Re: [Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York?

[John Reimann via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

I've read the back and forth on this issue with interest.

The main problem, as I see it, is the near impossibility of "proving" any
environmental causes of any disease or of birth defects according to modern
scientific standards of proof. That's because such proof is based on
controlled experiments, where all factors but one can be controlled or
precisely manipulated. That approach was a huge step forward at the time it
was developed, just as the social system that it was based on - capitalism
- was a step forward. However, I think that the rigid adherence to that
approach now really holds back our understanding of and advancing human
health.

Theo Colborn, the toxicologist who has been compared to Rachel Carson,
explains: *“There is little chance of showing a simple cause-and-effect
link between any one or selected groups of hormone-disrupting synthetic
chemicals,” *she writes and raises the approach of “eco-epidemiology”. *“In
this approach, one assesses the totality of the information in the light of
epidemiological criteria for causality, such as whether the exposure
precedes the effect, whether there is a consistent association between a
contaminant and damage, and whether the association is plausible in light
of the current understanding of biological mechanisms. But this real-world
environmental detective work comes to judgment based on the ‘weight of the
evidence’ rather than on scientific ideals of proof that are more
appropriate to controlled laboratory experiments… As some have noted, it is
akin to the decision-making process a physician uses to diagnose a case of
appendicitis – where failure to act has grave consequences.” *
This is from her groundbreaking book, "Our Stolen Future". That book deals
more with chemical toxins than radiation, and basically focuses on the
issue of birth defects rather than cancer. But I think the approach is
valid.

One other point that Colborn explains: It used to the thought that the
effect of a toxin was directly commensurate with the dosage. The greater
the dosage, the greater the effect. What Colborn shows is that sometimes
far smaller dosages don't simply have a far smaller effect; they have a
*different* effect in this sense: They don't kill cells, they alter them.

I don't see any reason why what is true for chemical toxins couldn't also
be true for radiation.

John
-- 
"No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them."
Assata Shakur
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Syrian Opposition Coalition Condemns Trump's decision on Jerusalem and affirms that Palestine is Arab land

[mkaradjis . via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

(More from the "CIA-Wahabbi-Takfiri-Zionist etc" Syrian revolution leadership)

Syrian Coalition Condemns Trump's decision on Jerusalem and affirms
that Palestine is Arab land

http://www.aldorars.com/en/news/3043

7 Dec, 2017 13:43 Syria

المصدر:
AlDorar AlShamia:

The Syrian Coalition condemns the decision by United States President
Donald Trump to recognize occupied Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
and to move the US Embassy to the occupied city.

The Coalition asserts that Jerusalem is a Palestinian Arab land. Under
international law, neither the Israeli occupation, as an occupying
force, nor any foreign authority have the right to claim sovereignty
over the city.

Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine and always will be.
No decision by any one can change the historical and geographical
facts or take away the rights from their owners.

President Trump’s decision violates UN resolutions, including the UN
General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions. It also risks
undermining the credibility of all previous and future understandings
to make peace in the region as well as jeopardize all chances of
reaching a lasting settlement.

The Trump administration’s decision also risks plunging the region
into chaos and violence and further destabilizing the region. As
occupation and terrorism are two sides of the same coin, supporting
the occupation and bestowing legitimacy on it is no less a threat to
peace and security than the threat of terrorism.

The Syrian Coalition calls for immediate reconsideration of the
decision as well as for showing respect for the will and rights of the
Palestinian people and the will of the world community.

The Coalition underscores the need for responses at various levels,
including the adoption of a new UN General Assembly resolution
stressing its previous positions of the issue; calling for revoking
measures taken by the Israeli occupation concerning the status of
Jerusalem; and condemning the transfer of diplomatic missions to the
city.

Moreover, the Coalition calls for a unified position by Arab and
Islamic countries to confront the decision. It also calls on Arab and
Islamic countries to take all possible measures to stop the ongoing
violations of the rights of the Palestinian people and press for the
complete implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on
Palestine. These measures are crucial to paving the way for
comprehensive peace that restores rights to their original owners,
most notably the Golan Heights, paving the way for a future of
fruitful, constructive cooperation; and achieving security and
stability in the region and beyond.

 On Thursday, Hamas called for a new intifada against the Israeli
occupation and to make Friday a "day of anger" in conjunction with the
implementation of a general and comprehensive strike for all
Palestinian cities.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Demonstrators of Syrian Liberated areas rejecting Trump's decision and solidarity with Jerusalem

[mkaradjis . via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

 Note that one of the areas listed below where demonstrations have
condemned Trump's move is East Ghouta, scene of Assad's massive
chemical slaughter in 2013 and currently under the most genocidal
starvation siege and bombing, possibly of the entire war. Despite
this, they still have the energy to show solidarity with Palestine. To
think so many "pro-Palestine" posers among the white left dare to
slander these people as "CIA-Zionist agents" - MK

Demonstrators of Syrian Liberated areas rejecting Trump's decision and
solidarity with Jerusalem (Photos - Video)

(Photos and video at url: http://www.aldorars.com/en/news/3043)

7 Dec, 2017 17:21 Syria

المصدر:
AlDorar AlShamia:

Mass demonstrations broke out in several liberated areas of north and
south Syria on Thursday, rejecting the decision of US President
"Donald Trump" on the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel and the transfer of the US Embassy to the Arabic city.

AlDorar's correspondent reported that the demonstrations took place in
the town of 'Azzaz and Mare' in the northern countryside of Aleppo, in
addition to organizing a solidarity stand with Jerusalem in the town
of Ma'rat al-Nu'man in the governorate of Idlib.

The correspondent added that hundreds of children with the teaching
staff at the Hamuriya school in the besieged eastern Ghouta carried
out a protest against the Trump decision and solidarity with the
Palestinians.

"The Syrian activists and the Palestinian Authority of Syria called
for demonstrations and attended by the people of the area in addition
to the Palestinian refugees," one of the organizers of the
demonstration in the city of Azzaz told AlDorar's correspondent.

It is noteworthy that hundreds of demonstrations rejecting Trump's
decision came out in many Arab and Islamic countries while the Assad
regime-held areas have seen nothing to protest such great incident.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Al Franken’s Resignation and the Selective Force of #MeToo | The New Yorker

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/al-franken-resignation-and-the-selective-force-of-metoo
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Why is Southern California burning in December? A climate scientist's answer - LA Times

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

What we need is for some major city to go up in flames to wake people up 
to how much of a threat climate change is. Wild fires are the other side 
of the coin of the floods that devastated Puerto Rico and Houston.


http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-southern-california-wildfires-live-why-is-southern-california-burning-in-1512688385-htmlstory.html
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Jacobin, leading neo-Kautskyite magazine, whitewashes SPD, erasing murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht | Ben Norton

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 12/7/17 7:30 PM, Gary MacLennan wrote:

Jeezuss, Lou, the very mention of that name sends s shudder through my memory 
banks.  What ever happened to Adolfo?



https://louisproyect.org/2014/01/12/memories-of-amiri-baraka-and-adolfo-olaechea/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: Jacobin, leading neo-Kautskyite magazine, whitewashes SPD, erasing murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht | Ben Norton

[Gary MacLennan via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



> 
> ... mutating into Adolfo Olaechea.

Jeezuss, Lou, the very mention of that name sends s shudder through my memory 
banks.  What ever happened to Adolfo?

Comradely

Gary


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Jacobin, leading neo-Kautskyite magazine, whitewashes SPD, erasing murders of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht | Ben Norton

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Ben Norton mutating into Adolfo Olaechea.

https://bennorton.com/jacobin-magazine-spd-rosa-luxemburg-karl-liebknecht/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Socialism, Capitalism Seen in New Light by Younger Americans; Surveys show a leftward tilt, and pessimism about the future, among millennials

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 6 2017
Socialism, Capitalism Seen in New Light by Younger Americans; Surveys 
show a leftward tilt, and pessimism about the future, among millennials

By Eli Stokols

ELON, N.C.—John Della Volpe, who has been polling millennials for 17 
years, stood before about 150 students in a gleaming new center at Elon 
University this fall in search of an answer.


In his 2016 survey for Harvard University's Institute of Politics, 42% 
of younger Americans said they support capitalism, and only 19% 
identified themselves as capitalists. While this was a new question in 
his survey, the low percentage of young people embracing capitalism 
surprised him. He had come here, in part, to better understand why.


"Maybe it had to do with the 'American Dream,' and how capitalism was 
correlated with it, but a lot of young people don't believe in it 
anymore," said Ana Garcia, a junior at the Elon event. "We don't trust 
capitalism because we don't see ourselves getting ahead."


Largely because of such millennials, generally those born in the 1980s 
and 1990s, socialism has moved from being a taboo because of its 
associations with the Cold War to something that has found rising appeal 
among those polled by Harvard and in other surveys that compared 
different generations.


Grace Magness, an Elon freshman, has experienced the shift firsthand. 
Her great grandfather, she said, was named Eugene Debs after the labor 
leader who ran for president five times for the Socialist Party at the 
turn of the 20th century. "He was so embarrassed about it when he was 
older that he would never introduce himself using his full name," Ms. 
Magness said.


For her, she says, "socialism has gotten less spooky; it's no longer 
associated with communism the way it was." She adds: "straight-up 
capitalism seems like it has a lot of potential to be really corrupt."


Young people across the generations tend to be viewed as more 
left-leaning than their elders. Underlying the millennial generation's 
leftward tilt is angst about the future, Mr. Della Volpe said. In a new 
smaller Harvard survey, released Tuesday, 67% of those polled said they 
are more worried than hopeful about the direction of the country. The 
fall survey sampled 2,037 peopled aged 18 to 29 in live interviews.


"If something unites these young people," Mr. Della Volpe said, "it's 
fear," driven by their perception that they have limited economic 
opportunities and that society as a whole has become more unequal.


The 2016 poll also found that the millennial generation is less 
religious than their parents and losing faith in institutions—a finding 
consistent with other polls that track some of that loss of faith to the 
slow recovery from the deep recession that began in 2008.


"Every new group of voters is disproportionately affected by whatever 
was salient when they were growing up," said Celinda Lake, a long-time 
Democratic pollster. "That's led this group to be really cynical about 
institutions: military, government."


In the view of Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster and the 
author of, "The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America and 
How Republicans Can Keep Up," the idea that young people tend to be 
liberal and become more conservative with age is misguided. "The oldest 
millennials are actually the most left-leaning," she said. "If you came 
of age, graduated college and were job hunting around the time of the 
financial crisis, you might be asking, What have free markets done for 
you? The easy rhetoric that 'markets are bad, government is bad' is 
appealing."


The Harvard survey has polled roughly 1,000 respondents between 18 and 
29 years old annually since 2001. The sample size has grown over time. 
In the spring 2016 survey, it was a measure of nearly 3,200 people. The 
survey has a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.


Still, millennials polled say they want a bigger role for government in 
making conditions better for their future. The number of young people 
who believe that tax cuts spark economic growth, which had held fairly 
steady for years, fell seven points over the past two years, according 
to the 2016 Harvard survey.


That may be an ominous portent for the GOP, which is on the verge of 
passing a major tax overhaul that is projected to add $1 trillion to the 
federal deficit and cut taxes for corporations. According to the new 
Harvard poll released Tuesday, 67% of respondents oppose the way 
President Donald Trump is handling the tax measure. And a Quinnipiac 
University poll also released Tuesday showed that 78% of millennials, 
defined in the survey as 18-to-34 

[Marxism] “A Watershed Election” An Exchange of Ideas between Dave Gilbert and Lynn Henderson

[bonnieweinstein via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

“A Watershed Election”
An Exchange of Ideas between Dave Gilbert and Lynn Henderson

The following is a friendly correspondence—four letters—between Dave Gilbert, a 
political prisoner and Lynn Henderson, author of “A Watershed Election for U.S. 
Imperialism” that appeared in the March/April issue of Socialist Viewpoint, 
Vol. 17, No. 2.

David Gilbert:
Lynn Henderson’s “A Watershed Election for U.S. Imperialism” is on-point in 
moving past the various superficial explanations for Trump’s victory. 
“Watershed” roots the disturbing results in the broader decline of 
imperialism—with the frustrations born of long term stagnation of the standard 
of living for the U.S. middle/working class and the slipping ability of the 
ruling class to provide strategic coherence or convincing justifications. 
Henderson is right to point both to the many continuities from the Obama 
administration and to how Trump’s election is a deeply dangerous development. 

At the same time, I found the analysis to be too Eurocentric. The large wage 
benefits concessions to U.S. workers in the 25 years that followed World War II 
are attributed to the lack of capitalist competition—without mentioning the 
highly lucrative exploitation of the Global South. The reason given for the 
decline starting in the late 1960s is that Europe and Japan had recovered from 
WWII devastation and now provided competition on the world market. That may 
have been the biggest single economic factor, but the 1960s/1970s challenges 
from the Global South and within the U.S. were also very important. 

Also, I was upset to see “Watershed” rail against austerity programs recently 
imposed on some European countries, without mentioning the forerunners, going 
back to about 1980, the far more extensive and lethal austerity programs 
imposed on some 70 Global South nations, meaning literal starvation for 
hundreds-of-millions of people. 

Looking at the competitive stresses, Henderson argues that NATO is 
disintegrating. I’ve seen such predictions periodically since 1968. What the 
Eurocentric analysis misses is the role of the U.S. military in keeping the 
Global South open for exploitation by all the imperialist powers. That’s the 
genius of neocolonialism—a kind of free market imperialism—in that they can 
avoid going to war over which power has total control over each particular 
piece. In return for that crucial military function the U.S. gets away with 
certain otherwise unfair economic advantages. 

Sometimes the European powers grumble over that, but it hasn’t yet led to the 
long-predicted breaking apart. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. The 
stresses are real; Trump is making it worse; and, as Henderson points out, the 
emergence of China as a potential competitor brings in a new factor. But no 
analysis can be convincing without also accounting for the way the imperial 
triad of the U.S., Europe, and Japan has worked together to exploit and 
suppress the peoples of the Global South.

Lynn Henderson:
Dear David Gilbert,

I received a short critique you wrote on my article, “A Watershed Election for 
U.S. Imperialism.” I also accessed your article “The Context for the Trump 
Phenomenon,”1 which I thought was excellent. One major criticism you raised in 
your critique was the observation that my article was too Eurocentric. I think 
you raise a legitimate point.

I particularly wanted to put what many concluded was a bizarre and seemingly 
inexplicable election in a broader historical and global context that helps 
make it explainable. How the election was shaped first by the utterly unique 
era of U.S. global hegemony emerging out of WWII and specifically how the 
increasing disintegration of that unsustainable hegemony is key to 
understanding the election and much else that is now unfolding globally. I 
think you are correct, that including a serious look at how the exploitation of 
third world countries through imperialism’s ruthless application of austerity 
policies could have strengthened the article.

I liked your observation on how the “U.S. military played an essential role in 
keeping the Third World open for the exploitation that is absolutely necessary 
for all the imperialist powers. That’s part of the genius of post-WWII 
neocolonialism in that they don’t have to go to war over who controls each 
particular piece, but it’s more of a free market imperialism.” But that 
post-WWII era has come to an end.

It’s hard to see how “free market imperialism” remains feasible except under 
the entirely unusual and historically unsustainable period of U.S. global 
hegemony emerging from WWII. “Free market imperialism” could not

[Marxism] California Burning, Puerto Rico Drowning

[bonnieweinstein via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

California Burning, Puerto Rico Drowning
By Bonnie Weinstein
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org 
Preventing or coping with natural disasters can only be managed by massive 
collective efforts unhampered by economic restrictions. That means that society 
must be structured so that the health and safety of all must be our priority.

But this is not how capitalism works. Capitalism breeds chaos because its 
priority is to maximize profits above all else. And when natural disasters do 
occur, the capitalist class blames the unpreparedness of individuals for the 
hardship they endure, and leaves the responsibility to rebuild up to them. 
Those with the most money and the best insurance coverage can rebuild. Those 
who can’t afford insurance, or even a home of their own, are just plain out of 
luck.

This logic of capitalism was reflected in an October 13, 2017 CounterPunch 
article by George Wuerthner titled, “Why California is Burning,”1 which claims 
that it’s the individual who must be responsible for preventing fires:

“If you want to save your community, you must have mandatory fire wise policies 
that are enforced…. But when your neighbor fails to protect their home 
[clearing brush and fireproofing their homes], they are demonstrating a lack of 
community value and a selfish attitude towards the rest of the town…. Wildfire 
in your neighborhood…can be reduced or prevented with reasonable building codes 
and mandatory fire-wise regulations.”

What Wuerthner gets wrong is that many people can’t afford or, due to age, 
illness, etc., are unable to clear their land or fireproof their homes. It’s 
the same in flood zones and hurricane pathways, or in earthquake country. It’s 
insane to leave this up to the individual. 

Were the people in New Orleans supposed to have shored up the levees on their 
days off work? Were the victims of floods supposed to go out and rebuild the 
dams or move their homes away from the flood zones on their own? What were the 
people of Puerto Rico supposed to do? Move their island out of hurricane 
Maria’s path? And the same holds true for those living in earthquake country. 
There’s just so much one can do to shore up a home before a giant earthquake 
hits. 

And, of course, in every natural disaster, it’s the poor who suffer the most 
hardship and hazard, and who get the least help before and after disaster 
strikes.

Capitalist war and environmental plunder
And it doesn’t only apply to natural disasters. In war, masses of people, now 
in the hundreds-of-millions, have been forced to migrate due to the bombings 
that have destroyed their land and homes, and to the poverty brought about by 
capitalist greed. We are seeing our environment destroyed by mining and oil 
drilling; by deforestation in order to graze cattle or plant more profitable 
crops; by the contamination of our land and water by corporate 
irresponsibility, like what has happened with the lead-contaminated water in 
Flint, Michigan—and by the wholesale destruction of our environment by giant 
corporations whose only concern is profits. In fact, it is suspected that 
Pacific Gas and Electric’s power lines, woven through un-cleared, 
drought-ridden forests, which were blown down by heavy winds, caused the 
California fires.

Environmental catastrophes are not the result of individual neglect, just as 
war isn’t about one group of people hating another. Wars, and the devastation 
brought about by natural disasters made worse by global warming, and the 
failure to ensure a safe environment for all, are the products of capitalism. 

Natural and un-natural disasters
While all natural disasters can’t be prevented, wars and corporate 
environmental destruction can. Global warming can be reversed and environmental 
destruction can be repaired, but not by individuals. This must be a massive 
planned effort by all of us. And the only way to make these changes is to get 
rid of the cause, i.e., the profit-driven system of capitalism. 

Indeed, while all of these catastrophes are happening, the most wealthy and 
powerful country in the world, with the most powerful and prolific weapons of 
mass destruction, the U.S., is planning to build even more, and more-lethal, 
weapons. 

An October 18, 2017 CounterPunch article by Chris Ernesto titled “Funding for 
War vs. Natural Disasters”2illustrates capitalism’s inability to alleviate 
natural catastrophes while pouring trillions into war and destruction:

“Nearly one month after being crushed by Hurricane Maria, 85 percent of Puerto 
Ricans still do not have electricity, and 40 percent do not have running water, 
and people from the So

[Marxism] Palestinians recognize Texas as part of Mexico

[Dennis Brasky via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

from Michael Karadjis' FB page -

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/12/palestinians-recognize-texas-part-mexico/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Analysis of Cancer Risks in, Populations near Nuclear Facilities:, Phase 1

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

This is from an article on the National Academy of Sciences website that
describes the difficulty in establishing "evidence" for low-level
nuclear power plant radiation and cancer:

--Uneven availability and quality of data on nuclear
facility effluent releases. Effluent release data may
not be available and data quality may be poor for
some nuclear facilities, especially during early years
of facility operations. Effluent releases from many
nuclear facilities were much higher in the past and
their radionuclide compositions have changed over
time. Uncertainties in dose estimates may be much
higher in years when effluent releases were highest.

--Inability to reliably capture information on population
mobility, risk factors, and potential confounding
factors. There is no centralized source of
information on residential histories or lifestyle
characteristics of individuals who live in the United
States. The U.S. Census provides decadal snapshots
of some population characteristics, including
population size and distribution with respect to age,
race/ethnicity, gender, educational level, and
income. However, data on population lifestyle risk
factors, including exposure to cigarette smoking
and access to healthcare, are limited to state-level
health surveys and are not consistently available
from state to state at the same level of resolution.

--Low expected statistical power. Radiation doses
from monitored and reported radioactive effluent
releases from nuclear facilities are expected to be
low. As a consequence, studies of health effects in
populations living near nuclear facilities may not
have adequate statistical power to detect increases
in cancer risks arising from these monitored and
reported releases, which are presumed to be small.

https://www.nap.edu/resource/13388/cancer-risk-brief-final.pdf
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet

[Jeff via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

In the first place, David badly misquoted me (carelessly, not 
intentionally I assume):


On 2017-12-07 15:34, DW via Marxism wrote:


Jeff is
wrong when he suggest people might consider moving from areas of high
levels of background radiation that occur naturally in many areas.


No, I said there are places that I would avoid spending much time at. 
One of Brazil's nicest beaches, Guarapari, has background radiation 
levels reaching over 100x of the levels where most people live. Spending 
a day in the sun there can be like getting a dozen chest x-rays. I would 
choose a different beach.


But here is the crux of the issue:


This goes to Jeff's fear of
radiation as well: there is no evidence that small dosages of radiation
that exist at background levels have a thing to do with cancer.


This is exactly the problem: we don't firmly know that does "have a 
thing to do with cancer" but we also don't know that it DOESN'T. The 
cause of most cancers is unknown so currently we can't even rule out 
background radiation as the leading cause of cancer.


The reason I talked about the history of awareness of radiation dangers 
is that at every point where people just didn't know, it later did 
become known that they had earlier been too complacent and that the 
dangers were greater than previously imagined. That might not happen 
again, but if you don't know whether something is dangerous, but have 
reason to believe it could be (such as knowing for sure that it is 
dangerous at a much higher level), then the prudent course of action is 
always to regard it as dangerous until proven safe.


I would recommend the Nature article Louis pointed to, which seems to 
summarize the current (but poor) knowledge concerning risks from 
low-level radiation exposure, and claims to contradict the hypothesis 
that below a certain level radiation is not a cause of cancer. This is 
the big question that is so very difficult to measure for the reasons we 
have been discussing. It's difficult to detect statistically one 
additional cancer case among 1 people. But that small increase could 
mean 100 deaths in one large city alone. If there were 100 deaths due to 
a building collapse, then people would condemn those responsible and ask 
why such a preventable accident were allowed to occur. One could ask the 
same question concerning artificial sources of radiation or 
radioisotopes in the environment.


In addition to the Nature article, there is a lot of reference 
information on low-level radiation exposure at the website of the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (content which I guess Trump hasn't 
gotten around to axing since he was too busy removing their content on 
global warming!):


https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-sources-and-doses

- Jeff

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Researchers pin down risks of low-dose radiation : Nature News & Comment

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

For decades, researchers have been trying to quantify the risks of very 
low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind that might be received from a 
medical scan, or from living within a few tens of kilometres of the 
damaged Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan. So small are the effects on 
health — if they exist at all — that they seem barely possible to 
detect. A landmark international study has now provided the strongest 
support yet for the idea that long-term exposure to low-dose radiation 
increases the risk of leukaemia, although the rise is only minuscule (K. 
Leuraud et al. Lancet Haematol. http://doi.org/5s4; 2015).


http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-pin-down-risks-of-low-dose-radiation-1.17876
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 12/7/17 9:34 AM, DW via Marxism wrote:

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that people who live in higher area
of background radiation are at all at risk for higher rates of cancer.


There were also reports that the people who lived in houses built near 
Love Canal had lower incidence of cancer than people living elsewhere. 
The problem is that cancer tends to develop later in life, long after 
exposure to environmental factors first occurred. This is something I 
wrote about here:


https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/29/cancer-politics-and-capitalism/

Several weeks before I watched “Second Opinion”, I made a point of 
reading George Johnson’s recently published “The Cancer Chronicles” in 
order to get up to speed on current thinking about the disease. As I 
mentioned above, when I worked at MSKCC, I read Samuel Epstein’s “The 
Politics of Cancer”, a book that ties what was perceived at the time as 
a cancer epidemic to environmental toxins, especially pesticides. It was 
very much in the spirit of Barry Commoner’s “The Closing Circle” and 
amenable to my Marxist opposition to corporate indifference to our 
health and safety.


About ten years after reading “The Politics of Cancer”, I read Robert 
Proctor’s “The Cancer Wars” that backtracked from Epstein’s findings. 
Although very much a man of the left, Proctor warned his readers that 
finding a direct correlation between pollutants and cancer is very 
difficult.


With Proctor’s warnings in the back of my mind, I was not completely 
surprised by Johnson’s treatment of the environmental question. In 
chapter seven, titled “Where Cancer Really Comes From”, Johnson amasses 
some statistics of the sort that pro-industry hacks might repeat. For 
example, epidemiology studies conclude that cancer cases in the 
immediate vicinity of Love Canal were no greater than that in the rest 
of New York State even though there was a spike in birth defects.


In referring to cancer clusters, such as the supposed breast cancer 
epidemic in Long Island, Johnson concludes that they are “statistical 
illusions”. It is not so much that Johnson denies that there is a 
connection between cancer and the environment; it is that they are 
exceedingly difficult to prove.


Since I have like most people on the left become convinced that there is 
a connection between carcinogens in the water, soil and air and the 
incidence of cancer, I emailed Johnson with my concerns and referred him 
to a study of cancer clusters near heavily polluted rivers in China. 
Showing a grace uncommon to most well-established journalists, Johnson 
took the trouble to write back:


	Thanks very much for your email. I appreciate the kind words about my 
book. I hadn’t seen that particular study and will make a point of 
reading it. Of course many industrial chemicals are carcinogenic, and it 
seems very possible that concentrations have been high and chronic 
enough in China’s water to expose the general population to levels known 
to cause cancer in the workplace. Nailing that down is very tricky 
though, especially in developing countries where epidemiological studies 
are just getting underway. Most of the research in China seems to 
concentrate on air pollution and lung cancer. Since the focus of my book 
was on cancer in the developed world, I may write a column in the future 
comparing the situation with China, India, etc.


Making the case about pollution—a negative indicator—is difficult but 
just as much so with positive indicators. Nutritionists are always 
urging us to eat fruits and vegetables, especially those with 
anti-oxidant properties such as blueberries and cabbage but there has 
never been a rigorous study of diet and cancer. This has a lot to do 
with the near impossibility of conducting a demographically 
representative study of the effects of eating “good” food and bad. Since 
cancer can take many decades to show up, tracking its roots and 
development is a near impossible task.

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Louis wrote "
You simply don't understand a thing I wrote. Smoking does damage to your
lungs. Asbestos is a carcinogenic just as much as the interiors of chimneys
that caused testicular cancer in the boys who swept them in Charles
Dickens's day. "

"But when it comes to nuclear reactors or the crap that Monsanto sells,
there is much more difficulty in establishing an open-and-shut case as
there is with tobacco. And even with the case of tobacco, it took decades
to finally nail the tobacco companies."

Louis, I would was responding to YOUR comments about your claim regarding
the difficulties "proving" dangers of carcinogens. I'm saying I believe you
are confusing "proof" with "liability" and they are completely different.
What is known the the medical community based on evidence, that is, it's
"proved" is entirely different when it comes to "nailing tobacco
companies", the legal framework for "proof". I'm only and have really only
dealt with the medical side. There was NEVER any doubt as to the effects of
tobacco. It took 40 years to prove it in court, but that is a different
issue.

Your false amalgam of  nuclear reactors with Monsanto still shows you don't
understand either about radiation or "proof". This goes to Jeff's fear of
radiation as well: there is no evidence that small dosages of radiation
that exist at background levels have a thing to do with cancer. Jeff is
wrong when he suggest people might consider moving from areas of high
levels of background radiation that occur naturally in many areas. Why?
There is simply no evidence whatsoever that people who live in higher area
of background radiation are at all at risk for higher rates of cancer. And
this is what I'm talking about. Jeff's view, to say nothing of Louis', is
like 30 years out of date. So much has been done in terms of the
statistical and geographic locations of "high" radiation areas as compared
to low areas as to show that cancer rates are hardly impacted by such
things as higher than average background radiation levels (for those that
are curious...we are *bathed* in radiation very minute of our lives. Oceans
in particular have higher than average radiation levels do to the large
amounts of uranium dissolved in seawater: 1 ton per km3).

Louis...radiation studies...unlike those around Monsanto and other Big Ag
polluters and insecticide/herbicide/pesticide producers...are well known
and fully vetted. We *know* that nuclear power plants do not cause rates of
increased cancer. Certainly not beyond what is occurring already due to
capitalist enterprises like coal, gas and industrial production in general.
Fully 45% of US residents will contract cancer in their lifetimes. Even if
overall mortality goes down from cancer it an alarming number. If you
totaled up the number of produced child hood leukemia and breast cancer due
to the claims of living near a nuclear power plant, it would amount to
about .0001% of all cancer cases. Yet coal kills, very years, 16,000
Americans...minimum...and probably 20x that number who contract respiratory
diseases. Yet nuclear is the surest way to get rid of coal plants, just as
they replaced oil generation power plants in the 1970s here in the U.S. and
in France. the radiation phobia of the left as I noted in my previous
message is doing real damage considering what does face us in terms of our
tasks in phasing out fossil fuel (especially the greenwashed natural gas
industry). It means shuttering the worlds *largest* source of low carbon
energy in favor of fossil fuels. And this is why the politics of energy are
so important and why the left, at least in developed countries, are
ass-backward on their priorities.
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Fwd: How Trump's Jerusalem Move Just Helped Iran Win the Mideast

[mkaradjis . via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Well, not quite "win the Middle East", given how widely hated Iran is
now outside areas of sectarian identification in the region, but yes
Cole is right that Trump has just handed Iran and its allies - but
also anti-Saudi Sunni Islamist radicals - a huge card.

The sub-imperialist Saudi and Iranian theocracies are engaged in
geopolitical/sectarian rivalry throughout the Middle East. On the
other hand, there is no rivalry between Israel and Iran, because the
former has no influence whatsoever in the region to rival over, being
seen essentially as a massively armed colonial implant. However,
Israel and Iran are engaged in a super war of rhetoric, predicated
precisely on their geographical distance making the loud noise
non-dangerous.

There has been much talk in recent months of a "Saudi-Israeli
convergence" of interests on Iran - of course, a "convergence" is
obvious - leading to alleged behind the scenes talks and intelligence
cooperation etc. How far any of this went and what it could even mean
in practice, nobody knows. But it was never likely to be a reality
unless Israel made some kind of concession to the Palestinians, ie,
the complete opposite course to that of the Likud regime of Netanyahu
and his ultra-rightist allies. The Saudi "guardians" of the Holy
Places simply could not openly do a deal while Jerusalem remained
under occupation. There had been some talk lately of the Saudi leader
MBS telling PA leader Abbas to accept some new half-baked "peace" plan
involving only about half of the (Saudi- written) Arab Peace Plan of
2002 (which had involved total Israeli withdrawal of all lands
occupied by Israel in 1967, including Jerusalem, and allowing a
sovereign Palestinians state with Jerusalem as its capital), as a way
of opening formal relations with Israel. Whether such a teacherous
plan was mooted or not, one thing for sure now is that it is dead.

Cole therefore is right that Trump just handed Iran a rhetorical
victory and the Saudis a setback for their regional anti-Iran
strategy.

However, he doesn't entirely get it, because while he quotes various
regional leaders condemning Trump's move, he continues to talk of the
"Saudi-Israeli alliance" and suggests that in contrast to these
condemnations, "The Saudis are supine". Ah, not quite: "The decision
goes against the "historical and permanent rights of the Palestinian
people", the (Saudi) royal court said, calling on Trump to reconsider
his decision. "The kingdom has already warned of the serious
consequences of such an unjustified and irresponsible move," the
statement said. "The US move represents a significant decline in
efforts to push a peace process and is a violation of the historically
neutral American position on Jerusalem."

That doesn't sound supine to me. MBS knows something about what he
needs to say to keep his throne.

Israel, on the other hand, naturally loves Trump for it. So regardless
of whether or not the alleged convergence was going on behind the
scenes, Trump has just killed it.

And then following the Saudi condemnation, Trump issued an unusually
pointed directive to the Saudis to end their criminal blockade on
Yemen, just a few days after the Iranian-backed Houthis murdered their
3-year ally, former Yemeni tyrant Saleh, which thus leaves the Houthis
supreme in the region encompassing the former North Yemen where the
anti-Saudi Saleh-Houthi alliance was ruling.

Trump of course is right to demand the Saudis end the blockade which
is starving people, but he doesn't care about Yemenis any more than
MBS cares about Palestinians. But if he said this as a rebuke to the
Saudis at this point, then it also appears to favour Iran, even if
again by accident.

But then the killing of Saleh itself is not so straightforward a
victory of Iran as it may seem. Yes, it means that Saleh-Houthi
territory is now just Houthi, ie, pro-Iran, territory. However, the
Iranian regime couldn't care less about a bunch of ISIS-like sectarian
mass killers down in Yemen, except as a thorn in the side of the
Saudis. But without Saleh, they are a greatly weakened thorn. That's
why, as soon as the Saleh-Houthi mutual slaughter began in the capital
Sanaa (leaving hundreds dad across the city), Iran responded by
offering dialogue. First, by betting on the former leader deposed in
the Spring, against the Saudis' pick of his former deputy, Hadi, Iran
was backing a "national figure" with some credentials, rather than
just a sectarian force whose home base was in the far north of the
country. The capital in particular was more Saleh than Houthi
territory at base. Second, the only reason the Houthis, based in the
far north, were able to so easily conq

[Marxism] Fwd: Ballad of a Wounded Man - bookforum.com / current issue

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Laura Kipnis on Clancy Sigal.

http://www.bookforum.com/inprint/024_04/18861
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: The Honduran Government Is Trying to Steal an Election | The Nation

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



https://www.thenation.com/article/the-honduran-government-is-trying-to-steal-an-election/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: How Trump's Jerusalem Move Just Helped Iran Win the Mideast

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*



https://www.juancole.com/2017/12/trumps-jerusalem-mideast.html
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] Fwd: Grossman on capitalism’s contradictions | Michael Roberts Blog

[Louis Proyect via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Rick Kuhn, the indefatigable editor, biographer and publisher of the 
writings of Henryk Grossman, has another book out on his work.  Grossman 
was an invaluable contributor to the development of Marxist political 
economy since Marx’s death in 1883.  An activist in the Polish Social 
Democrat party and later in the Communist party in Germany, Grossman, in 
my view, made major contributions in explaining and developing Marx’s 
theory of value and crises under capitalism.


https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/grossman-on-capitalisms-contradictions/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com