September 2011 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fold.it
by Vasilis Kostakis 21 Sep '11

21 Sep '11

"An online game has helped determine the structure of an enzyme that could pave the way for anti-Aids drugs. The game, called Foldit, allows players to create new shapes of proteins by randomly folding digital molecules on their computer screens. In the journal Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, scientists write that they have been puzzled by the protein's structure for over a decade. But it took the online community just a few days to produce the enzyme's model..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14986013 http://fold.it/ v. -- http://kostakis.org/

1 0

tapr switches to new open license
by Michel Bauwens 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Bryan Bishop <kanzure(a)gmail.com> Sep 19 03:16PM -0500 ^<#13286c313bf5840c_digest_top> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bruce Perens <bruce(a)perens.com> Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM Subject: [OH Updates] TAPR meeting results To: updates(a)lists.openhardwaresummit.org We had the TAPR meeting this weekend in Baltimore, after the Summit. TAPR will deprecate the Non-Commercial License and will immediately apply the Open Hardware License to new work funded by TAPR. We had previously used the Non-Commercial License to make sure we would recoup the investment in our first production run of the TAPR-funded http://openhpsdr.org/ boards. After that sold out, we applied the Open Hardware License. History in producing these boards shows that the NCL is not necessary to protect our revenue, and nobody ever turns the boards to add the OHL statement when it's time to do that. Boards after Hermes<http://openhpsdr.org/hermes.php>will include the OHL statement. Hermes will include the OHL statement in addendum, as the board has already been laid out. We had a short discussion of whether we should remove some of the requirements in the TAPR Open Hardware License in order to get more parties to use the TAPR license. This was countered by concern among the leadership about the rather low standard for "open" in the Open Hardware community in general right now. They pointed out: - Some of the things featured at the Summit don't meet the Open Hardware Definition. - Some companies that are thought to be leaders in Open Hardware predominantly make breakout boards for ICs, with little design investment in them. - A lot of things said to be open just have a PDF for the schematic, no modifiable design files, and no gerber files. So, the feeling at TAPR is that we should work to raise the standard for "open" in the community. We're going to invest some funds in promoting the high design investment projects which have to a great extent been overlooked. Thanks Bruce _______________________________________________ updates mailing list updates(a)lists.openhardwaresummit.org http://lists.openhardwaresummit.org/listinfo.cgi/updates-openhardwaresummit… -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 John Griessen <john(a)industromatic.com> Sep 19 05:19PM -0500 ^<#13286c313bf5840c_digest_top> On 09/19/2011 03:16 PM, Bryan Bishop forwarded: From: Bruce Perens <bruce(a)perens.com> Date: Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 3:06 PM > investment in them. > * A lot of things said to be open just have a PDF for the schematic, no modifiable design files, and no gerber files. > So, the feeling at TAPR is that we should work to raise the standard for "open" in the community. I thought the same thing. It's good to hear this. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group. To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufacturing+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Fwd: 1000 dollar house
by Michel Bauwens 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM Subject: 1000 dollar house To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com>, Eric Hunting < erichunting(a)gmail.com> http://web.mit.edu/1khouse/designs.htm -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

Wall Street Bombing.................
by robert searle 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Dear All, I have never come across this story before...and I have a feeling most people onsite would be suprised........ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing Ofcourse, direct action of this kind is totally unacceptable especially if it leads to the death of human lives... RS.

1 0

A Clearer Presentation of Social Credit....
by robert searle 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Dear All, The following maybe of interest. A French version also exists by pressing the French Flag Button at the top, and might interest MB. Transfinancial Economics is very similiar to Socred. The former though is more complex than the latter as economics has likewise become more complex. Moreover, TFE believes that a pragmatic way towards banks, and other relevant power elites is the best way forward for it to become reality. To many this ofcourse is anathema. But I see no alternative. What matters is NOT whether the "fat cats" get richer (at least for the time being) but whether a more advanced financial system could help bring about global justice...... , http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty42.htm R.Searle Chapter 42 — For a Better Understanding of Social Credit français > (An article of Alain Pilote, first published in the January-February, 1995 issue of the Michael Journal.) No inflation with Social Credit It is not unusual to hear some people, especially so-called “learned” people, say that money issued by the Government, as proposed by the Social Credit system, would bring about runaway inflation. And when they say this, they think they said it all, whereas they know nothing about Social Credit, nothing about the circuit of money in a Social Credit system, nothing about the compensated discount, and nothing about the dividend. You “learned” people, please think about it for one moment: which method will increase prices – 100 dollars issued without interest by the Government, or 100 dollars borrowed at interest from private banks? Even a 10-year-old kid would find the right answer immediately: it is the interest that makes prices inflate. A 10-year-old kid would also tell you that it is absurd for the Government to borrow money at interest, when it could issue it itself, without interest. Well, it seems that for people covered with diplomas, the answer is not so obvious. Why? Because they have a false notion of the problem, preconceived ideas. It reminds us of the guy who had met Gérard Mercier, the present Director of the “Michael” Movement, and said to him: “Your Social Credit theory doesn’t make any sense! Come on, the Government cannot just print a wholesale quantity of paper money like that. It will bring about runaway inflation!” Mr. Mercier replied: “You are quite right.” The guy, surprised, added: “What? You, Mr. Mercier, are against Social Credit?” – “Not at all; I will explain it to you. There are two kinds of Social Credit: the real Social Credit and the false one. The one you have just explained to me is the false one; the one spread by the Financiers. I totally agree with you that the kind of Social Credit you have just explained to me doesn’t hold water, but what you explained has nothing to do with real Social Credit. I am going to explain real Social Credit to you, the kind of Social Credit you obviously never heard of.” And Mr. Mercier explained to him the Social Credit technique, with Louis Even’s two brochures, What Do We Mean By Real Social Credit? and A Sound and Effective Financial System. The following article aims at giving a good idea of what real Social Credit is. Accurate bookkeeping First, let us define the words “social credit”: instead of having money created by the banks at interest – a banking credit, one would have money created without interest by society – a social credit. The Social Credit system aims at nothing but to have money be the exact financial expression of economic realities. So there is no question whatsoever in Social Credit of issuing or printing money anyhow, without limits and in an irresponsible way (as the Financiers would like the population to think). Here is what is actually proposed by the Social Crediters: The Government would appoint a commission of accountants, an independent organism called the “National Credit Office”, that would be charged with setting up an accurate bookkeeping as regards our currency: money would be issued as new goods are made, and be withdrawn from circulation as these goods are consumed. Thus there would be a constant balance between the capacity to produce and the capacity to pay, between prices and purchasing power. The dividend Moreover, because wages are not sufficient to purchase all of existing production (wages being just one part of the production cost of any item), the National Credit Office would give every citizen a monthly dividend, a sum of money to fill the gap in the purchasing power (and make it equal to the collective prices for consumable goods for sale), and to ensure each and all a share in the goods of the nation. This dividend would be based on the two biggest factors to modern production: the inheritance of natural resources, and the inventions of past generations, which are both free gifts from God, therefore belonging to all. Those who would be employed in production would still receive a salary, but everyone, employed as well as unemployed, would receive his or her dividend. The dividend formula would be infinitely better than the present social programs like welfare, unemployment insurance, etc., since the dividend would not be financed by the taxes of those who are employed, but by new money created by the National Credit Office. No one would therefore live at the expense of the taxpayers; the dividend would be a heritage that is due to all Canadian citizens, who are all stockholders in “Canada Limited”. And contrary to welfare, this dividend would be given unconditionally, without means tests, and would therefore not penalize those who want to work. Far from being an incitement to idleness, it would allow people to allocate themselves to those jobs to which they are best suited. Besides, if people stopped working, production would go down, and so would the dividend, since it is based on existing production. Without this income not tied to employment, progress is no longer an ally of man, but a curse, since, by eliminating the need for human labour, it makes people lose their sole source of income. To tie income to work is to distort means and ends. If all the necessities of life can be provided without everyone having to work, it is sheer stupidity to create useless work in order to keep everyone employed (and not to mention all the waste in resources and human energy it represents!). As John Farina, a professor in the faculty of social work at the Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., put it, in 1982: “Man invented machines so man would not have to work, and we've succeeded to the point of one and a half million unemployed. To me that is sheer, raging idiocy.” Financing public works How would public works and services be financed in such a social money system? Whenever the population wants a new public project, the Government would not ask: “Have we the money to build this project?” but “Have we the materials and the workers to realize it?” If it is so, the National Credit Office would automatically create the new money to finance the new production. Let us suppose the population wants a new bridge, of which the construction will cost $50 million. The National Credit Office therefore creates $50 million to finance the construction of this bridge. And since all new money must be withdrawn from circulation as the new production is consumed, the money created to build the bridge must be withdrawn from circulation as this bridge is consumed. How can a bridge be “consumed”? Through wear and depreciation. Let us suppose the engineers who built this bridge expect it to last 50 years. This bridge will therefore lose one-fiftieth of its value every year; since it costs $50 million to build, it will depreciate by $1 million every year. It is therefore $1 million that will have to be withdrawn from circulation every year, for 50 years. Will this withdrawal of money be done through taxation? No, this is not necessary at all, said Clifford Hugh Douglas, the Scottish engineer who conceived the Social Credit system; there is another way, that is much simpler, to withdraw money from circulation: the method of the adjusted price (also called the compensated discount). Douglas said in London, on January 19, 1938: “The immense, complex, irritating and time-wasting taxation system, which keeps hundreds of people busy working, is a complete waste of time. The whole of the results that are supposed to be achieved by the system of taxation could be achieved without any bookkeeping at all; they could be achieved entirely through the price system.” The adjusted price How would this adjusted price work? The National Credit Office would be charged with keeping an accurate bookkeeping of the nation's assets and liabilities, which requires only two columns: one to write down all that has been produced in the country during the given period (assets), and one for all that has been consumed (liabilities). The bridge's $1 million annual depreciation mentioned above would be written down in the “consumption” column, and added to all the other kinds of consumption or disappearance of wealth in the country during the given period. Douglas also points out that the real cost of production is consumption. In the example of the bridge, the cost price is $50 million. But the real cost of the bridge is all that had to be consumed in order to build it. Whereas, on the one hand, it is impossible to know the real cost of every article produced, one can easily know, on the other hand, what the real cost of the total production of the country was during a year: it is all that has been consumed in that country throughout the given year. For example, if Canada's national accounts show that, in a year, the total production of consumer goods for sale was $500 billion, and that, in the same year, total consumption was $400 billion, this means that Canada was able to produce $500 billion worth of goods and services while consuming only $400 billion worth of goods and services. What the bookkeeping price shows at $500 billion actually cost $400 billion to produce. The real cost of the production that is priced at $500 billion is therefore $400 billion. The population must therefore be able to reap the fruit of its labour — the $500-billion production — by paying only $400 billion for it. Besides, we have seen before that money must be withdrawn from circulation as goods are consumed: if $400 billion worth of goods and services are consumed in the country during a year, it is $400 billion that must be withdrawn from circulation, no more, no less. A discount on prices How can Canadians get $500 billion worth of goods and services while paying only $400 billion? That is quite simple. The retail price of all goods and services only has to be reduced by 1/5 — a 20% discount. The National Credit Office would therefore decree a 20% discount on all retail prices during the following term. For example, if an article was priced at $500, I would pay only $400 for it. But if the retailer wants to stay in business, he must recover $500 for the sale of that product, for this price of $500 includes all the costs of the retailer, including his profit. This is why Douglas speaks about a “compensated discount”: in the example mentioned above, the retailer would be compensated by the National Credit Office which would pay him the $100 that was discounted. For each one of his sales, the retailer would only have to present his sales voucher to the National Credit Office, which would reimburse him the discount granted to the consumer. Thus, nobody would be penalized: the consumers would obtain the goods which, otherwise, would have remained unsold, and the retailers would recover their costs. Inflation would be impossible Thanks to this mechanism of a discount on prices, any inflation would be impossible, since the discount actually lowers prices. Inflation means rising prices, and the best way to prevent prices from rising is to lower them! Moreover, a discount on prices is exactly the opposite of a sales tax: instead of paying more for goods because of taxes, the consumers would pay less because of the discount. Who would complain about it? One now clearly sees that those who claim that Social Credit will cause inflation talk through their hats, for they ignore the existence of the compensated discount. Of course, if there was only question in Social Credit of printing money, and nothing else, the fear of inflation would be rightly justified. But Social Credit does have this technique to prevent any danger of inflation. There are three fundamentals in Social Credit: 1. Money must be issued without debt by the Government — the representative of society — according to production, and withdrawn from circulation according to consumption; 2. A monthly dividend to every citizen; 3. The compensated discount. All three are necessary; if you remove one of them, the system cannot work properly. All of this technique of Social Credit, as explained above briefly, aims at nothing but to finance the production of goods that answer needs, and to finance the distribution of these goods for them to reach these needs. If you look at the diagram below (the circuit of money), you will notice that money never piles up anywhere; it only follows the flow of goods, being issued as goods are produced, and returning to its source (the National Credit Office) as goods are consumed (sold). At any moment, money is an exact reflection of physical realities: money appears when a new product appears, and disappears when the product disappears (is consumed). Taxes and Social Credit What would become of today’s taxes in a Social Credit system? All taxation would be reduced drastically, and in time could be entirely abolished. The guideline would be to have people pay only for what they consume. The consumption of public goods (like bridges) would be paid for by the adjustment of prices, as it was explained above. However, it would be unfair to have all of the citizens of the nation pay for services that are offered only to certain cities, like the water supply, sewerage, etc. It is those who receive these services who would have to pay their municipalities for them. However, public administration would no longer drag public debts, that are mathematically unrepayable, and that are serviced every year by a large slice of the tax revenues (for the Canadian Government, servicing the public debt costs over one-third of all taxes). We would neither have to pay for all the social programs (welfare, unemployment insurance, etc.), which would be advantageously replaced by the unconditional monthly dividend to every citizen. The circulation of money In a Social Credit system Money is loaned to the producers (industry) by the National Credit Office, for the production of new goods, which brings a flow of new goods with prices (left arrow). Since wages are not sufficient to buy all of available goods and services for sale, the National Credit Office fills the gap between the flow of purchasing power and the flow of total prices by issuing a monthly dividend to every citizen. Consumers and goods meet at the market place (retailer), and when a product is purchased (consumed), the money that had originally been loaned for producing this good returns to its source, the National Credit Office. At any moment, there is always an equality between the total purchasing power available in the hands of the population, and the total prices of consumable goods for sale on the market. * * * All this opens up undreamt-of horizons and possibilities. For these possibilities to come true, all must know and study the Social Credit system. And for that, all must be subscribed to the “Michael” Journal. Dear friend who reads this article, here comes the part you have to play in all of this: you have understood Social Credit, so it is your duty and responsibility to make it known to others, by soliciting around you subscriptions to the “Michael” Journal. Good luck! Previous Chapter Contents Next Chapter

1 0

Fwd: update on fluoride studies show brain connection?
by Michel Bauwens 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Olga Scully <muffyandbrian(a)westnet.com.au> Date: Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM Subject: Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ To: ** Study Proves: This Everyday Drink Lowers Your IQ Posted By Dr. Mercola <http://articles.mercola.com/members/Dr.-Mercola/default.aspx> | August 12 2011 | 145,479 views Dr. Mercola Recommends... Every "Like" Helps Support This Cause *By Drs. Paul and Ellen Connett* *Paul Connett, co-author of the book, *The Case Against Fluoride*, is joined by his wife, Ellen, webmaster of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Tara Blank, PhD, Science Liason Officer for FAN, in authoring this article on fluoride and the brain. Together they have recently provided an extensive commentary to the EPA's Office of Drinking water in response to its proposed safe reference dose for fluoride1<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. * In an ongoing effort to determine which chemicals may damage the developing brain, scientists from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an extensive literature review of over 400 chemicals, including fluoride. Fluoride is Classified as a Neurotoxin While the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) would have us all believe that fluoride is perfectly innocuous and safe, scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity".2<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>Consistent with the EPA's conclusion, a continually growing body of human and animal research strongly suggests that fluoride can damage the developing brain. Consider for example: - 24 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children - Three studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired neurobehavioral development - Three studies have reported damage to the brain of aborted fetuses in high fluoride areas, and - Over 100 laboratory studies have reported damage to the brain and/or cognitive function among fluoride-exposed animals3<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. Most of the 30 studies linking fluoride to reduced IQ, impaired neurobehavioral development, and fetal brain damage have come from China where fluoride occurs at moderate to high levels in the drinking water in what is known as "endemic areas for fluorosis." While there have been shortcomings in the methodologies of some of these studies, they have been remarkably consistent in their findings. Children exposed to excessive fluoride have been consistently observed to suffer from some form of neurological impairment. Your Brain Under Attack Statistics tell us that our brains are under attack. For example: - *Autism Spectrum Disorders: *The rates in the U.S. are now 1 in 110 children and are "4 to 5 times more likely to occur in boys than in girls<http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html>," or as many as 1 in 60 boys<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/do-you-believe-that-one-i_b_31037…>. - *Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder:* According to a November 2010 CDC report, nearly 1 in 10 U.S. children have ADHD - an increase of about 22 percent from 2003<http://articles.boston.com/2010-11-11/news/29307443_1_adhd-howard-abikoff-a…>. - *Alzheimer's Disease:* According to the Alzheimer's Association, 5.4 million Americans are living with it and every 69 seconds an American is diagnosed with it. By 2050, it is estimated that as many as 16 million Americans will have the disease<http://www.alz.org/documents_custom/2011_Facts_Figures_Fact_Sheet.pdf>. We do not know the causes for the alarming increases in these diseases but we do know that wherever possible, everything must be done by regulatory agencies and caregivers to protect the brain from known neurotoxins. Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and it is time to stop adding it to public drinking water systems. However, convincing U.S. regulatory authorities of this urgent necessity is proving very difficult. Developmental Neurotoxicity In 2007 Choi and Grandjean4<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>stated: *"In humans, only five substances have so far been documented as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. From this evidence, including our own studies on some of these substances, parallels may be drawn that suggest that fluoride could well belong to the same class of toxins, but uncertainties remain…"* Health Agencies are Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies Even though health agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have recognized that children are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride (41 percent of American children aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis5<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>), they are unwilling to concede that fluoride may be impacting the brain. Their approach has been either to ignore these studies completely or to challenge the relevance and the methodology of the fluoride-brain studies. They have thus far failed to conduct any IQ studies of their own. Bottle-Fed Babies at Risk The level of fluoride in mothers' milk is remarkably low; only about0.004 ppm6<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. In the view of many critics of fluoridation, including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, it is reckless to expose infants to levels of fluoride orders of magnitude higher than that found in breast milk. In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride (per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population. Specifically, infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the current level of 1 part-per-million (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter) fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the breastfed infant. Even with the proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to lower fluoride to 0.7 ppm<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/05/breaking-news…>in fluoridation schemes, bottle-fed infants will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than the breastfed infant. In addition to bottle-fed infants, others at heightened risk include those with poor nutrition and both African American and Mexican-American children. Recent studies indicate that African American and Mexican-American children have higher rates of the more severe forms of dental fluorosis than white children7<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. As dental fluorosis provides a visual indication that fluoride has exerted a toxic effect on your body, it is reasonable to assume that these same children will also be more vulnerable to other toxic effects of fluoride including damage to the brain. EPA Protecting Fluoridation Program, Not Public Health On January 7, 2011, the EPA's Office of Water (OW), while pursuing its mandate to set a new safe drinking water standard for fluoride, made it clear that it would do so without jeopardizing the water fluoridation program. According to Peter Silva, EPA Assistant Administrator for the OW: *"EPA's new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride"8<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…> .* Silva was referring to severe dental fluorosis, broken bones, and skeletal fluorosis as the unwanted health effects. These were the three health effects that the National Research Council of the National Academies in its 2006 report *Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards *singled out. The report recommended that the EPA perform a new health risk assessment to determine a safe drinking water standard for fluoride because they found the current level of 4 ppm was not protective of health. In its first draft risk assessment, EPA claimed that the most sensitive health effect of fluoride was severe dental fluorosis9<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. Brain effects were ignored by EPA even though many more studies have been published <http://www.fluoridealert.org/since-nrc.html> since the NRC made its recommendation. Science does not stand still. The NRC examined five IQ studies; there have now been nearly five times more at 24! Making matters worse, the EPA's Office of Water risk assessment excluded the fetus and infants under 6 months of age, as the EPA does not expect them to get dental fluorosis! Whether fluoride impacts the growing tooth enamel during this period or not, this is a very important period for brain development. As noted above, an infant fed formula made with fluoridated water at the proposed lower level of 0.7 ppm will receive 175 times more fluoride than the breast-fed infant. EPA Research Laboratory Takes Different View Fortunately, the EPA does not speak with a single voice on fluoride's neurotoxicity. While the EPA's Office of Water ignored any brain effect in its 2011 risk assessment, the Neurotoxicology Division at the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory included fluoride in its list of "Chemicals with Substantial* *Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity", for a new project expected to be launched this year10<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. Ultimately, therefore, the EPA administrator will have to resolve the following question: Is it more important to protect our children's brains or the fluoridation experiment? Fluoridation Proponents' False Claim Proponents of fluoridation have dismissed the fluoride-IQ studies on the basis of the claim that the children in these studies were drinking water containing fluoride at *much higher* levels than used for water fluoridation (approximately 1 ppm). However, such claims do not bear close scrutiny, Xiang11<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering was 1.9 ppm and more recently Ding et al. (2011) found a lowering of IQ in the range of 0.3 to 3 ppm. These findings reveal that there is no adequate margin of safety to protect ALL American children drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and ingesting fluoride from other sources (e.g. toothpaste). While we will discuss this crucial margin of safety argument in more detail below, suffice it to say here that when harm is found in a small human study a safety factor of 10 to 100 is typically applied in order to extrapolate to a level designed to protect a whole population from harm. The NRC (2006) Review of Fluoride The NRC panel devoted a whole chapter on the brain in its 507-page 2006 review and concluded: *"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.*" Of the *five* IQ studies reviewed by the NRC the panel drew special attention to the study by Xiang et al.12<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>, which they indicated had the strongest design. The panel described this study: *"This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The IQ test was administered in a double-blind manner. The high-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 2.47 ± 0.79 mg/L (range 0.57-4.50 milligrams per liter [mg/L]), and the low-fluoride area had a mean water concentration of 0.36 ± 0.15 mg/L (range 0.18-0.76 mg/L). The populations studied had comparable iodine and creatinine concentrations, family incomes, family educational levels, and other factors. * *The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water… the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128). * *The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure."* The shift in the IQ curves for both males and females are shown in Figures 1 and 2. [image: Figure 1] *Figure 1.** Distribution of IQ scores from males in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-2, p. 207).* [image: Figure 2] *Figure 2**. Distribution of IQ scores from females in Wiamiao and Xinuai. Source: data from Xiang et al. 2003a (as shown in NRC, 2006, Figure 7-1, p. 207).* According to the NRC (p. 206): *"A follow-up study to determine whether the lower IQ scores of the children in Wamiao might be related to differences in lead exposure disclosed no significant difference in blood lead concentrations in the two groups of children13<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>." * Xiang extrapolating from the whole set of data estimated that the threshold for IQ lowering would be 1.9 ppm. Below we use this estimate in a margin of safety analysis to calculate a level that would be sufficient to protect all children drinking fluoridated water. The NRC panel's overall conclusion based on its review of these *five *IQ studies was: *"A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence."* Incredibly, no fluoridating country has followed up on this. We continue to fly blind on this critical issue. One of the animal studies reviewed by the NRC was the study by Julie A. Varner and co-workers14<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>from the State University of New York at Binghamton. These authors fed rats for one year with 1 ppm ﬂuoride in their water. One group received sodium ﬂuoride, the other aluminum ﬂuoride. In the rats treated with either ﬂuoride compound, Varner et al. discovered the following: - Morphological changes in the kidney and the brain - An increased uptake of aluminum into the brain - The formation of beta-amyloid deposits, which are a hallmark for Alzheimer's disease More Brain Studies Published Since NRC 2006 Review Since the NRC panel wrote its report in 2006 many more animal studies have been published and another *14* IQ studies have either been published or translated. Five more IQ studies wait translation from the original Chinese. This brings the total to 24 IQ studies that have found exposure to fluoride associated with lowered IQ15<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. At least 16 studies on animals have shown that ﬂuoride has an effect upon the hippocampus and nine of these have been published since the NRC's 2006 review. Damage in this area of your brain usually results in difﬁculties in forming new memories and recalling events that occurred prior to the damage 16<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. Xiang Updates His Work17<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…> An updated version of Xiang et al.'s (2003a) work18<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>, which included new information about the relationship between the level of fluoride in the children's plasma and IQ was accepted for publication in *Environmental Health Perspectives* (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and made available online on December 17, 2010. This article was later withdrawn when it was found that some of the material had been previously published. However, for those who have used criticisms of the methodologies of some of the 24 IQ studies to justify ignoring the issue completely, it is important to note that the Xiang et al. paper successfully passed the peer-review process of this important journal. Another Important Fluoride IQ Study An IQ study published in 2011 by Ding et al.19<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>investigated the effects of low levels of fluoride on IQ. Children were exposed to 0.3 to 3 mg F/L fluoride via drinking water. The authors found a very significant linear correlation (p <0.0001) between fluoride levels in the children's urine and lowered IQ (Figure 3). They calculated that there will be a lowering of IQ by 0.59 points for each increase of 1 mg/L urinary fluoride. [image: Figure 3] *Figure 3.** The relationship between IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. **Multiple linear regression model was carried out to confirm the association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores (F=9.85, p < 0.0001) (Figure 2, Ding et al., 2011)** * Margin of Safety: The Safety Factors Used in Toxicological Assessments Promoters of fluoridation, either through ignorance or design, betray little understanding of the concept of margin of safety. This is revealed when they dismiss studies carried out at levels higher than 1 ppm as being irrelevant for assessing the risks posed by water fluoridation. This indicates that they have no appreciation of the difference between concentration and dose. Someone drinking three liters of water with 1 ppm fluoride would get a higher dose (3 mg) than someone drinking one liter of water with 2 ppm fluoride (2 mg). In other words, it is the dose that hurts people, and thus finding harm at levels as high as 4 ppm are still relevant to a high water consumer drinking water at 1 ppm. Toxicologists usually have to work from high dose animal experiments to extrapolate to a safe level for humans. This typically requires the application of a safety factor of 10, when extrapolating from the dose that causes harm in animals to predict a safe dose for humans (in order to account for the potential variation between species). Then a second safety factor of 10 is commonly applied to take into account the full range of sensitivity to any toxic substance that is to be expected in any large population. In other words some individuals are likely to be 10 times more sensitive to fluoride than others. In the case of fluoride we are in the unusual situation of having quite a large amount of human data to work with, especially in the case of its neurotoxic effects, so it is only necessary to address the variation in sensitivity expected in a large population. In its January 7, 2011, draft risk assessment the EPA Office of Water took the most unusual tack of not using any safety factor at all when extrapolating from the dose that causes severe dental fluorosis20<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. In other words they believed that they had enough data to state – with no uncertainty—that no one consuming less than 0.08 mg of fluoride per kilogram bodyweight per day would develop severe dental fluorosis. For them to legitimately forego any safety factor they need to demonstrate that this purported "threshold" dose is based on sufficiently large numbers of subjects to represent the full range of different vulnerabilities and sensitivities in the U.S. population. Such variations include: age, income levels, nutritional status, genetic and ethnic variability. It is notable therefore, that the study on which the EPA's calculations were based21<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>did not include African American or Mexican-American children, or children from a full range of family income levels. Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network believes that the EPA Office of Water was forced to choose this "uncertainty factor" of 1 in order to produce a "safe reference dose" that was higher than the dose deemed necessary to protect teeth against decay*. *In other words, this was a political decision made to protect the water fluoridation program. Even more political was the EPA's willingness to ignore the studies that indicate that fluoride lowers IQ. No Margin of Safety for Fluoride The level at which Ding et al. (2011) researchers found a lowering of IQ (0.3-3 ppm) overlaps the range at which fluoride is added to water in the US (0.7 – 1.2 ppm). Even without applying a safety margin to this finding, it would suggest that there is no safe level that would protect ALL of America's children from potential interference with mental development from fluoride exposure via the water supply. However, Ding et al. state that this is a preliminary finding, and more work should be done to control for possible confounding factors. Meanwhile, it is possible to use the findings of Xiang et al.22<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>to estimate a safe reference dose to protect all American children from this effect. This is the task that the EPA Office of Water should have undertaken. However, as indicated above, their preliminary calculations for the safe reference dose published on January 7, 2011, failed to consider fluoride's potential to lower IQ. The EPA defended its decision to only consider severe dental fluorosis, by claiming that this is the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride's toxicity. The EPA made this claim despite the fact that, in both the Ding and Xiang studies, reductions in IQ were observed among children without severe dental fluorosis. This clearly challenges the EPA's claim that severe dental fluorosis is the most sensitive adverse effect of fluoride. Other Human Brain Studies Three other studies from China23<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>indicate that aborted fetuses in endemic areas for fluorosis show signs of brain changes compared to aborted fetuses in non-endemic areas. Moreover, in a study from Mexico24<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>, Rocha-Amador et al found that children exposed to moderate levels of fluoride had impaired visual-spatial recognition abilities. Such impairments could affect a child's development. In 2009 the Rocha-Amador team performed tests25<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>on children exposed to various neurotoxicants (Fluoride, Arsenic, Lead, DDT, DDE or PCBs). Fluoride exposed children were selected if they had dental fluorosis (a bio-marker for fluoride over-exposure). All the children exposed to the various neurotoxicants "had very poor performance in Copy and Immediate Recall tests and in general they recalled less information on the Construction/Memory score." As the authors of these studies note, fluoride's impact on the brain may be evident in the absence of crude reductions in IQ. Indeed, the authors note that IQ tests may well fail to detect fluoride's more subtle effects on cognitive function. Consistent with Rocha-Amador's research on non-IQ effects, Li et al.26<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>reported that infants born in areas with high fluoride levels had "significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction" compared to infants born in areas with low fluoride levels. Establishing a Safe Drinking Water Level for Fluoride MCLG The most important step in setting a federally enforceable safe drinking water standard (maximum contaminant level or MCL) is the determination of the Maximum Contaminant Level *Goal* (MCLG). This determination is made by the EPA's Office of Water. The MCLG is the level of a contaminant in water below which there is no known or reasonably anticipated risk to health. The MCLG is the basis for setting the enforceable standard (MCL). This enforceable standard takes into account the cost of removing the contaminant and is therefore not as protective as the MCLG level. For example the MCLG for arsenic is zero, but the MCL is set at 15 ppb (parts per billion) due to the costs of removing natural arsenic from some water supplies. For fluoride, Xiang et al. (2003a, b) estimated that the lowest water concentration associated with a lowering of IQ was 1.9 mg F/L. Ironically, this is the same threshold that the EPA's Office of Water offers for severe dental fluorosis. We convert this to a dose by assuming that the children in the Xiang study were consuming on average one liter of water a day. One liter of water at 1.9 mg F/L translates into a dose of 1.9 mg/day. This is called the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL). Because these studies only dealt with 500 children, with fairly similar genetics, lifestyles and nutritional status, we would need at least the standard uncertainty factor of 10 to account for the full range of sensitivity expected in the whole population in the U.S. to arrive at a safe daily dose. 1.9 mg F/day divided by 10 equals 0.19 mg F/day and thus a safe daily dose should be set no higher than this. Such a dose would be exceeded by a child drinking less than one glass of water (250 ml) at 1 ppm (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter). In other words water fluoridation is not safe; some children could have their mental development impaired by drinking as little as one glass of fluoridated water on a daily basis. As far as setting a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for safe drinking water is concerned, we should note that this safe daily dose of 0.19 mg/day is already being exceeded from other sources. For example the EPA OW estimates that mean fluoride ingestion from toothpaste among children between the ages of 1 and 4 is 0.34 mg/day27<http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/08/12/fluoride-and-…>. Fluoride intake from toothpaste alone, therefore, contributes twice the safe daily dose of 0.19 mg/day. Thus, since some children will exceed the safe dose of fluoride from non-water sources alone, it is difficult to understand how the MCLG for fluoride could be set any higher than ZERO if the EPA were to acknowledge the existence of these IQ studies and follow routine procedures. Of all the dangers posed by fluoridation (and there are many others) the potential to impact a child's mental development must be considered one of the most serious. Just how long can promoters continue to ignore the voluminous evidence of these dangers? And how long will the public let them? -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

debt cancellation ...
by Michel Bauwens 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/19/david_graeber_the_debt_of_the Dear Amaia, could you embed this video interview of david graeber in the p2p blog? many thanks and warm greetings from amazing instanbul ... -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

2 1

Re: [P2P-F] THE politics of egalitarianism
by Michel Bauwens 20 Sep '11

20 Sep '11

Dear Vasilis, Thank you so much for your interesting comments, I posted them here on the wiki, see http://p2pfoundation.net/Community,_State,_and_the_Question_of_Social_Evolu… Can you post this as a blog post October 4 or after? Also, can you find out more about the book this is originally from?, i.e. the politics of egalitarianism? Michel On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Vasilis Kostakis <kostakis.b(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Michel, > > What I found interesting is cited below in a form of narrative excerpts. In > general, I think that the text is less related to the first quote that you > mentioned than it is more an analysis of Marx's Ethnological Notebooks. > > Actually the author claims that Marx repeatedly emphasised the viability of > communal forms as lived in particular societies: "Over and again Marx showed > how they pose inherent opposition to state forms of control and are > therefore targeted in repeated attempts by state agents to prevent their > reproduction as communally organized" (32). Galley points to the importance > of kinship and community as "the most compelling dynamics that either > deflect or reflect what is a terrifying insecurity" (32). Always referring > to Marx's Ethnological Notebooks, the author argues that "the resilience of > communal forms in the face of overarching structures of domination was a > central issue in Marx's examination of literature on precapitalist > societies" (34). > > It explicitly stated that Marx was against Social Evolutionism: "Marx > recognises periods of dramatic change in social organization of political > economy, but these are historically, not naturally or evolutionary > determined" (35). According to Gailey, Marx highlights that "communal > property cannot coexist indefinitely with patriarchal family relations > because of the fundamental opposition the latter poses to the formerQ > similarly "common usage" or custom cannot persist unchallenged alongside > state-associated law. Where archaic forms persist, Marx does not depict them > as "vestiges" or cultural lags, but fundamentally as evidence of resistance > to the penetration of state-associated institutions" (35). According to > Gailey's reading of Marx's Notebooks, "the state is fundamentally parasitic. > Nowhere in the Notebooks does Marx discuss the state as a progressive force > in human evolution or as a force in ameliorating social problems" (37); the > state, following Marx, "in all forms is an excrescence of the society" (46). > > The author shares Diamond (1975) and Krader's (1975) view concerning the > continuity of "Marx's attention to the primitive commune as a model, at a > different level of socioeconomic integration, of an emancipatory future" > (43) and brings to the front conclusions from critical anthropological > research in North America. Then Gailey explains why Marx's Ethnological > Notebooks has been marginalised by researchers and scholars articulating > that their reading reaches the conclusion that socialism is not a telos: > "Socialism would be beneficial only insofar as it facilitated the > achievement of a dialectical return to the communal societies of the past" > (45). "Fully capitalist societies...would be less likely to foster socialist > transformations, since communities are...effectively dissolved" (48). > Therefore, according to Gailey's understanding of Marx's Notebooks, > capitalism is not a necessary stage on the road to socialism. > > v. > > > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

1 0

People Who Share
by Kevin Carson 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

Benita Matofska is raising funds for People Who Share at Buzzbnk. Here's her description of the project: https://www.buzzbnk.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?projectId=42 The People Who Share is both a movement and a social enterprise. We are a marketplace for the new ‘sharing sector’ (car sharing, skills exchange, upcycling, freecycling, swap trading, redistribution…). We’ll make sharing easy, proving that it’s cheap, green, social and fun! As campaigners, we’ll engage more and more people as "Collaborative Consumers". Online, we are building a marketplace for people who want to share. Onland, we will provide services and experiences. If I can raise £2,800 in 30 days, then I'm in the running to get an investment of £50K from Village Capital. Together with your support, this will enable me to take my idea forward. Please share with me, and together we can make a better world. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective

1 0

non-aligned or re-aligned intelligentsia
by Michel Bauwens 19 Sep '11

19 Sep '11

I wrote this in a private email, but what do you think of this hunch: generally speaking, the concept of non-aligned intelligentsia could somehow apply to people like myself ... or the p2p foundation and similar groups as a new type of platform-based 'collective intellectuals' people on those platforms come from different political directions, yet somehow find a common ground in being both critical of mainstream capitalism, but also against a too collectivist tradition as perceived in the left ... (and yet we are not anarchist either ...) for example, what makes me (and others) able to have a dialogue between a postmodern anarcist, a conservative social-christian distributist, a progressive Mormon 'Zionic' social economy advocate and still many other tendencies ... what makes the indignados so effective, yet at the same time rejecting any associations with unions and labour, and what about the pirate party and anonymous ... food for thought, I think there is a new kind of alignment around some kind of shared cooperative individualism that is both distinguishable from neoliberal atomistic individualism and state-centered collectivism ... -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

2 1