made to mitigate climate change? If your answer is yes, then what proof do you offer? What groups, individuals, policies or legislation do you think are making a difference or will in the near future? Why do you think so?

I will wager that more than half of you will answer yes to the first question and will then mention Bill McKibben and 350.org, and perhaps a few other obscure groups here or abroad that you have read about on the internet or in the news. But you will not be able to demonstrate exactly what these groups or individuals have accomplished, what they are doing right now, or what they say they will do in the future. That's because almost none of them actually have real action plans that they believe in and which they are promoting.

The ugly truth is that the most influential and prominent of these groups are planning to do EXACTLY NOTHING. Do you think this is hyperbole? You won't if you will take the time to find out who funds these groups and what their strategies are. I say "strategies" plural but that is incorrect.

There is only one strategy and that is to SAVE CAPITALISM. And they don't even try to hide this or deny it. Let me say it again: these groups and their hidden funders and sponsors have only one objective: to use the climate change issue as a way of preserving markets and, most important, creating NEW ones. In other words, develop new ways of making profits that do not interfere with the present system or restrict economic growth.

You probably think: well, they mean renewable energy so what's wrong with that? But if that were really the case, why was there such a massive campaign in this country not to promote renewable energy but to promote cap and trade? Why have they refused to support the things that would make renewable energy viable such as ending fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks and taxing CO2? The cap and trade campaign was dreamed up by investment houses, brokers, financiers, and the coal industry, with a few big enviros alongside, to accomplish several things:

--delay as long as possible the shutdown of coal burning power plants;

--maintain the oil and natural gas-based economy as long and as cheaply as possible;

--push off indefinitely (to well past the year 2030) any serious efforts at reducing energy consumption through efficiency or other measures;

--avoid at all costs a carbon tax or anything that would increase energy costs and thereby stifle growth;

--keep existing federal subsidies and tax breaks for the fossil and nuclear industry.

This is by default our present national energy policy and no one, including 350.org/1Sky, has proposed anything different: no one in government, no one in industry, and no one in the top echelons of the environmental community, even though one of them, Gus Speth, knows full well what needs to be done.

None of this should be surprising, at least to those who have been paying attention or who have not bought hook, line and sinker the empty words of people like Bill McKibben, who is good at whipping crowds into a green frenzy but incapable of telling them what they should do. There is NO ENERGY AGENDA of any merit being pushed ANYWHERE, and anyone who thinks it is only the Republicans to blame is inhaling from the Big Bong. There is bipartisan and universal agreement that the first order of business is Business and the earth be damned. 350.org even sent out shameless mailings to business to curry favor with them and suck them in to believing that nothing drastic or costly need be done and that only a few nips and tucks at the margins were needed.

We are therefore being lied to, big time, by those who actually believe that climate change can be mitigated with minimal effort and cost, and that there need be no hardship or sacrifice at all. This is the latest in Comfort Food for the masses and reassurance for industry and the financial community. The only problem is that it comes with no guarantee that climate catastrophe will NOT happen. It is no better than the reassurances of the nuclear industry that a Fukushima-size disaster could never happen in this country. It is the ultimate in Happy Faces, in wishful thinking, and in calming the public's fears.

But it is leading us over the cliff.

In case you think this is exaggeration, here is a promotional piece for Hunter Lovins, Amory Lovin's ex-wife and an energy consultant in her own right.

FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX PRESENTS

THE CLIMATE CAPITALISM TELEFORUM—A LIVE, NATIONAL, INTERACTIVE DISCUSSION OF CAPITALISM IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

WITH L. HUNTER LOVINS, FOUNDER OF NATURAL CAPITALISM SOLUTIONS, A TIME MAGAZINE HERO OF THE PLANET, AND NEWSWEEK'S "GREEN BUSINESS ICON"

Hardcover • 400 pp. • $27.95

ISBN 978-0-8090-3473-4

▪ Read More

▪ Sign Up for the April 29th Teleforum

▪ Read a preview excerpt from Climate Capitalism (PDF)

CLIMATE CAPITALISM

CAPITALISM IN THE AGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

“A must-read for entrepreneurs, investors, industry experts, and corporations interested in capitalizing on the greatest wealth-creation opportunity of our lifetime: solving climate change.” —Jigar Shah, founder, SunEdison, and CEO, Carbon War Room

Whether you believe in climate change or not, it doesn’t matter. If your goal is profitability, you’ll act as if you do. As CLIMATE CAPITALISM shows, climate-protection efforts have failed because we have ignored the most powerful tool for unleashing the low-energy future: the business case. In their book, L. Hunter Lovins, president of Natural Capitalism Solutions and coauthor of Natural Capitalism, and Boyd Cohen, CEO of CO2IMPACT, draw on case studies of international corporations, small businesses, NGOs, and municipalities to demonstrate that efficiency and renewable energy equal the path to greater profitability and enhanced economic prosperity. Through addressing business opportunities across a range of sectors, including energy, buildings, transportation, and agriculture technologies, Lovins and Cohen powerfully address the future of capitalism in a carbon-constrained world and prove that climate change policy will promote, not hinder, the growth of our global economy.

Corporate executives, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, and concerned citizens will all find CLIMATE CAPITALISM a feisty, opportunity-rich read—one that offers a compelling road map for a new energy economy.

“A highly persuasive demonstration of how profitable economic choices can take us a long way toward dealing with climate disruption, the misguided aspects of our agriculture, oil’s strategically catastrophic monopoly over transportation, the poverty of the bottom billion, and much else. Creative and deftly crafted.”—Jim Woolsey, Former Director of CIA, Booz Allen Hamilton

“L. Hunter Lovins' latest book should be on every CEO’s reading list and required in every corporate board room.”—Bill Becker, Executive Director, Presidential Climate Action Project

“One of the fastest growing areas in business schools today is entrepreneurship, and more specifically social entrepreneurship . . . . Climate Capitalism provides both direction and inspiration for these students who do not accept the artificial tradeoff between doing well and doing good.”—R. Bruce Hutton, dean emeritus, Daniels College of Business, University of Denver

“Nobody does a better job of laying out the business case for pursuing a cleaner, more profitable form of capitalism than Hunter Lovins.”—Andrew Winston, founder, Winston Eco-Strategies and author of Green Recovery

Note the claim that the "best case" for a low-energy future is "the business case", stressing "the future of capitalism in a carbon-constrained world" followed by the promise that the global economy will GROW, not contract. Well, one might believe in this growth but what they don't consider is the likelihood of a complete collapse of the global economy. If you start from a collapse, i.e. from nothing, then anything after that can be considered growth.

"Profitable economic choices" is the reward held out for not taking drastic action now in reducing energy use and mandating stringent energy efficiency measures....both of which would of course constrain growth. Having your cake and eating it too....

I do not doubt that Hunter Lovins and her associates truly believe and want a renewable energy economy. What I do doubt is whether they have read up on the science of climate change and the narrowing window of time left to us to get our house in order. Anyone who has read this knows full well that many scientists believe we are already past several tipping points and that we will be forced into adaptation and defensive measures. Where money will be found for these gigantic projects, "earth works", to protect urban infrastructure is by no means clear. Will the budget cutters change their minds and dole out billions of dollars to the states to protect water supplies, power grids, sewage systems and transportation

systems?

Snickersnee

For Sale: One Used Sandpiper

by Lorna Salzman

I was googling the other day and came across a letter from someone complaining about how his used Sandpiper wasn't working very well. I momentarily considered responding to tell him that he should get another one on e-bay or a brand new one, but then remembered that it is illegal to trap wild birds.

Reading further I then realized he was talking about some obscure kind of motor or motorized vehicle. So why was I googling sandpipers in the first place? I - and apparently hundreds of other bird watchers - are DESPERATE to know why shorebirds stand and even hop on one leg. They do it while they rest, sleep or move away from photographers, bird watchers and dogs. They will hop away on one leg in preference to flying, which one would think is a more effective survival strategy.

It was comforting to see that I was not the only one asking this question. There were dozens and dozens of postings on this very topic and responses from bird watchers, hunters, scientists, university professors and others. But it was less comforting to discover that no really satisfactory answer was forthcoming.

Some were humorous of course: "They stand on one leg because if they lift it up they would fall down". Others tried to come up with reasonably scientific answers. Of these only two seemed to have any merit: heat regulation and ability to detect danger.

Several people said that on one leg, the bird can more quickly swivel around to look in all directions before taking off if there is danger. I don't buy this argument because birds’ heads swivel quite satisfactorily in many directions when they are on two legs. Another said that it could take off more quickly from a one-leg position, but another respondent dispelled this notion quite credibly. The response that got most support was that of heat regulation, though even this raises questions.

A bird's legs and bill, being unfeathered, are the major sites of heat loss; raising one leg conserves heat as does tucking the bill under the feathers when it rests or sleeps. But as one person (from Australia, naturally) pointed out, they do these things under all climatic conditions, cold or hot. Maybe in this case, as in so many others, we need to look for the simplest explanation (Occam's Razortheorem): that the bird is giving the invisible leg a rest.

Watching bird behavior is very rewarding, as this demonstrates. But it requires patience, good powers of observation and hearing, costly binoculars, and a tolerance for macho men practicing one-upsmanship. Having watched birds now for nearly forty-five years, I have observed some quite amazing and amusing sights. I often wonder why everyone is not a bird-watcher. Of all the hobbies available it is probably the easiest and most rewarding intellectually and aesthetically. And it can travel with you everywhere.

Anywhere you go, whether to the rainforest or visiting relatives in another part of this country, you have the possibility of seeing entirely new birds in new habitats. This beats shopping any day and costs less over time even if you buy binoculars. My husband and I have even birded (that is the correct term) from inside airport terminals in far-off lands. You never know what you will see. That's the fun of it. It's called serendipity. It's like catching that big fish: there are no guarantees but the payoff when it comes is worth the time spent.

My favorite bird joke: Why do birds fly south in the winter? Because it's too far to walk.

Snickersnee: Anti-Semitism

Dangerous Myths About Radiation, Diet and Health

by Lorna Salzman

Most of what we read on the internet about health is dubious, speculative and based on anecdotal evidence, not clinical studies. Yet how does one persuade those who distrust government and traditional medicine to consult credible scientific and medical research bodies? A first step is to check out the sources given by an author; often an author will simply use his own studies as sources for his article. Rely on peer reviewed journals. Check the author's background, university and technical degrees and institutional affiliations to make sure these are not inventions of the author, which they often are.

Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, all kinds of foods and herbs are being promoted as protection against radiation, but these foods are completely useless with regard to whole-body radiation and ingestion of fission products like iodine. Gamma is whole body and once you have gotten the exposure, nothing can be done. Your cells have absorbed the gamma rays, period. If they hit the DNA, there could be adverse consequences. If they miss the DNA and go right through the cell, you are lucky. This is usually the case with medical Xrays. Repeated or prolong exposure increases the risk proportionately; there is no dose that doesn't produce some effects in the population, statistically. You just don't know who will be affected or when. There is evidence that DNA can repair itself (obviously our ancestral cells evolved with ultra violet rays and other kinds of radiation) but this probably depends on lots of other factors.

Beta emitters like cesium 137 and strontium 90 are dangerous due to their half life of about 30 years and their deposition on soil and crops that are consumed by animals and humans, especially strontium 90 in milk, which then goes to the bones and teeth. Cesium goes into muscles and organs.

Alpha emitters: plutonium. Alpha particles cannot penetrate intact skin or tissues. That's why you can hold solid plutonium in your hand (unless you have skin cuts). But if plutonium is in the form of fine particles and there is an explosion (as with meltdowns of nuclear fuel or spent fuel, nuclear weapons or bombs), the particles go into the atmosphere and can be inhaled into your lungs or gonads. And that's where they stay, forever, irradiating the tissue around them. This is probably happening now with the mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium fuel from one of the Japanese reactors. And when the particles fall on the ground they remain there and can be picked up in dust or soil which can then be disturbed and redistributed.

There is absolutely no clinical evidence showing that radioactive particles can be flushed from the body. There is a dangerous treatment called chelation, which involves injecting some serious chemicals into the body with the hope that they will bind with radioactive particles. Whether or how much this has succeeded I don't know; you need to consult the medical literature. In any case it is a desperate measure with its own risks.

If there truly were such a thing as detoxifying radioactivity, it would already be in use widely and regularly. The fact is that the only thing that can "de-toxify" radioactivity is TIME: the radioactive elements decay according to their half life. Iodine 131 has an 8 day half-life so it gives off intense radiation as soon as it is produced. That is why it is of immediate concern in an accident. For example, if a finite amount of iodine is emitted in an accident, and the emission stops within a day, then in 8 days, half of it will have decayed. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay, and so forth.

Generally for nuclear waste storage and "isolation", they aim for ten to twenty half lives for any given element. This includes plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,400 years. So it has to be isolated from the biosphere for at least 240,000 years, or 480,000 years. There are lots of authoritative sources available on radiation doses and exposure. Take the time to do the research. Or consult Dr. John Gofman's book, Radiation and Health.

One other point on another topic. In this country the NRC and others have responded to concerns about reactors in regions subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. However, the real risk, which is common to all reactors, is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). And there are many possible events besides earthquakes that could initiate a LOCA such as sabotage or terrorism, or even routine flooding and hurricanes which we are now experiencing.

And by the way, the NRC chair stated that existing operating reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude "usual" for the region in which they are located. But so were the Japanese reactors. Design-basis earthquakes are not the only kind possible; Japan just discovered this. The impact of the recent earthquake there subjected the reactors to stresses 1.5 times what the reactor was designed to cope with. It is of course only a question of money: how much do utilities want to spend for those extra safety features? As little as possible.

SNICKERSNEE

The Many Disguises of Anti-Semitism

by Lorna Salzman

An article of faith among critics of Israel is that such criticism in no way is anti-Semitic, that is, directed against Jews as opposed to Israelis. It is more than an article of faith, however. It can and does provide cover for anti-Semitism. While subtly appealing to the public appeal of freedom of speech and dissent, it simultaneously ignores the very real examples that undermine this claim. It is useful to recall what Natan Sharansky says are such signs: demonization, double standard and delegitimization. All of these abound in virtually all criticism of Israel.

The grotesque exaggeration of Israeli treatment of Palestinians as "apartheid" is classic demonization. Descriptions of Israel mistreatment of Palestinians that do not contain this word or do not make comparisons to Nazism are almost nonexistent. Israel has many misguided policies, including its stubborn expansion of settlements and development in Arab sections of Jerusalem, its concessions and privileges to the often violent ultra-orthodox Jews, and it may be making life harder for Gazans than Hamas itself is doing, but they are not slaughtering Palestinians in cold blood, unlike the situation in other countries in Africa and the middle east. They have a free press and freedom of speech and an admirable legal system whose like is nonexistent elsewhere the middle east.

Nonetheless, the Palestinians and their supporters in this country continue to use demonizing language, thus inflating the Israel-Palestine conflict to a size exceeding that of far worse conflicts and genocides elsewhere. Legitimate charges by human rights groups against Israel that are free from vilification are almost nonexistent. When the enemies of Israel "cry wolf" and use language of hyperbole and vituperation, it is hard to identify legitimate grievances or take them seriously.

The double standard used to judge Israel is unprecedented in modern times. Were Israel not a Jewish state, the world would probably ignore its conflict with the Palestinians. On the map of world conflict, it is a tiny blip. The really huge blips involving state-sponsored genocide, ethnic wars, assassinations and the rape, pillaging and axe murders of women and children that are still occurring in Africa and elsewhere (such as Haiti) get almost no attention. Except for Darfur where a coalition of Jews, blacks and Christians was formed to confront the murder by Muslims of animists and other minorities in the south of Sudan, the world has kept its eyes closed to the slaughter of at least three million people in Darfur alone, plus millions more in Congo, Rwanda and their neighbors. Bluntly: the number of Palestinians killed by Israelis (always in self defense ) probably numbers in the hundreds compared to the millions of victims in Africa at the hands of their own governments. Yet it is this conflict that monopolizes world attention.

The enthusiasm of the left for radical Islam and terrorists is unceasing and makes leftist accusations against Israeli suspect even when they may have substance. Impartial and independent judgments against Israeli treatment of Palestinians are almost impossible to find. It is puzzling to see American leftists aligning themselves with movements whose historic enmity towards the left is well documented, while ignoring the disdain of Gazans and Arabs for women's rights and civil liberties. Much of this arises from the long-standing hatred for the US, fueled by Noam Chomsky and Ramsey Clark, and spearheaded by groups like ANSWER (an ally of north Korea), the Revolutionary Communist Party and Workers' World Party (sponsors of the "World Can't Wait" campaign), and Clark's National Action Center, to mention only a few.

A major contributor to global anti-Semitism was the frenzied gathering in Durban, South Africa in 2001, known as the World Social Forum, and in particular the separate NGO forum and statement produced by its eight thousand participants. Despite attempts at the main conference to address racism in a global context, somehow the topic at hand always ended up as Israel and "Zionism" (code word for Jews) and their purported racism and apartheid. Trans-Atlantic slavery was addressed but mysteriously the enslavement of black Africans by Muslims from the Arab world was not mentioned.. As a result, the final documents were not signed by many western countries or, to their credit, by the major human rights organizations, although some of their subsequent actions on Israel were deplorable, such as the Human Rights watch report on the Israel-Gaza war, which had no more credibility than the infamous, now-discredited Goldstone report.

Onto this list of the neo-fascist left are now added many "useful idiots": naive American peace groups wrapping themselves in Hamas scarves and identifiable by the use of the term "peace and justice" somewhere in their name. Beyond their anti-Americanism, though, they see an opportunity to vilify and demonize Israel, the Jewish state, and by implication all Jews. Many closet anti-Semites are now able, through these groups and movements, to hang their hat on these campaigns without being identified as anti-Semites.

Delegitimization involves the major falsification of history, of Israeli history and territory and the identity of those who call themselves Palestinians. No such ethnic group ever existed before today. Jews were there two thousand years ago and so were scattered Arab tribes with no cohesion or national identity. The creation of Palestine as a Jewish state has been turned on its head by those making unprovable claims about priority ownership of lands. While it may seem absurd to base territorial claims on three thousand-year history, the fact is that present day Palestinians, being of many origins, did not exist as an ethnic group or even a political one until the anti-Israel campaign started to heat up in recent times. More absurd is their demand for the "right of return" for all those who were forced out of Israeli territory during the various wars that began in 1967. At that time perhaps 700,000 Arabs left; today their descendants number over five million. There is no chance whatsoever that Israel or any of its neighbors would allow them back. Indeed, none of Israel's neighbors have offered to take them in.

The double standard can be easily verified by comparing the number of anti-Israel resolutions introduced into the UN and those introduced against the real criminals in Congo, Rwanda and Sudan. The former outnumber the latter by a factor of ten. The UN and the media are still ranting over the Gazan war but you will hear no mention of the atrocities being committed right now in Congo nor of those that were committed in Rwanda when the cowardly UN refused to arm its "peacekeepers" to allow them to protect the people. Here is a comment on this for the UN General Assembly: released by Wikileaks:

Sunday, February 6, 2011

DEMARCHE DELIVERED: ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS AT UNGA

Reference ID 08BRASILIA1538

Created 2008-11-28 16:04

Released 2011-02-06

Classification CONFIDENTIAL

Origin Embassy Brasilia

VZCZCXRO1839

RR RUEHRG

DE RUEHBR #1538 3331618

ZNY CCCCC ZZH

R 281618Z NOV 08

FM AMEMBASSY BRASILIA

TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3001

INFO RUEHRG/AMCONSUL RECIFE 8759

RUEHRI/AMCONSUL RIO DE JANEIRO 6936

RUEHSO/AMCONSUL SAO PAULO 3132

RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0281

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRASILIA 001538

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR IO/UNP ANDREW MORRISON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/26/2018

TAGS: PREL UNGA IS PA LE SY BR

SUBJECT: DEMARCHE DELIVERED: ANTI-ISRAEL RESOLUTIONS AT

UNGA

REF: STATE 123081

Classified By: Political Counselor Stephen Liston for REASONS 1.4 B AND D.

¶1. (C) On Tuesday, November 25, poloff delivered reftel demarche to Secretario Ricardo Rizzo from the United Nations Division of the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations. Rizzo sincerely thanked poloff for the detailed information breaking down the number of anti-Israeli resolutions compared to other countries and added that, although he was aware that there was a disproportionate level of anti-Israeli discourse at the U.N., he never realized its extent until looking at the figures. Furthermore, he noted that he was unaware of the continuing existence of the three U.N. bodies charged with protecting Palestinian rights or monitoring Israeli practices and candidly admitted that it showed a "lack of maturity" in the international system that would have to be overcome in order to achieve progress towards peace in the region. He noted, however, that he could only take the points presented under advisement for the moment and that he would have to consult with the regional desks involved with the issue in order to provide a reaction to the demarche points. Post will monitor and report any further reaction.

Between 1948 and 1991, the UN Security Council passed 175 resolutions regarding the middle east. Of these 97 were anti-Israel; 4 were anti-Arab states.

The UN General Assembly passed 322 resolutions against Israel and none against Arab states.Why is Israel the main target of anger and righteousness rather than the tyrannical regimes in Africa? Or Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Burma or Libya? Because Israel is comprised of Jews. The singular attention to Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, depicted in leftist propaganda ad nauseum, is never counterbalanced by attention to Hamas atrocities against those considered Israeli sympathizers or collaborators, the sharia oppression of women, the absence of a secular civil legal system and a free press. Hamas recently arrested peaceful Palestinian demonstrators calling for a unified governance of Gaza and the West Bank and journalists who covered the demonstration. The arrests got little attention in the American press.

Simultaneously, the unprovoked firing of missiles by Hamas against Israeli civilians and settlements, the use of Palestinians as human shields, and the deliberate use of homes, hospitals, schools and public buildings for Hamas weapons storage, go unacknowledged even by human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch, as well as the infamous and now disgraced Goldstone report (parts of which have now been retracted by Goldstone). Such a wildly unbalanced response could only be fueled by those with a longstanding animus and bias. But there are other unmistakeable signs: the attack on "Zionism" by NYC councilman Charles Barron, beneficiary of a trip to Gaza and Hamas whom he praised; the banning by South African bishop Desmond Tutu of attorney Alan Dershowitz from speaking at any South African university and three similar bans imposed in Norway; Spanish polls showing 60% of its citizens distrust Jews even though most of them have never met one (20% of Spaniards have Jewish ancestors who converted to Catholicism to save themselves in the middle ages; these can be distinguished because they changed their name and took their profession or city as their name -----including the name Zapatero, the name of Spain's president, a vehement critic of Israel, which means shoemaker). Those who shout "Zionism is racism" mean Jews. No other answer is possible, logical or indicated.

Snickersnee: Dangers Myths

Dangerous Myths About Radiation, Diet and Health

by Lorna Salzman

Most of what we read on the internet about health is dubious, speculative and based on anecdotal evidence, not clinical studies. Yet how does one persuade those who distrust government and traditional medicine to consult credible scientific and medical research bodies? A first step is to check out the sources given by an author; often an author will simply use his own studies as sources for his article. Rely on peer reviewed journals. Check the author's background, university and technical degrees and institutional affiliations to make sure these are not inventions of the author, which they often are.

Since the Fukushima nuclear accident, all kinds of foods and herbs are being promoted as protection against radiation, but these foods are completely useless with regard to whole-body radiation and ingestion of fission products like iodine. Gamma is whole body and once you have gotten the exposure, nothing can be done. Your cells have absorbed the gamma rays, period. If they hit the DNA, there could be adverse consequences. If they miss the DNA and go right through the cell, you are lucky. This is usually the case with medical Xrays. Repeated or prolong exposure increases the risk proportionately; there is no dose that doesn't produce some effects in the population, statistically. You just don't know who will be affected or when. There is evidence that DNA can repair itself (obviously our ancestral cells evolved with ultra violet rays and other kinds of radiation) but this probably depends on lots of other factors.

Beta emitters like cesium 137 and strontium 90 are dangerous due to their half life of about 30 years and their deposition on soil and crops that are consumed by animals and humans, especially strontium 90 in milk, which then goes to the bones and teeth. Cesium goes into muscles and organs.

Alpha emitters: plutonium. Alpha particles cannot penetrate intact skin or tissues. That's why you can hold solid plutonium in your hand (unless you have skin cuts). But if plutonium is in the form of fine particles and there is an explosion (as with meltdowns of nuclear fuel or spent fuel, nuclear weapons or bombs), the particles go into the atmosphere and can be inhaled into your lungs or gonads. And that's where they stay, forever, irradiating the tissue around them. This is probably happening now with the mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium fuel from one of the Japanese reactors. And when the particles fall on the ground they remain there and can be picked up in dust or soil which can then be disturbed and redistributed.

There is absolutely no clinical evidence showing that radioactive particles can be flushed from the body. There is a dangerous treatment called chelation, which involves injecting some serious chemicals into the body with the hope that they will bind with radioactive particles. Whether or how much this has succeeded I don't know; you need to consult the medical literature. In any case it is a desperate measure with its own risks.

If there truly were such a thing as detoxifying radioactivity, it would already be in use widely and regularly. The fact is that the only thing that can "de-toxify" radioactivity is TIME: the radioactive elements decay according to their half life. Iodine 131 has an 8 day half life so it gives off intense radiation as soon as it is produced. That is why it is of immediate concern in an accident. For example, if a finite amount of iodine is emitted in an accident, and the emission stops within a day, then in 8 days, half of it will have decayed. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay. In 8 more days, half of that remainder will decay, and so forth. Generally for nuclear waste storage and "isolation", they aim for ten to twenty half lives for any given element. This includes plutonium 239, which has a half life of 24,400 years. So it has to be isolated from the biosphere for at least 240,000 years, or 480,000 years. There are lots of authoritative sources available on radiation doses and exposure. Take the time to do the research. Or consult Dr. John Gofman's book, Radiation and Health.

One other point on another topic. In this country the NRC and others have responded to concerns about reactors in regions subject to earthquakes or tsunamis. However, the real risk, which is common to all reactors, is a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA). And there are many possible events besides earthquakes that could initiate a LOCA such as sabotage or terrorism, or even routine flooding and hurricanes which we are now experiencing.

And by the way, the NRC chair stated that existing operating reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes of a magnitude "usual" for the region in which they are located. But so were the Japanese reactors. Design-basis earthquakes are not the only kind possible; Japan just discovered this. The impact of the recent earthquake there subjected the reactors to stresses 1.5 times what the reactor was designed to cope with. It is of course only a question of money: how much do utilities want to spend for those extra safety features? As little as possible.

Snickersnee: Muslim Pseudo-Science

Is Muslim PseudoScience Taught at GWU?

by Lorna Salzman

Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University was chosen a year or two ago to lead a Muslim delegation to the Pope. This was a bit of unusual irony: the Catholic Church has accepted the fact of evolution but Nasr and the Muslims do not.

As an environmentalist and writer on ecology and evolution, I received an email regarding Islam and science, and was prompted to do further research. I was appalled at the abysmally distorted views on science and evolution of Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who teaches at GWU. I wonder if this is what his students are being taught, and what GWU science teachers would think of this.

Nasr is University Professor of Islamic Studies. Last year I went to the web and printed out an article published in the journal Islam & Science, Winter 2006, as transcribed from an interview with him recorded in Canada in 2006. The Turkish scientist Edis (see Salon URL at end) does not fully convey the laughable distortions and ignorance revealed by Nasr in his article, most of which is devoted to (purportedly) refuting Darwin and evolution. Some of Nasr's statements follow here:

"I reject the ordinary understanding of the Darwinian theory of evolution even on scientific grounds...The theory of evolution is the peg of the tent of modernism. And if it were to fall down, the whole tent would fall on the top of the head of modernism.And therefore it is kept as an ideology and not as a scientific theory that has been proven".

The scientists' use of the word theory is not the same as the layman's. The layman thinks the word is synonymous with idea or conjecture or hypothesis; for scientists, a theory is a demonstrably workable formula which is used as the basis for research. Darwinian theory is considered a fact in science, while the means by which evolution proceeds, natural selection, is an hypothesis, even though it has been actually demonstrated). Nasr's statement reveals more about his ideology than about Darwin, an ideology that rejects materialism and scientific inquiry in their totality.

"God is both Life and the Giver of Life, and that for me is...true without being unscientific. God is also the source of all existence, whether alive or not alive...no other power in the universe can bestow life except the Source of Life".

"If we migrate to Zimbabwe, our skin grows darker; if we go to Sweden, it would grow a bit lighter".

Nasr here reveals himself as an adherent to the wholly discredited Lamarckian theory, which tainted Soviet science for so many years under Stalin, namely that acquired traits are passed on to our descendants. It is truly awesome to see remnants of Lamarck popping up today.

"How could something greater come out of something lesser?...how could the greatest works of literature, like Dante or Shakespeare, come out of a bowl of soup of molecules? "

The same way, one might conclude, that Nasr's statements come out of the "stone soup" of his brain's molecules. The same way that single digit numbers, if multiplied, result in "something greater". The same way that a single seed, if planted, can produce a whole crop of apples. The same way that a single fertilized human egg can grow into a many-celled human being.

"..the scientific worldview separates what it studies of the world of nature from all that is Divine and then considers this truncated reality to be the only reality...for the theologian or the man of religion or the philosopher of religion, there is no way that biology can destroy his view of Divine causality...No theologian can deny that God said, let there be light and there was light, that He created birds, the whole phyla (sic) of birds....creative power belongs to God alone and not to matter as the Qur'an also makes clear".

First, a small quibble that reveals his scientific ignorance in another way: birds are not a phylum; they are a class called Aves, which is under the phylum Chordates. Second, just what IS "divine", how can a mere mortal perceive it, and if he claims he has, why should we believe him? And to my knowledge, no one is alive today who actually heard god say "let there be light....". This statement reminds us of the first reactions to Darwin from "natural theologians" of his day who scrambled to reconcile science and religion, and the creationists of today. It smacks of both arrogance and desperation, a desperation that sweats profusely as the sciences reveal more and more the nature of life and the cosmos and clings for its life to antiquated irrational belief systems. Not even the Catholic Church was able to sustain its stubborn theological resistance to evolution for so long.

"People in the Islamic world who are evolutionists are not important and influential religious thinkers...their influence is limited, confined especially to the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent where the British taught evolution in all the schools. Four fifths of Muslim evolutionists come from Indian and Pakistan. The Arabs and the Persians were protected to a large extent from this prevalent error by the language barrier.." What he doesn't comment on is the primitive intellectual and educational condition of Arabs today, or, to the contrary, of the Persians (Iranians), who, despite the language barrier, did become a nation with an advanced culture and science orientation. The division in the middle east was and stlll is between the Arabs and the non-Arabs. It's easy to see why when you read someone like Nasr, but he is hardly alone today. Al Jazeera broadcasts are full of the most fanciful fairy tales about medicine, science and health, equalling the health herbalist charlatans in this country but much funnier.

Do I detect some racism and chauvinism here....towards the two countries that have, structurally if not perfectly, secular governments...one of which is arguably the most educationally and scientifically advanced in Asia, namely India, thanks to the British....and which possesses a secular democracy where all religions are equal? Of course evolutionists have no interest whatsoever in being "influential religious thinkers", and one would fervently hope that religious thinkers would refrain from re-interpretations of science and evolution.

"95% of our neurocells (sic) are similar to those of monkeys....Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel have almost identical DNA, but they are two very different people..."

The echoes of racism and eugenics raises their heads, which is scarcely surprising given the close relationship Arabs had with Hitler and Nazism and which persists today. Nasr is again revealing his ignorance by conflating brain cells with DNA. Humans share 98.5% of their DNA with apes. DNA is contained within brain cells. He doesn't seem to understand this. I suspect he thinks DNA resides outside cells. In a strange contradiction he also appears to be disciple of B.F. Skinner in dismissing anything but genes and heredity as influences on human behavior. He apparently thinks that Arabs and Jews evolved differently. Someone should break the news to him gently.

"..human beings have a more complicated life form than the monkey, but possess also some of those characteristics we see in the monkey but this does not mean that we have evolved from the monkey".

Of course no scientist ever claimed we evolved from monkeys. Humans share a common ancestor with apes. This guy probably never read a 20th century biology text in his life but feels qualified to shoot off his mouth. I hope he refrained from this in the presence of the Pope, who might have corrected him.

"...The Qu-ran says specifically, that God is the creator of all things...if God has knowledge of the ant, the ant must have a kind of archetypal reality in the 'mind' of God, in the Divine Intellect." (Shades of Plato). Some people think humans have a "God gene ". Is this a way of saying that ants have one too ? It is a humbling thought.

"We train a lot of Muslims to become scientists, and many become very good Western scientists, some being among top scientists but they are not Islamic thinkers. They have had no education in Islamic thought. We have few people in the Islamic world who can understand such deep theological and philosophical ideas and are, at the same time, good biologists and physicists, and that is a tragedy". Not surprising though.

"These days we have the theory of S. Jay Gould, of volcanic eruptions of species.....We should remain faithful to authentic Islamic thought..which does not surrender to the prevalent materialistic and reductionist worldview that is a truncated worldview....we should not follow the path of providing logically absurd answers which also keep the Hand of God out of His creation".

Gould proposed no such theory. He and Niles Eldredge proposed a theory called "punctuated equilibrium", (colloquially called "punk-eek") which has been seriously misunderstood and sometimes considered anti-Darwinian, which it is not.

"Paleontology does not support the theory of evolution as usually taught, and that is why some famous biologists such as R. Sheldrake and S. Jay Gould have proposed other ways for the explaining the phenomena of the multiplicity of life forms on earth, departing from classical Darwinism but still calling it evolution although what they propose is based on a different understanding of this term".

This is about the most ridiculous pack of lies. Sheldrake, a former botanist, is a scientific ignoramus regarding evolution who tried to promote a supernatural fantasy about how evolution occurred; no one has ever paid him any attention, since he used such terms as "fields of resonance", which Nasr quotes. At no time did Gould ever dispute Darwinian evolution; his writings are world-famous as a result of his numerous articles and books explaining Darwinian evolution, and he was as it happens also a geologist. His hypotheses on "punctuated equilibrium", evolutionary processes and rate of evolutionary change were disputed by other biologists such as Richard Dawkins - such disputes are the way science functions and progresses - but they never questioned evolution itself.

"How can we have a critique of modern science in general, specifically modern biology, and..how can we..bring together scientists and religious thinkers and produce a generation of Muslim thinkers who understand science and Islam..? That will not happen unless what is called science today is mastered and then integrated into the Islamic worldview". What means is integrating the Islamic world view into science, though he has expressed it poorly. It means absorbing what is congruent with Islam and discarding the rest.

As anyone can see, this is indistinguishable from creationism. Just substitute Christianity for Islam. It is interesting that Nasr's focus is on the biological sciences rather than the physical sciences and cosmology, the sciences that differ from the biological sciences by explicitly seeking information about the material (as opposed to the miraculous) origins of the universe and of life itself.

"We are conscious before we leave this world and shall be conscious after we leave this world. ..Muslim thinkers must..provide an authentic Islamic interpretation of the data of these sciences without accepting the ideological basis of the interpretation of these data, this ideology being itself founded upon a specific philosophy that is not acceptable to genuine Islamic thought". How does one deal with this kind of statement that purports to "know" that we will be conscious after death? Of course, since it cannot be falsified, Nasr is free to make this claim without fear of contradiction.

Like creationists, he expresses certainty about things that cannot be tested much less proven (consciousness after death). Is this the kind of propaganda that Nasr's students at George Washington University are being force-fed? If anyone wonders why most of the Muslim world is so backward intellectually and scientifically, Nasr's opinions will provide the reason. The resemblance to Christian creationism and fundamentalist thought is striking.

What is also striking is something I discuss in my book Politics as if Evolution Mattered (on my web site, www.lornasalzman.com), namely that creationism and fundamentalism find evolution indefensible not only because it banishes the need for a god or creator, but because it provides the basis for materialism, which in turn leads to the inescapable conclusion that the notion of a god is simply a function of the human mind which is the product of the brain which evolved along with the rest of our body.