Cannabinoids Create Log Jam at U.S. Patent Office

GeoNovus Minerals Corp.

VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Sept. 18, 2014 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — There are 5,000 pending patents on different cannabinoid compounds at the U.S. Patent Office – most of them registered by Pharmaceutical companies who are intending to commercialise the naturally occurring compound found in the Cannabis Sativa.

GeoNovus (CSE:GNM) (GMINF-USA) is a Canadian company positioning itself to benefit from a research explosion that is expected to drive the legal marijuana market from $1.53-billion in 2013 to $2.57-billion by the end of 2014.

On June 26, 2014 GeoNovus announced that it has signed a letter of agreement with a Uruguay company actively working in multiple areas of the medical marijuana, industrial hemp and cannabinoid science industries to develop products for consumer use.

The initiation of the agreement within Uruguay gives GeoNovus pioneering and exclusive rights to acquire and participate in multiple business ventures in Uruguay including: growing facilities, cannabinoid product development, medicinal trials and industrial hemp product development.

Uruguay recently became the first country in the world to legalize the sale cultivation and distribution and consumption of cannabinoids in December of 2013.

“I got involved with medical marijuana in 2001, when my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer,” stated Julian Strauss, GeoNovus Uruguayan Operations Manager in an exclusive interview with Financial Press, “we discovered it had medicinal properties not available from conventional drugs.”

In Vancouver, BC Strauss collaborated with researchers from the University of British Columbia and formed a compassion club, developed “partial decarboxylation delivery systems” for patients dealing with painful side-effects of therapeutic treatments for multiple sclerosis and cancer. The club organised informal trials, and the results went off the charts.

“At that point I started reaching out to doctors,” stated Strauss, “We collected patients, grew medical marijuana, created oil extracts and collaborated with health authorities and doctors. It was impossible grow enough marijuana to satiate the demand for medicinal oils.”

The team created proprietary collection systems to produce oils on an industrial level, anticipating that Canada would deregulate, and they could begin human trials with the developed intellectual property or “IP”.

“The de-regulation did not come in a way that was helpful to us,” stated Strauss, “The narrative in Canada changed to guys in dread-locks promising to save the world. So I got on a plane to Uruguay and began discussions with the Latin American scientific community, and also with regulators and legislators. We are now building a legal and logistical framework for the development and commercialisation of cannabinoids in partnership with Uruguayan government bodies, universities, and growers clubs.”

Strauss believes the quickest route to cash flow in the marijuana industry is by creating infrastructure for clinical hemp and marijuana trials, and then creating protocols for lab studies, full-spectrum therapies, chemical and mechanical fiber analysis.

“The 5,000 pending patents tell the story,” stated Strauss, “Research into the uses of cannabinoids is about to explode. We can offer entrepreneurial companies an environment to collect data, run trials and ultimately register intellectual property. For providing this service in Uruguay, our company will maintain a royalty percentage. We believe there is a great financial opportunity in helping to legitimize cannabis technology companies.”

“Dry cannabis is a smokescreen thrown up to regulate the medicinal value of cannabis,” explains GeoNovus President Michael England, “This is not where we see the big business opportunity. There is a $200 billion dollar industry waiting in the wings for deregulation. We intend to create manufacturing protocols for specific pathologies. By establishing operations in Uruguay, we can get in on the ground floor.”

Cannabinoids are one of the only compounds in nature that naturally break down the blood barrier in the spine and brain. MRIs and CAT scans of the body’s reaction to therapeutic treatment confirm the endless potential for hemp-based homeopathic remedies.

“Every pharmaceutical company in the world is creating allopathic carbon-based lab derivatives of cannabinoids to try and mimic the natural function found within the plant’s genome,” stated England, “But natural cannabinoids are the answer, and for that they will need a scientific and regulatory environment that promotes experimentation and clinical trial. Uruguay provides us with all of these factors as well as access to a significant pool of professional expertise – Big Pharma will be taking notice.”

Therapeutic cannabinoid treatments for all types of ailments from multiple sclerosis and cancer to headaches and seizures are quickly becoming a popular alternative to traditional chemo and medicines. Ground-breaking cannabinoid research being conducted by companies like GeoNovus in “Cannabis friendly” countries like Uruguay will pave the way for the future of these emerging alternative therapies.

GeoNovus is currently trading at $0.04 with a market cap of only $2 million under the symbol GNM on the Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE) and GMINF in the USA.

Legal Disclaimer/Disclosure: A fee has been paid for the production and distribution of this Report. This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment. No information in this article should be construed as individualized investment advice. A licensed financial advisor should be consulted prior to making any investment decision. Financial Press makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of the authors only and are subject to change without notice. Financial Press assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this article and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission. Furthermore, we assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information, provided within this article.

Also, please note that republishing of this article in its entirety is permitted as long as attribution and a back link to are provided. Thank you.

GeoNovus Minerals Corp
1220 789 West Pender Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada
V6C, 1H2
Toll Free: 1-888-945-4770
Phone: 604-683-3995
Fax: 604-683-3988

- See more at:

Leave a comment

Washington State: Benton County Judge Agrees with Attorney General’s Opinion, Holds that Local Governments can Ban Marijuana Businesses

November 21, 2014
Benton County judge agrees with Attorney General’s opinion, holds that local governments can ban marijuana businesses

Attorney General’s Office presented arguments to defend I-502, uphold will of the voters

KENNEWICK — A third superior court judge today agreed with an opinion issued by the Attorney General’s Office last year, concluding that nothing in Initiative 502 overrides local governments’ authority to regulate or ban marijuana businesses.

The ruling came from Benton County Superior Court Judge Vic VanderSchoor in the case of Americanna Weed, LLC v. City of Kennewick. The plaintiffs in the case sought to open a marijuana business in Kennewick despite the city’s ban on such businesses. A formal opinion released by the AGO in January 2014 concluded that, as drafted, I-502 does not prevent cities and counties from banning marijuana businesses.

Judge VanderSchoor is now the third judge to agree with the AGO opinion, following Chelan County Superior Court Judge T.W. Small’s ruling in October in a similar case involving the City of Wenatchee and Pierce County Superior Court Judge Ronald Culpepper’s ruling in August in a similar case involving the City of Fife.

If courts continue to agree with the AGO opinion that I-502 does not require local governments to allow marijuana businesses, they will not need to decide in these cases whether federal law preempts I-502. This allows I-502 to continue to be implemented.

“My office is working aggressively to uphold the will of the voters,” said Attorney General Bob Ferguson. “Today’s ruling affirms the opinion of my office earlier this year and allows Initiative 502 to continue to be implemented in Washington state. As I have said from the beginning, the drafters of Initiative 502 could have required local jurisdictions to allow the sale of recreational marijuana. It could have been done in a single sentence, but it was not. Now it is up to the Legislature to decide whether to require local governments to allow for the sale of marijuana.”

The AGO intervened in this case to uphold the will of the voters, defend I-502 and ensure its proper interpretation. The AGO does not represent the plaintiffs or the City of Kennewick. Rather, the AGO is an additional party to the lawsuit. Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Even gave oral arguments on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office.

As noted above, Judge VanderSchoor is the third judge to agree with the Attorney General’s Office on this issue.  The plaintiffs in the first case, MMH, LLC v. Fife, have appealed the decision in their case to the Washington Supreme Court.  The court will likely decide sometime early next year whether to accept review of that case.

The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state agencies, boards and commissions.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson is working hard to protect consumers and seniors against fraud, keep our communities safe, protect our environment and stand up for our veterans. Visit to learn more.

Alison Dempsey-Hall, Acting Communications Director, (206) 442-4482,

***Note from Anna:

From Cannabis Culture Magazine

“…It’s been 72 years since the AMA has officially recognized that marijuana has both already-demonstrated and future-promising medical utility,” said Sunil Aggarwal, Ph.D., the medical student who spearheaded both the passage of the June 2008 resolution by the MSS and one of the CSAPH report’s designated expert reviewers.”

, , , , ,

Leave a comment

In California, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller May be About to “Start A Legal Revolution” by Determining Whether the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Classification of Marijuana as a Schedule I substance — the most restrictive category, for drugs with no known medical value — is unconstitutional, the Daily Beast reported.

The news: Is the federal ban on medical marijuana unconstitutional? Marijuana reform activists think so, and one federal judge might be about to make their dreams a reality.

In California, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller may be about to “start a legal revolution” by determining whether the Drug Enforcement Administration’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance — the most restrictive category, for drugs with no known medical value — is unconstitutional, the Daily Beast reported.

The considerations are stemming from a case in which lawyers defending six accused marijuana farmers claimed that the possible 10- to 15-year sentences facing their clients are too harsh and based on scientifically and medically inaccurate DEA regulations that violate their constitutional rights.

In May, Mueller made the surprising decision to hear arguments and examine marijuana’s classification based on “a tiny footnote written by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Stevens in 2005.” The Daily Beast‘s Abby Haglage wrote:

In the medical marijuana case of Gonzalez v. Raich, he wrote: “We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I,” it reads. “Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.”

Mueller said that was enough to justify a hearing. “”[T]here is new scientific and medical information raising contested issues of fact regarding whether the continued inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance … passes constitutional muster,” she said, at the time of the decision.

So what happened next? Something pretty amazing — marijuana had its day in court. Over the course of the five-day evidentiary hearing, the defense trotted out marijuana expert witnesses like ALS expert  Gregory Carter and Columbia University researcher Carl T. Hart, who, according to Leaf Online, appeared to have a serious edge over Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick, who struggled to keep up with Hart’s scientific arguments.

The court also brought in medical marijuana advocates such as Jennie Stormes, whose son has pediatric epilepsy and was forced to leave New Jersey for Colorado after repeatedly being denied medical marijuana.

The prosecution brought out just one witness: former George W. Bush drug enforcer Bertha Madras of Harvard Medical School. California NORML, an organization dedicated to reforming the state’s laws, reports that Madras argued “marijuana has not met the high standards of proof required for FDA approval” and thus has no accepted medical value. This argument stands in opposition to WebMD polling of medical community, which has demonstrated nearly 70% of doctors recognize some form of medical use for weed, as well as a 2013 poll of 1,446 North American doctors that found 76% support.

Why you should care: The case still faces a long road. Mueller will have to evaluate hundreds of pages of scientific testimony, and even if she rules the Schedule I classification as unconstitutional, prosecutors will likely appeal to the weed-unfriendly Ninth Circuit Court. If she comes down on the defendants’ side, it will only apply to their case. However, such a ruling would likely open the floodgates for hundreds or even thousands of similar lawsuits across the country, which could eventually lead to a full-scale and official reclassification.

Either way, the fact that a federal judge is considering such a question is a major step forward for marijuana advocates. As the Christian Science Monitor notes:

“It’s earth-shattering to even have this hearing,” says Adam Levine, adjunct professor at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida. “The fact that the judge is willing to hear this case means she is willing to question if the DEA’s original classification is constitutional.” He puts the chances of such a finding at “better than even.”

Hey, we can dream, right?

, , ,

Leave a comment

Earthjustice Attorneys: How We Work

The statue 'Contemplation of Justice', outside of the U.S. Supreme Court building.


As expert legal strategists, we take on the big environmental fights—high-stakes cases where we can have an enduring impact—and stick with them until we win. We don’t accept corporate money, so we can fight the most important cases and stick with them for as long as it takes.

High Stakes: Will something significant be lost or gained?

Landmark Impact: Will a positive ruling set a powerful precedent for other cases and help set national policy across the country?

Strong Partnerships: Will the lawsuit help build strong, lasting partnerships with diverse local and/or national groups?

Unique Expertise: Can Earthjustice leverage its expertise and resources to add value to a case in a unique way?


“I can’t imagine what our country would be like without our cornerstone environmental laws, but I know we would be less of a people and America would be less magnificent.”
– Trip Van Noppen, Earthjustice President

We rely on five cornerstone laws to achieve big wins for the environment.


Earthjustice uses the ESA to protect imperiled species and their habitats. Retired Earthjustice attorney Mike Sherwood pioneered this important work with precedent setting efforts in the ‘70s and ‘80s to protect West Coast salmon and the palila. After decades of work, we’ve secured ESA protection for more than a thousand plants and animals—and our fights continue in defense of wolves, grizzly bears, bowhead whales, salmon and a host of other creatures.


Earthjustice wields the Clean Air Act to protect everybody’s right to breathe. Our ongoing efforts to reduce harmful air pollutants such as mercury, soot, ozone and lead have yielded clean air standards that save tens of thousands of lives annually and reduce the health care costs associated with breathing dirty air by billions of dollars. Our current efforts include desperately needed reductions in ozone and the toxic pollution burden emitted by oil refineries and other heavy industry. Our litigation also helped establish the first-ever carbon pollution standards for power plants.


Earthjustice uses the Clean Water Act to ensure the nation’s waters are clean and safe for drinking, fishing, swimming, wildlife habitat and other uses. We helped establish the precedent that water is a public trust, not private property, and have achieved critical victories for waterways throughout the U.S. Current cases include ongoing efforts to save Florida’s waterways from choking due to toxic slime, replenish Hawaii stream flows, and keep fracking chemicals out of our water supplies.


Earthjustice harnesses NFMA to keep the nation’s wild forests from becoming lumber and pulp. We’ve scored huge victories that safeguard wildlife habitat, waterways and recreation in our national forests—including our 13-year defense of the Roadless Rule, which protects more than 50 million acres of beautiful national forest from development. We’re now working to preserve the Tongass—the gem of the national forest system—and ensure sound management of forestlands in the Sierra Nevada and beyond.


Earthjustice uses NEPA, the law that requires environmental impact statements for projects permitted by the federal government, in a huge range of our work. It is a thread that runs through our efforts to protect public lands and waterways, stop genetically modified food, keep oil companies from ravaging the Arctic, and defend endangered species, among many other things.


The federal court system has three tiers—district court, court of appeals and the Supreme Court. Most of our national cases start in district court and are resolved in the court of appeals. In rare instances, our cases end up in the Supreme Court.

State court systems are more complicated and variable, though most follow a structure very similar to the federal system. We are engaged in a number of cases in state court systems around the country.


To truly win for the environment, Earthjustice must be effective both in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion. Our communications team in San Francisco, CA, and Washington, D.C. builds public awareness and support for action on climate change, fracking, Arctic oil drilling and other threats to our air, water, health and vibrant ecosystems.


Holding polluters accountable requires strong environmental laws that stay strong. Every year, anti-environmental lawmakers seek to gut environmental protections and roll back our victories. Our policy and legislation team in Washington, D.C. works with members of Congress to keep environmental laws strong and ensure that our courtroom gains aren’t overturned.


Environmental protection is truly a global issue. Our international team, based in San Francisco, CA, focuses on human rights, climate change and international trade.


The generous support of tens of thousands of individuals like you allows us to take on the most important cases and stick with them for as long as it takes.

Earthjustice Divests from Fossil Fuels

Earthjustice recognizes climate change as one of the greatest threats to the global environment and human well-being. We also recognize divestment from fossil fuels as one of the strategies to speed the needed transition to a low-carbon clean energy economy. Earthjustice has made a commitment to divest from fossil fuels and to self-review our progress toward divestment on an annual basis.

***Note from Anna: Fight for your right to keep your crops organic. Stay green.

Leave a comment

U.S. Sailors Won Key Court Decision to go Forward with Class Action Lawsuit Against Tepco

U.S. Sailors won key court decision to go forward with class action against Tepco, GE, Toshiba and Hitachi etc.

 Following up this article.. The US Navy sailors’ complaint refers to Fukushima Diary [URL]

The federal judge, Janis L. Sammartino published the decision to let U.S Navy Sailors go forward with the United States District Court in San Diego against Tepco. Tepco was insisting the court should be in Japan because most of the “witnesses are in Japan”, and “the Japanese government may refuse to disclose crucial information or make witnesses available in a U.S. court”.

However the Federal judge concluded it should be in U.S court for the plaintiffs’ “radiation related injuries,” which they claim would prevent them from traveling to Japan at all.  The court also considered “The U.S. also has a strong interest in seeing that members of the Armed Forces are compensated for their service. Especially as it is the V.A. system and the U.S. taxpayers who will ultimately pay for the injuries to Plaintiffs.”

Fukushima Diary was directly informed of this by Paul C. Garner, ESQ., the attorney of the plaintiffs.


By having the court in U.S, the Sailors can go forward with Class Action. Up to 70,000 U.S. citizens were potentially affected by the radiation and will be able to join the class action suit. This “Class Action” is not granted in Japanese court. It can be the major reason why Tepco tried to transfer the case from U.S. to Japan so they can minimize the compensation value.


Additionally, the Court granted TEPCO’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ design defect claim of the nuclear plant, however the court admitted the plaintiffs to add more defendants to consist of General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba, Hitachi and the builders of Fukushima nuclear reactors.


In the decision, the court agreed with Plaintiffs that their Complaint is not barred by the firefighter’s rule. As alleged, the nuclear accident was independent of the earthquake that summoned the U.S. Navy. Although the Fukushima plant meltdown occurred in part due to the earthquake and tsunami, Plaintiffs allege the ultimate failure of Fukushima plant was a result of TEPCO’s inadequate preparation for a foreseeable natural disaster and negligence in designing and maintaining the Fukushima plant.


The amended pleading shall be filed by 11/18/2014.

Cooper-Order on Motion to Dismiss Sac102814

Cooper-second Tepco Press Release



Français :

Les marins US gagnent une décision judiciaire clé pour avancer dans leur recours collectif contre Tepco, GE, Toshiba, Hitachi etc.


Article lié : La plainte des marins de l’US Navy fait référence au Fukushima Diary

Le juge fédéral Janis L. Sammartino a pris la décision de laisser avancer les marins de l’US Navy contre Tepco à la United States District Court de San Diego. Tepco insistait pour que la cour soit au Japon parce que “la plupart des témoins sont au Japon” et que “le gouvernement japonais pourrait refuser de donner des informations cruciales ou empêcher les témoins de se rendre dans une cour américaine”. Le juge fédéral a néanmoins conclu que ce serait dans une cour américaine pour les “blessures liées à la radioactivité” des plaignants qu’ils affirment pouvoir les empêcher de faire le voyage jusqu’au Japon. La cour a aussi considéré que “Les U.S. ont également fort intérêt à voir les membres des forces armées indemnisées pour avoir rempli leur mission. En particulier attendu que c’est l’administration des vétérants et les contribuables américains qui, au final, payeront les indemnisations aux plaignants”.

Le Fukushima Diary en a été directement informé par M. Paul C. Garner, ESQ., le représentant des plaignants.

Les marins peuvent aller plus loin dans leur action collective en ayant leur cour aus U.S.A. Jusqu’à 70 000 citoyens américains ont été potentiellement affectées par la radioactivité et seront en mesure de se joindre à l’action collective. Les “actions collectives” n’existent pas dans la juridiction japonaise. C’est sans doute la raison essentielle pour laquelle Tepco a tenté de déplacer le procès au Japon, pour réduire le montant des indemnisations.

En outre, la Cour a accédé à la requête de TEPCO de rejeter la demande des plaignants de défaut de conception dans la centrale, néanmoins la cour a autorisé les plaignants à ajouter d’autres inculpations de sociétés telles que General Electric, EBASCO, Toshiba, Hitachi et les constructeurs des réacteurs de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima.

Dans sa décision, la cour a reconnu aux plaignants que leur plainte n’est pas interdite par la règle des pompiers. Comme présumé, l’accident nucléaire a été indépendant du séisme à l’origine de l’intervention de la marine américaine. Les plaignants prétendent que l’effondrement de la centrale nucléaire de Fukushima a fondamentalement été du à la préparation inadéquate de TEPCO à une catastrophe naturelle prévisible et à leur négligence dans la conception et l’exploitation de la centrale de Fukushima même si les fusions dans la centrale de Fukushima sont en partie dues au séisme et au tsunami.

La plaidoirie amendée sera déposée vers le 18 novembre 2014.

Cooper-Instruction sur la Motion de débout Sac102814




Leave a comment

No Relationship Between Moderate Adolescent Cannabis Use, Exam Results or IQ, Large UK Study Shows

Date: October 20, 2014
Source: European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP)
Summary: A large UK study has found that occasional adolescent cannabis use does not lead to poorer educational and intellectual performance, but that heavy cannabis use is associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16.

A large UK study has found that occasional adolescent cannabis use does not lead to poorer educational and intellectual performance, but that heavy cannabis use is associated with slightly poorer exam results at age 16. The results come from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, also known as “Children of the 90’s”) a long-term study that follows the health of children born in the Bristol area (UK) in 1991 and 1992. The work is being presented at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) in Berlin.

The researchers analysed data from 2,612 children who had their IQ tested at the age of 8, and again at the age of 15. These children’s examination results were then factored in via the National Pupil Database. At the age of 15, each person in the study completed a survey on cannabis use. The researchers then used regression analysis to look at how cannabis use affected both intellectual and educational performance. A number of children could not be included in the final analyses (for example because they had experienced a head injury), leaving a total sample size of 2,235.

The researchers found two main points

  • Cannabis use appeared to be associated with decreased intellectual performance. Cannabis use was, however, highly correlated with other risky behaviours such as alcohol, cigarette and other drug use. When the researchers took these other behaviours into account, they found there was no relationship between cannabis use and lower IQ at age 15.
  • Heavier cannabis users (at least 50 times by age 15) however, did show marginally impaired educational abilities. These children tended to have poorer exam results (3% lower) on compulsory school exams taken at age 16, even after adjusting for childhood educational performance, as well as alcohol, cigarette and other drug use.

According to lead researcher, Claire Mokrysz (University College London):

“Our findings suggest cannabis may not have a detrimental effect on cognition, once we account for other related factors- particularly cigarette and alcohol use. This may suggest that previous research findings showing poorer cognitive performance in cannabis users may have resulted from the lifestyle, behaviour and personal history typically associated with cannabis use, rather than cannabis use itself.

People often believe that using cannabis can be very damaging to intellectual ability in the long-term, but it is extremely difficult to separate the direct effects of cannabis from other potential explanations. Adolescent cannabis use often goes hand in hand with other drug use, such as alcohol and cigarette smoking, as well as other risky lifestyle choices.

It’s hard to know what causes what- do kids do badly at school because they are smoking weed, or do they smoke weed because they’re doing badly? This study suggests it is not as simple as saying cannabis is the problem.

This is a potentially important public health message- the belief that cannabis is particularly harmful may detract focus from and awareness of other potentially harmful behaviours. However the finding that heavier cannabis use is linked to marginally worse educational performance is important to note, warranting further investigation.”

Commenting ECNP Chair, Professor Guy Goodwin (Oxford) said “This is a potentially important study because it suggests that the current focus on the alleged harms of cannabis may be obscuring the fact that its use is often correlated with that of other even more freely available drugs and possibly lifestyle factors. These may be as or more important than cannabis itself.

The researchers noted that the study has some limitations. For example, cannabis use was self-reported, and the measure of IQ taken at age 15 was an abbreviated version of the standard Wechsler IQ test.

Full details can be found in the abstract (however please note that the abstract shows a preliminary analysis; this may differ from the version which is currently being prepared for publication and which is described above).

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Cite This Page:

European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP). “No relationship between moderate adolescent cannabis use, exam results or IQ, large study shows.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 20 October 2014. .

Leave a comment

What 20 Years of Research on Cannabis Use Has Taught Us

Science Daily October 7, 2014

Wayne Hall

In the past 20 years recreational cannabis use has grown tremendously, becoming almost as common as tobacco use among adolescents and young adults, and so has the research evidence. A major new review in the scientific journal Addiction sets out the latest information on the effects of cannabis use on mental and physical health.

The key conclusions are:

Adverse Effects of Acute Cannabis Use

  • Cannabis does not produce fatal overdoses.
  • Driving while cannabis-intoxicated doubles the risk of a car crash; this risk increases substantially if users are also alcohol-intoxicated.
  • Cannabis use during pregnancy slightly reduces birth weight of the baby.

Adverse Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use

  • Regular cannabis users can develop a dependence syndrome, the risks of which are around 1 in 10 of all cannabis users and 1 in 6 among those who start in adolescence.
  • Regular cannabis users double their risks of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they have a personal or family history of psychotic disorders, and if they start using cannabis in their mid-teens.
  • Regular adolescent cannabis users have lower educational attainment than non-using peers but we don’t know whether the link is causal.
  • Regular adolescent cannabis users are more likely to use other illicit drugs, but we don’t know whether the link is causal.
  • Regular cannabis use that begins in adolescence and continues throughout young adulthood appears to produce intellectual impairment, but the mechanism and reversibility of the impairment is unclear.
  • Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or reporting psychotic symptoms in adulthood.
  • Regular cannabis smokers have a higher risk of developing chronic bronchitis.
  • Cannabis smoking by middle aged adults probably increases the risk of myocardial infarction.

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Wiley. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. Wayne Hall. What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use? Addiction, 2014; DOI: 10.1111/add.12703;jsessionid=8768CE197D9BCF7CB2B80F5E7CDF1E4D.f01t04

Cite This Page:

Wiley. “What 20 years of research on cannabis use has taught us.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 October 2014. .
****Note from Anna: Clearly the research is negatively biased but it is always good to understand how MMJ patients can be manipulated into using harmful chemical drugs by doctors.
Research here: Granny Storm Crow’s 2014 Cannabis research link list:

Calgary Medicinal Marijuana Center

 U.S. medical marijuana patent 6113940 information:


2000 – US Patent 6132762 ~ Transcutaneous application of marijuana

2000 – US Patent 6113940 ~ Drug delivery with transdermal patch layer which carries the cannabis chemical(s). the chemicals are contained in a film on the

2001 – US Patent 6328992 ~ Cannabinoid patch and method for cannabis transdermal delivery

2002 – US Patent 6383513 ~ Compositions comprising cannabinoids (nasal spray)

2002 – US Patent 6410588 ~ Use of cannabinoids as anti-inflammatory agents

2003 – US Patent 6630507 ~ Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

2003 – US Patent 6503492 ~ An antiperspirant or deodorant active agent comprising an aluminium and/or zicronium salt or complex, a carrier for active agent and a cannabanoid receptor (CBR) activating agent

2004 – US Patent 20070151149 ~ Methods for altering the level of phytochemicals in plant cells by applying wave lengths of light from 400 nm to 700 nm and apparatus therefore

2003 – US Patent Application 2004004905 ~ Method for producing an extract from cannabis
plant matter, containing a tetrahydrocannabinol and a cannabidiol and cannabis extracts

2004 – US Patent 6713048 ~ Δ9 tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9 THC) solution metered dose inhalers
and methods of use

2005 – US Patent 6974568 ~ Treatment for cough

2005 – US Patent Application 20050266108 ~ Methods of purifying cannabinoids from plant

2005 – US Patent Application 20050079136 ~ Therapy for pain, appetite inttensifiers, multiple sclerosis and asthma; drug delivery

2005 – US Patent 6949582 ~ Method of relieving analgesia and reducing inflamation using a
cannabinoid delivery topical liniment

2005 – US Patent 20050070596 ~ Methods for treatment of inflammatory diseases using CT-3 or analogs thereof

2006 – US Patent Application 20060160888 ~ Room-temperature stable dronabinol formulations

2006 – US Patent 7088914 ~ Device, method and resistive element for vaporizing a medicament

2006 – US Patent Application 20060167084 ~ Delta-9-THC compositions and methods for
treating symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis

2006 – US Patent 7025992 ~ Administering lipophilic drug through mucous membranes

2006 – US Patent Application 20060039959 ~ Film-Shaped Mucoadhesive Administration Forms
For Administering Cannabis Agents

2006 – US Patent 7109245 ~ Vasoconstrictor cannabinoid analogs

2007 – US Patent Application 20070020193 ~ Dronabinol compositions and methods for using

2007 – US Patent 20080057117 ~ Pharmaceutical Composition Made Up Of Cannabis Extracts

2007 – US Patent Application 20070041994 ~ Aqueous extract of finely chopped dried selenium- and zinc-enhanced cannabis (Cannabis indicaxCannabis ruderalis), chopped shiitake mushrooms (Lentinula edodes), and chopped maitake mushrooms (Grifola frondosa) packaged in a cellulose capsule for oral adminstration to treat prostatitis, prostate cancer

2007 – US Patent Application 20070049645 ~ Anti-nausea and anti-vomiting activity of
cannabidiol compounds

2007 – US Patent Application 20070099987 ~ Treating or preventing diabetes with cannabidiol

2008 – US Patent 7344736 ~ Extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials

2008 – US Patent 20080275237 ~ Method for Obtaining Pure Tetrahydrocannabinol

2008 – US Patent 7402686 ~ Cannabinoid crystalline derivatives and process of cannabinoid

2008 – US Patent 7399872 ~ Conversion of CBD to Δ-THC Delta 8 and Δ-THC Delta 9

2008 – US Patent Application 20080112895 ~ Aqueous dronabinol formulations (Cannabinoids in buffer/cosolvent such as ethanol, propylene glycol and/or polyethylene glycol; ophthalmology)

2008 – US Patent Application 20080181942 ~ Delta-9-THC compositions and methods for
treating symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis

2008 – US Patent Application 20080262099 ~ Inhibition of Tumour Cell Migration

2008 – News ~ US Government Holds Patent For Medical Marijuana, Shows Hypocrisy

2009 – US Patent Application 20090324797 ~ Modulating Plant Oil Levels

2009 – US Patent 7622140 ~ Processes and apparatus for extraction of active substances and
enriched extracts from natural products

2009 – US Patent Application 20090197941 ~ Pharmaceutical Compositons for the Treatment of
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2010 – US Patent Application 20090005461 – Use of Cannabidiol in the Treatment of Hepatitis

2010 – US Patent 2623723 ~ Process for production of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

2010 – US Patent Application 20100249223 ~ New use for cannabinoid-containing plant extracts

2010 – US Patent Application 20100239693 ~ Cannabinoid-containing plant extracts as neuroprotective agents

2010 – US Patent Application 2004014385 ~ Pharmacological treatment of psoriasis

2010 – US Patent Application 20100012118 ~ Medicament dosage for inhaler

2010 – US Patent 7741365 ~ Peripheral cannabinoid receptor (CB2) selective ligands

2010 – US Patent Application 20100204312 ~ Methods and compositions for treating cancer

2010 – US Patent Application 20100158973 ~ Therapeutic uses of cannabidiol compounds

2010 – US Patent Application ~ Controlled-release apoptosis modulating compositions and methods for the treatment of otic disorders

2011 – US Patent Application 20110097283 ~ Chewing gum compositions comprising cannabinoids

2011 – US Patent 2005023741 ~ Pharmaceutical compositions containing (+) cannabidiol and derivatives thereof and some such novel derivatives

2011 – US Patent Application 20110052694 ~ Use of cannabidiol prodrugs in topical and transdermal administration with microneedles

2011 – US Patent Application 20110073120 ~ Smoke and Odor Elimination Filters, Devices and

2011 – US Patent Application 20110020945 ~ Oral detection test for cannabinoid use

2011 – US Patent Application 20110082195 ~ New use for cannabinoids

2011 – Patent GB2478595 ~ Phytocannabinoids for use in the treatment of cancer

2012 – US Patent 20120052119 ~ Nanoencapsulated delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

2012 – US Patent US2012046352 ~ Controlled cannabis decarboxylation

2012 – US Patent US2012034293 ~ Transdermal delivery of cannabinoids

2012 – US Patent Application 20120004251 ~ Use of the phytocannabinoid cannabidivarin (cbdv) in the treatment of epilepsy

2012 – US Patent 7674922 ~ Process for production of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

2012 – US Patent Application 20120264818 ~ Topical Compositions with Cannabis Extracts

2013 – US Patent Application 20130245110 ~ The use of CBD alone or in combination with another cannabinoid (also THCV alone)

2013 – US Patent 8435556 ~ Transdermal delivery of cannabidiol

2013 – US Patent Application 20130280343 ~ Food Products Derived From Cannabinoid-Administered Livestock

2013 – US Patent Application 20130171145 ~ Methods of treating liver disease

2013 – US Patent Application on 20130251824 ~ Recycling cannabinoid extractor

2013 – US Patent Application 20130059018 ~ Phytocannabinoids in the treatment of cancer

2013 – US Patent NEWS ~ GW Pharmaceuticals plc Announces US Patent Allowance for Use of Cannabinoids in Treating Glioma

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

U.S. House Republican Vows to Block Marijuana Legalization in Washington DC

The Daily Chronic By Thomas H. Clarke
November 6, 2014

House Republican Vowes to Block Marijuana Legalization in Washington DC

“I will consider using all resources available to a member of Congress to stop this action.” — Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD)

WASHINGTON, DC — A Republican Congressman from Maryland has once again vowed to block the implementation of marijuana reform in the nation’s capital.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) told the Washington Post on Wednesday that he would “consider using all resources available” to block the implementation of Initiative 71,  the marijuana legalization ballot initiative that was approved by an overwhelming majority of District voters on election day.

Under District law, all laws passed in the nation’s capital are sent to Capitol Hill for Congressional review. To completely nullify a law, both chambers of Congress and the President must agree.  This has happened only once in 40 years.

However, Congress could take steps to block or delay implementation of the initiative by attaching amendments to unrelated bills, as was done with Washington DC’s medical marijuana law, which was approved in 1998 but was delayed for nearly 15 years, when House Republicans continuously attached provisions to federal spending bills to block the measure.  The first medical marijuana dispensaries in the District finally opened in 2013.

Now, Rep. Harris intends to use similar tactics to block or indefinitely delay the implementation of the District’s voter approved marijuana legalization initiative, which allows adults 21 or older to possess up to two ounces of marijuana and grow up to six cannabis plants, three of which can be flowering.

“Actions by those in D.C. will result in higher drug use among teens,” Harris told The Washington Post. “I will consider using all resources available to a member of Congress to stop this action.”

Earlier this year, Rep. Harris won the backing of House Republicans when he attempted to block the implementation of a bill passed by the DC Council to decriminalize marijuana possession by introducing an amendment to an Appropriations bill.  The rider was backed by House Republicans but died in negotiations with Senate Democrats after President Obama threatened to veto the provision, which would have blocked funding for implementing the law.

At least one  prominent Republican in the Senate disagrees with Rep. Harris, and could be the key to persuading the GOP to allow Initiative 71 to be implemented.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) , the ranking Republican on the subcommittee that oversees the District, told reporters on Tuesday that while he hasn’t taken a position on Initiative 71, he believes Congress should respect the will of DC voters, who approved the measure with nearly two-thirds of the vote.

“I haven’t really taken a stand on it, but I’m against the federal government telling them they can’t,” Paul told reporters outside a Kentucky polling precinct Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Washington DC mayor-elect Muriel E. Bowser said in a post-election press conference that she would stand by District voters and support the implementation of the initiative, telling reporters she is prepared to expend political capital to press the issue with Congress if Republicans try to block Initiative 71.

Bowser added that she would prefer to send Initiative 71 to Congress for review with an accompanying bill from the DC Council to establish a system for taxing and regulating marijuana sales, which was not included in the measure approved by voters due to District laws regulating citizen petition ballot initiatives.

“I see no reason we wouldn’t follow a regime similar to how we regulate and tax alcohol,” Bowser said.

The DC Council is already considering such a bill, and held public hearings on the measure last month.

D.C. Cannabis Campaign chairman Adam Eidinger vowed to challenge any delay, which he said could thwart the will of the voters for years. Colorado allowed home cultivation for more than a year before its first marijuana dispensaries opened, he noted.

“Three plants or less doesn’t need to be taxed and regulated,” he said. “They don’t regulate people who brew their own beer.”

***Note from Anna: The voters should use all of their powers to fire,impeach, and/or recall all political officials who attempt defy, undermine, or circumvent the will of the American voters in 2016. The taxpayers make the decisions. The taxpayers pay the salaries of the politicians; apparently they have forgotten that fact. It’s long past time to remind them all, including President Obama, that they are public servants.

, ,

Leave a comment

Oregon Has Legalized Marijuana! An Overview of Measure 91

By Evan Barnes | Green Rush Consulting for the Daily Chronic
November 8, 2014

Oregon voters have legalized cannabis for adults – understand the details.

On November 4, Oregon’s Measure 91 passed the popular vote by 57% to 43%, making Oregon one of only 4 US states to end cannabis prohibition! This is a historic time, and represents an intelligent and progressive change in public policy.

Not only is cannabis one of the most medically useful plants known, but it is also safer than alcohol, and its legalization has positive impacts on public health. In other states that have legalized the use of cannabis by adults in some form, traffic fatalities have decreased, cannabis use by teens has not increased, and the rate of death from opioid pain killer overdoses has fallen. Hopefully, this marks the beginning of the end of our nation’s policy of cannabis prohibition.

As exciting as this is, if you live in Oregon, don’t run out into the streets to smoke it up in celebration just yet! For one thing, the public consumption of cannabis is not allowed under Measure 91.

Additionally, the portions of Measure 91 that legalize the use of cannabis don’t take effect until July 1, 2015. Until that time, Oregon’s decriminalization laws still apply, meaning that possession of less than one ounce of cannabis is still a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum $650 fine.

Measure 91 establishes large possession limits for adults aged 21 and older, compared to other states that have fully legalized cannabis. Starting on July 1, 2015, adults aged 21 and over will be able to possess the following amounts of cannabis in the following forms: 8 ounces (one half pound) of usable cannabis flowers, limited to carrying 1 ounce in public; 16 ounces (one pound) of marijuana products in solid form (e.g., edibles – you could have a pound of cookies); 72 ounces of cannabis products in liquid form (e.g., cannabis-infused soda – this is a volume equivalent to a six pack of beers); and 1 ounce of cannabis extracts (e.g., CO2-, butane-, or alcohol-extracted hash, wax, or shatter).

One important note is that under Measure 91, homemade cannabis extracts (such as wax or shatter) are prohibited: no person may produce, process, keep, or store homemade marijuana extracts. Adults are allowed to possess up to 1 ounce of cannabis extracts, but only if they are procured from a licensed cannabis retailer. Specifically, the law bans the home production of extracts through the use of solvents such as CO2, butane, hexane, and alcohol.

However, Measure 91 explicitly allows adults to infuse glycerin with cannabis. Unfortunately, glycerin is a poor solvent for cannabinoids. Because of the way this section of the law is written, it seems likely that making cannabis-infused olive oil or butter would probably also be allowable, especially since adults are allowed to make their own edibles at home.

Currently, the text of Measure 91 creates a bit of a gray area around homemade cannabis extracts. Because it defines marijuana extracts as those made with solvents, the case can be made that mechanically created concentrates, like kief or bubble hash, can legally be made at home. The process of making kief, certain kinds of hash, and bubble hash involve using mechanical processes, like sifting and agitation, to remove the cannabinoid-rich trichomes from the cannabis plant. These processes create concentrated cannabis products that can be as strong as solvent-based extracts, without the use of solvents, and are therefore likely to be allowed under the law.

In addition to establishing legal personal possession limits, Measure 91 also allows adults aged 21 and over to cultivate up to 4 cannabis plants of their own, as long as the plants are not visible from a public space. Growing four cannabis plants in a fenced back yard is probably fine, if people can’t see over or through the fence from the street; growing them in planter boxes on your front porch is almost certainly not allowed.

It is important to understand that these cultivation limits apply not only to individuals who are over the age of 21, but also to their households. If three adults over the age of 21 live in the same house and all want to cultivate cannabis, they cannot each grow 4 of their own plants, for a total of 12 in the household; they are limited by the law to cultivating a total of 4 plants in the household. In the same manner, the possession limits outlined above apply to homegrown usable cannabis, and to products such as edibles made at home from homegrown cannabis. So a single household is limited to possessing 8 ounces of usable homegrown cannabis, 16 ounces of solid marijuana products made from homegrown cannabis, and so on.

Measure 91 has done more than merely legalize the home cultivation of cannabis for adults: it has also directed the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) to create and regulate a system of commercial cannabis cultivators, process, and retailers.

The OLCC will have until January 1, 2016 to create the forms, applications, and regulatory structure necessary to implement this initiative. Three days later, on January 4, 2016, the OLCC is required to begin accepting applications for retail cannabis businesses licenses. This means that the soonest retail cannabis business can be expected to be operational is within the first half of 2016.

Under Measure 91, Oregon will tax retail cannabis less stringently than have other states, like Washington. This new law imposes an excise tax on retail cannabis that is to be paid by the producers: there will be a tax of $35 per ounce of flowers sold; $10 per ounce of leaves; and $5 per immature plant sold for home cultivation.

This Measure allows for 4 types of licensed cannabis businesses: producers, who will cultivate retail cannabis; processors, who will buy cannabis from producers and convert it into other marijuana products, like supercritical CO2 wax and shatter; retailers, who will buy marijuana and marijuana products from producers and processors to sell to consumers; and marijuana wholesalers, who will be licensed to purchase cannabis and related products to sell to retailers and other non-consumers. This last type of business would be a new kind of middleman business in the cannabis industry that has never before been implemented in another state. It may prove to be redundant, since dispensaries usually handle their own purchases of these kinds of items directly. However, with a bit of creativity, innovative entrepreneurs may be able to carve out a unique niche for this new type of cannabis business.

Overall, Oregon’s Measure 91 is an amazing step forward in public policy. The end of cannabis prohibition in Oregon represents a great development for business opportunities and improvements in public health and safety. There are also some less well-known aspects of Measure 91 that make it an important piece of law.

One important aspect of this act that has fallen to the wayside in other discussions is that it also requires the creation of regulations and licensing for industrial hemp and hemp seed production in Oregon. Hemp a highly sustainable and useful source of fiber and nutrition, and is a massively underutilized natural resource due to its classification as a Schedule 1 drug by the Federal government. Now Oregon will be one of the only states to fully utilize the industrial, medical, and recreational properties of the amazingly useful cannabis plant.

On an interesting final note, Measure 91 provides an affirmative defense for the growth, possession, and use of peyote. (See section 76(4) of the full text of the law). This aspect of the law takes effect on December 4, 2014. Basically, an affirmative defense is a portion of the law that outlines a set of conditions; if you can prove in court that you meet the conditions of the affirmative defense, then you are not guilty of the crime with which you are charged. One of the most well known affirmative defenses is an act of self defense in cases of what would otherwise be considered assault.

Measure 91 creates an affirmative defense for the cultivation and use of peyote in religious practices, in connection with religious belief, and in a manner that is not harmful to the health of the user or to those around him. Overall, it seems that Oregon has determined prohibitionist policies to be detrimental, and have chosen to take a new path. Congratulations Oregon!

Green Rush Consulting, LLC is a medical marijuana consulting firm that has over 15 years of experience operating in the industry, and provides education, training, and expertise to medical marijuana cultivators and dispensary operators across the nation.

Additionally, Green Rush Consulting has helped entrepreneurial groups win cultivation and dispensary licenses in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington D.C., and recently concluded the application process in Illinois. To learn more about Oregon’s legal and medical cannabis markets,

***Note from Anna:  In  my opinion this is not true cannabis legalization. 100% legalization means being able to grow, store, and use cannabis and it’s extracts, including concentrates, as one sees fit as long as the user adheres to health warning usage labels. The hemp portion of the bill looks wonderful. Congratulations Oregon!

Leave a comment

☢ Fukushima Documentary 2014 HD ☢ Nuclear Exodus: Pandora’s Promise Was A Lie

Leave a comment

Shocking Report From Fukushima

Leave a comment

TalkingStickTV – Helen Caldicott – Fukushima: Crisis Without End

Leave a comment

Implications of Radioactivity Levels

Last Modified: 24 Mar 2011 12:19
On March 23, levels of radioactive iodine in Tokyo’s tap water were deemed to be at unsafe levels for infants [Reuters]

With Japan battling a nuclear crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power complex following the March 11 earthquake and subsequent tsunami, fears over the health implications of radiation leaks from the plant have been the foremost concerns amongst both authorities and citizens.

What is commonly refered to as ‘radiation’ is more accurately described as ‘ionising radiation': the kind of electromagnetic wave that has enough energy to remove electrons from atoms, or even to break up the nucleus of an atom. Wavelengths for ionising radiation tend to be from 10^(-8) metres (the wavelength of ultraviolent light) and lower.

50-100mSv: Changes in blood chemistry
500mSv: Nausea, within hours
700mSv: Vomiting
750mSv: Hair loss, within 2-3 weeks
900mSv: Diarrhoea
1,000mSv: Haemorrhage
4,000mSv: Possible death, within two months, without treatment
10,000mSv: Destruction of intestinal lining, internal bleeding and death within two weeks

(mSv = millisieverts)

The lower the wavelength, the higher the energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves. Thus radio waves (with wavelengths between one and 100 metres) have relatively low energy (and are therefore not potentially harmful to humans), while X-rays (with wavelengths of 10^(-10) metres) have higher energy. Gamma rays, the most dangerous kind of electromagnetic radiation, have a wavelength of the order of 10^(-12) metres.

Radiation can also be transmitted through alpha (α) and beta (β) particles. Alpha particles have two protons and two neutrons (identical to a Helium nucleus), thus giving it a positive charge of +2. Beta particles are identical to electrons, and thus have a negative charge of -1. All of the radioactive elements listed below emit beta particles, and not alpha particles.

Exposure to large amounts of high-energy radioactivity can cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, diarrhoea, haemorrhaging, destruction of intestinal lining, central nervous system damage and death. It can also cause DNA damage and raise the risk of cancer, particularly in young children.

Below are the three radioactive substances health experts have been most concerned about after the radiation leaks at the Fukushima plant.

Radiation levels are provided in becquerels (Bq), a unit of measuring radioactivity. One becquerel is defined as that quantity of a material that will undergo one nucleus decay per second. In a fixed mass of substance, becquerel readings change with time, to indicate how radioactive they may be at any given moment. A vegetable with a certain becquerel reading for a radioactive element, therefore, will see that number decrease steadily unless exposed to further radiation.

Absorbed radiation is measured in Sieverts (Sv), a unit that attempts to quantify the biological effects of ionising radiation.

The table to the right shows the effects of short-term, high-level exposure to radiation (measured in millisieverts), as published by the US Environmental Protection Agency.


Leafy green vegetables in several prefectures near the Fukushima plant – Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi and Gunma – have been found to contain up to 22,000 becquerels of iodine-131 for every kilogram.

These levels are 11 times those set by the European Union as safety standards.

Eating a kilogram of such vegetables would give the person consuming it half the amount of radiation an average person is typically exposed to from the natural environment in a year.

Eating a kilogram every day for 45 days would accumulate 50 millisieverts (mSv), the annual radiation limit set for nuclear plant workers.

Exposure to 100mSv per year increases a person’s risk of cancer. It is the equivalent of approximately three full-body CT scans.

If inhaled or swallowed, iodine-131 concentrates in the body’s thyroid gland and increases the risk of thyroid cancer. Children, fetuses and young adults are particularly vulnerable to this risk.

The risk of thyroid cancer can be lowered by the ingestion of potassium iodide pills, a compound that helps to prevent the absorption of the radioactive iodine.

Iodine-131 does, however, disintegrate relatively quickly, with its radioactivity levels halving every eight days. Based on the levels of radioactivity measured on March 24, it would lose its harmfulness in 80 days.

Caesium-134 and Caesium-137

Vegetables in Japan have also been found to be tainted with up to 14,000Bq of caesium per kilogram.

Again, this exceeds EU guideline limits by 11 times.

Eating a kilogram of such vegetables every day for 30 days would accumulate the equivalent radiation of a full body CT scan, or 20mSV.

External exposure to large amounts of radioactive caesium can also cause burns, acute radiation sickness and death, depending on the amount of exposure.

Ingesting or inhaling caesium allows it to be distributed in the body’s soft tissue, particularly muscle tissue, increasing the risk of cancer.

It can also cause spasms, involuntary muscular contractions and infertility.

Unlike iodine, the uptake (absorption) of radioactive caesium cannot be prevented once a person has been exposed to it.

Caesium is also particularly dangerous because it has a much longer radioactive half-life than iodine-131. Caesium-137 takes 30 years for its radioactivity to half, meaning that it would take 240 years for this contaminant to exhaust its dangerous radioactivity, based on March 24 levels.

Caesium-134 has a half-life of two years, meaning that it would take about 20 years for it to become harmless.

Typical sources and levels of radiation

The chart below shows typical sources and estimated levels of radiation (in Seiverts) that an average person is exposed to, compared to both EPA guidelines and harmful doses. While the creator, Randall Munroe, explicitly states that it is not meant to serve as a basis for radiation safety procedures, it does serve as a useful guide.

This chart compiled by the XKCD webcomic shows typical levels and sources of radiation exposure

Leave a comment

Japan Government: Some Fukushima Prefecture Areas Exceed Permissible Radiation Limit

The science ministry says the amount of radiation accumulated over about half a month in some areas of Fukushima Prefecture has exceeded the permissible level for a whole year.

Since March 23rd, the ministry has been measuring radiation levels in 15 locations more than 20 kilometers away from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

At one location, in Namie Town about 30 kilometers northwest of the plant, 14,480 microsieverts of radiation had accumulated over the 17-day period to Sunday. 8,440 microsieverts of radiation were observed in Iitate Village.

In another location in Namie, the amount reached 6,430 microsieverts.
People would be exposed to this accumulated amount of radiation if they had stayed outdoors throughout the entire period.

The level at one location was more than 14 times the 1,000 microsieverts that the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommends as the long-term annual reference level for people. The recommended level of 1,000 microsieverts excludes radiation from the natural environment and medical devices.

Hiroshima University Professor Kiyoshi Shizuma says most of the radiation observed in Fukushima is believed to be radioactive cesium that has fallen to the ground.

Shizuma advises residents to wear masks to avoid inhaling radioactive substances mixed with dust.
He points to the need to take samples both from the air and the ground for detailed analyses in order to assess any possible impact on human health.

Monday, April 11, 2011 21:20 +0900 (JST)

Source: NHK

Leave a comment

Nuclear Radiation and its Biological Effects

The Seed

“The future of humankind is present today within the bodies of living people, animals and plants — the whole seedbearing biosphere. This living biosystem which we take so much for granted has evolved slowly into a relatively stable dynamic equilibrium, with predictable interactions between plants and animals, between microscopic and macroscopic life, between environmental pollutants and human health. Changes in the environment disturb this balance in two ways: first, by altering the carefully evolved seed by randomly damaging it, and second, by altering the habitat, i.e. food, climate or environment, to which the seed and/or organism has been adapted, making life for future generations more difficult or even impossible.

 Although examples of maladaptation in nature and resulting species extinction abound, our focus here is on human seed, the sperm and ovum, and the effect on it and on the human habitat resulting from increasing ionising radiation in the environment.

   The increased use of radioactive materials, which is a direct outgrowth of the current military and energy policies of the developed world, provides an opportunity for gauging what priority these countries give to the health and well-being of individual citizens, and for gauging governments’ understanding of the tension between individual and national survival. The first indicator of underlying national priorities is the precision or lack of precision with which health effects are predicted, and the thoroughness with which an audit is taken and the predictions checked against reality. The audit findings should be reported to the person or people affected, and their participation sought in formulating changes in policy to remedy any unanticipated problems. The individual’s sense of self-preservation and personal benefit, in such an ideal system, would give realistic feedback to governments on the acceptability of national policy. The combined experiences of governing and governed would forge a national consensus on future directions.


  1. ABCC Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission. Now called Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)
  2. Alpha particle an electrically charged ( + ) particle emitted from the nucleus of some radioactive chemicals, cf. plutonium. It contains 2 protons and 2 neutrons, and is the largest of the atomic particles emitted by radioactive chemicals. It can cause ionisation.
  3. Beta particle an electrically charged ( – ) particle emitted from some radioactive chemicals. It has the mass of an electron. Krypton 85, emitted from nuclear power plants, is a strong beta emitter. Beta particles can cause ionisation.
  4. Curie a measure of radioactivity. One curie equals 3.7 x 10^10 nuclear transformations per second. Ci is the symbol used.
    • Microcurie: one-millionth of a curie.
      (3.7 x 10^4 disintegrations per second) mCi is the symbol used.
    • Picocurie: one-millionth of a microcurie.
      (3.7 x 10^-2 disintegrations per second) pCi is the symbol used.
  5. Dose energy imparted to matter by nuclear transformations (radioactivity).
    • Rad = 100 ergs per gram.
      1 GRAY = 100 rad = 10,000 ergs per gram.
    • Rem = rads x Q
      where Q is a quality factor which attempts to convert rads from different types of radioactivity into a common scale of biological damage.
      1 SIEVERT = 100 rad.
  6. Gamma ray short wave-length electromagnetic radiation released by some nuclear transformations. It is similar to X-ray and will penetrate through the human body. Iodine 131 emits gamma rays. Both gamma and X-rays cause ionisation.
  7. Half-life, biological time required for the body to eliminate one-half of an administered quantity of a radioactive chemical.
  8. Half-life, physical time required for half of a quantity of radioactive material to undergo a nuclear transformation. The chemical resulting from the transformation may be either radioactive or non-radioactive.
  9. Ionisation sufficient energy is deposited in a neutral molecule to displace an electron, thus replacing the neutral molecule with positive and negative ions.
  10. Radiation the emission and propagation of energy through space or tissue in the form of waves. It usually refers to electromagnetic radiation, classified by its frequency: radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray, gamma ray and cosmic rays.
    • Natural background radiation
      emissions from radioactive chemicals which are not man-made. These chemicals include uranium, radon, potassium and other trace elements. They are made more hazardous through human activities such as mining and milling, since this makes them more available for uptake in food, air and water.
    • Background radiation
      includes emissions from radioactive chemicals which occur naturally and those which result from the nuclear fission process. The meaning of this term is vague. In a licensing process it includes radiation from all sources other than the particular nuclear facility being licensed, even if the source includes a second nuclear facility located on the same site (US regulations). Radioactive chemicals released from a nuclear power plant are called `background’ after one year.

The Fissioning Process and its Consequences
In order to understand nuclear technology and its impact on human health, three atomic-level events must be understood: fissioning, activation and ionisation. Fissioning, i.e. the splitting of the uranium or plutonium atom, is responsible for producing radioactive fission fragments and activation products. These in turn cause the ionisation of normal atoms, leading to a chain of microscopic events we may eventually observe as a cancer death or a deformed child.”

Leave a comment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nuclear Health Effects


Health effects are the central focus of EPA’s Radiation Protection Programs. Below is information that explains the topics that we consider as we prepare regulations and guidance on protective limits.

On this page:

Radiation and Health

How does radiation cause health effects?

Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionizing radiation, which has sufficient energy to strip away electrons from atoms (creating two charged ions) or to break some chemical bonds. Any living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation in a unique manner. The body attempts to repair the damage, but sometimes the damage is of a nature that cannot be repaired or it is too severe or widespread to be repaired. Also mistakes made in the natural repair process can lead to cancerous cells. The most common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or gamma and X-rays.

Top of page

What kinds of health effects does exposure to radiation cause?

In general, the amount and duration of radiation exposure affects the severity or type of health effect. There are two broad categories of health effects: stochastic and non-stochastic.

Stochastic Health Effects

Stochastic effects are associated with long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure to radiation. (“Stochastic” refers to the likelihood that something will happen.) Increased levels of exposure make these health effects more likely to occur, but do not influence the type or severity of the effect.

Cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure. Simply put, cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells. Ordinarily, natural processes control the rate at which cells grow and replace themselves. They also control the body’s processes for repairing or replacing damaged tissue. Damage occurring at the cellular or molecular level, can disrupt the control processes, permitting the uncontrolled growth of cells cancer This is why ionizing radiation’s ability to break chemical bonds in atoms and molecules makes it such a potent carcinogen.

Other stochastic effects also occur. Radiation can cause changes in DNA, the “blueprints” that ensure cell repair and replacement produces a perfect copy of the original cell. Changes in DNA are called mutations.

Sometimes the body fails to repair these mutations or even creates mutations during repair. The mutations can be teratogenic or genetic. Teratogenic mutations are caused by exposure of the fetus in the uterus and affect only the individual who was exposed. Genetic mutations are passed on to offspring.

Non-Stochastic Health Effects

Non-stochastic effects appear in cases of exposure to high levels of radiation, and become more severe as the exposure increases. Short-term, high-level exposure is referred to as ‘acute’ exposure.

Many non-cancerous health effects of radiation are non-stochastic. Unlike cancer, health effects from ‘acute’ exposure to radiation usually appear quickly. Acute health effects include burns and radiation sickness. Radiation sickness is also called ‘radiation poisoning.’ It can cause premature aging or even death. If the dose is fatal, death usually occurs within two months. The symptoms of radiation sickness include: nausea, weakness, hair loss, skin burns or diminished organ function.

Medical patients receiving radiation treatments often experience acute effects, because they are receiving relatively high “bursts” of radiation during treatment.

Top of page

Is any amount of radiation safe?

There is no firm basis for setting a “safe” level of exposure above background for stochastic effects. Many sources emit radiation that is well below natural background levels. This makes it extremely difficult to isolate its stochastic effects. In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic effects.

Some scientists assert that low levels of radiation are beneficial to health (this idea is known as hormesis).

However, there do appear to be threshold exposures for the various non-stochastic effects. (Please note that the acute affects in the following table are cumulative. For example, a dose that produces damage to bone marrow will have produced changes in blood chemistry and be accompanied by nausea.)

Health Effect Time to Onset
(without treatment)
5-10 changes in blood chemistry
50 nausea hours
55 fatigue
70 vomiting
75 hair loss 2-3 weeks
90 diarrhea
100 hemorrhage
400 possible death within 2 months
1,000 destruction of intestinal lining
internal bleeding
and death 1-2 weeks
2,000 damage to central nervous system
loss of consciousness; minutes
and death hours to days
  • Estimating Risk
    This page describes how scientists estimate cancer and other health risks from radiation exposures.

Top of page

How do we know radiation causes cancer?

Basically, we have learned through observation. When people first began working with radioactive materials, scientists didn’t understand radioactive decay, and reports of illness were scattered.

As the use of radioactive materials and reports of illness became more frequent, scientists began to notice patterns in the illnesses. People working with radioactive materials and x-rays developed particular types of uncommon medical conditions. For example, scientists recognized as early at 1910 that radiation caused skin cancer. Scientists began to keep track of the health effects, and soon set up careful scientific studies of groups of people who had been exposed.

Among the best known long-term studies are those of Japanese atomic bomb blast survivors, other populations exposed to nuclear testing fallout (for example, natives of the Marshall Islands), and uranium miners.

Top of page

Aren’t children more sensitive to radiation than adults?

Yes, because children are growing more rapidly, there are more cells dividing and a greater opportunity for radiation to disrupt the process. EPA’s radiation protection standards take into account the differences in the sensitivity due to age and gender.

Fetuses are also highly sensitive to radiation. The resulting effects depend on which systems are developing at the time of exposure.

Effects of Radiation Type and Exposure Pathway

Both the type of radiation to which the person is exposed and the pathway by which they are exposed influence health effects. Different types of radiation vary in their ability to damage different kinds of tissue. Radiation and radiation emitters (radionuclides) can expose the whole body (direct exposure) or expose tissues inside the body when inhaled or ingested.

All kinds of ionizing radiation can cause cancer and other health effects. The main difference in the ability of alpha and beta particles and gamma and x-rays to cause health effects is the amount of energy they can deposit in a given space. Their energy determines how far they can penetrate into tissue. It also determines how much energy they are able to transmit directly or indirectly to tissues and the resulting damage.

Although an alpha particle and a gamma ray may have the same amount of energy, inside the body the alpha particle will deposit all of its energy in a very small volume of tissue. The gamma radiation will spread energy over a much larger volume. This occurs because alpha particles have a mass that carries the energy, while gamma rays do not.

Top of page

Non-Radiation Health Effects of Radionuclides

Radioactive elements and compounds behave chemically exactly like their non-radioactive forms. For example, radioactive lead has the same chemical properties as non-radioactive lead. The public health protection question that EPA’s scientists must answer is, “How do we best manage all the hazards a pollutant presents?” (See Protecting Against Exposure)

Do chemical properties of radionuclides contribute to radiation health effects?

The chemical properties of a radionuclide can determine where health effects occur. To function properly many organs require certain elements. They cannot distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive forms of the element and accumulate one as quickly as the other.

  • Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid. The thyroid needs iodine to function normally, and cannot tell the difference between stable and radioactive isotopes. As a result, radioactive iodine contributes to thyroid cancer more than other types of cancer.
  • Calcium, strontium-90 and radium-226 have similar chemical properties. The result is that strontium and radium in the body tend to collect in calcium rich areas, such as bones and teeth. They contribute to bone cancer.

Top of page

Estimating Health Effects

What is the cancer risk from radiation? How does it compare to the risk of cancer from other sources?

Each radionuclide represents a somewhat different health risk. However, health physicists currently estimate that overall, if each person in a group of 10,000 people exposed to 1 rem of ionizing radiation, in small doses over a life time, we would expect 5 or 6 more people to die of cancer than would otherwise.

In this group of 10,000 people, we can expect about 2,000 to die of cancer from all non-radiation causes. The accumulated exposure to 1 rem of radiation, would increase that number to about 2005 or 2006.

To give you an idea of the usual rate of exposure, most people receive about 3 tenths of a rem (300 mrem) every year from natural background sources of radiation (mostly radon).

Top of page

What are the risks of other long-term health effects?

Other than cancer, the most prominent long-term health effects are teratogenic and genetic mutations.

Teratogenic mutations result from the exposure of fetuses (unborn children) to radiation. They can include smaller head or brain size, poorly formed eyes, abnormally slow growth, and mental retardation. Studies indicate that fetuses are most sensitive between about eight to fifteen  weeks after conception. They remain somewhat less sensitive between six and twenty-five weeks old.

The relationship between dose and mental retardation is not known exactly. However, scientists estimate that if 1,000 fetuses that were between eight and fifteen weeks old were exposed to one rem, four fetuses would become mentally retarded. If the fetuses were between sixteen and twenty-five weeks old, it is estimated that one of them would be mentally retarded.

Genetic effects are those that can be passed from parent to child. Health physicists estimate that about fifty severe hereditary effects will occur in a group of one million live-born children whose parents were both exposed to one rem. About one hundred twenty severe hereditary effects would occur in all descendants.

In comparison, all other causes of genetic effects result in as many as 100,000 severe hereditary effects in one million live-born children. These genetic effects include those that occur spontaneously (“just happen”) as well as those that have non-radioactive causes.

Top of page

Protecting Against Exposure

What limits does EPA set on exposure to radiation?

Health physicists generally agree on limiting a person’s exposure beyond background radiation to about 100 mrem per year from all sources. Exceptions are occupational, medical or accidental exposures. (Medical X-rays generally deliver less than 10 mrem).  EPA and other regulatory agencies generally limit exposures from specific source to the public to levels well under 100 mrem. This is far below the exposure levels that cause acute health effects.

How does EPA protect against radionuclides that are also toxic?

In most cases, the radiation hazard is much greater than the chemical (toxic) hazard. Radiation protection limits are lower than the chemical hazard protection limits would be. By issuing radiation protection regulations, EPA can protect people from both the radiation and the chemical hazard. However, deciding which hazard is greater is not always straightforward. Several factors can tip the balance:

  • toxicity of the radionuclide
  • strength of the ionizing radiation
  • how quickly the radionuclide emits radiation (half-life)
  • relative abundance of the radioactive and non-radioactive forms

For example:

  • Uranium-238 is both radioactive and very toxic. Its half-life of 4.5 billion years means that only a few atoms emit radiation at a time. A sample containing enough atoms to pose a radiation hazard contains enough atoms to pose a chemical hazard. As a result, EPA regulates uranium-238 as both a chemical and a radiation hazard.
  • Radioactive isotopes of lead are both radioactive and toxic. In spite of the severe effects of lead on the brain and the nervous system, the radiation hazard is greater. However, the radioactive forms of lead are so uncommon that paint or other lead containing products do not contain enough radioactive lead to present a radiation hazard. As a result, EPA regulates lead as a chemical hazard.


Possible Health Effects of Radiation Exposure on Unborn Babies
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
This fact sheet was developed to help you understand the possible health effects to your unborn baby from exposure to radiation.

Leave a comment

After Tour of Fukushima Nuclear Power Station, Wyden Says Situation Worse than Reported Urges Japanese Ambassador to Accept International Help to Mitigate Continued Nuclear Risks

Monday, April 16, 2012

Washington, D.C. – After an onsite tour of what remains of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facilities decimated by last year’s earthquake and subsequent tsunami, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) a senior member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, sent a letter to Japanese Ambassador Ichiro Fujisaki looking for ways to advance and support clean-up and recovery efforts.  Wyden’s principal concern is the relocation of spent fuel rods currently being stored in unsound structures immediately adjacent to the ocean.  He strongly urged the Ambassador to accept international help to prevent dangerous nuclear material from being released into the environment.

“The scope of damage to the plants and to the surrounding area was far beyond what I expected and the scope of the challenges to the utility owner, the government of Japan, and to the people of the region are daunting,” Wyden wrote in the letter. “The precarious status of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear units and the risk presented by the enormous inventory of radioactive materials and spent fuel in the event of further earthquake threats should be of concern to all and a focus of greater international support and assistance.”

Wyden visited Fukushima on April 6, 2012 while on a Congressional delegation trip to the region.  He and a staff member wore radiation suits as they toured the facility and met with workers and managers from the Tokyo Electric Power Company, TEPCO, which is responsible for the clean-up.

Wyden found that the facilities designed to house spent nuclear fuel and the reactors themselves were still in a state of disrepair and located in areas that would make them susceptible to further damage from future seismic events. The reactor buildings still contain large amounts of spent fuel  – making them a huge safety risk and the only protection from a future tsunami, Wyden observed, is a small, makeshift sea wall erected out of bags of rock.

Wyden is also sending letters today to U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Greg Jaczko asking them to identify additional resources and assistance that their agencies could provide to Japan to address these risks.

, , , ,

Leave a comment

Make Our Nuclear Material More Secure!

Nuclear Facility Fence

Make Our Nuclear Material More Secure

Sign the Petition

First Name*
Last Name*
Email Address*
Your Message
Nuclear Facility Fence

Add your name to the petition to President Obama.

Dear President Obama:

Every year, our government spends billions of dollars to fight threats to our national security outside our borders. However, closer to home, we’re not paying enough attention to safeguarding the dangerous nuclear materials stored at federal facilities right here.

Consider what happened two summers ago in Oak Ridge, Tennessee: an 82-year-old nun and two fellow peace activists were able to infiltrate the supposed “Fort Knox of Uranium” and paint peace slogans on a building housing approximately 400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, a bomb-grade nuclear material. This would never have happened had the security been up to the standards we should expect.

The Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge is one of several facilities in the United States that have significant quantities of bomb-grade uranium or plutonium. Unfortunately these facilities are spread across the country, often requiring this dangerous material to be transported on public highways. The functions performed at these facilities could be consolidated, reducing security risks and costs, but strong political influence and a culture of competition between the nuclear labs and facilities have kept the nuclear complex large and unwieldy.

We the undersigned urge you to consider a formal study to look into realigning or closing some nuclear labs and facilities in order to better secure these materials, whether it be from terrorists, a catastrophe such as a fire or earthquake, or even from nuns and peace activists.

Please make our communities more secure by consolidating nuclear materials into fewer facilities and by keeping the government’s commitment to downblend excess nuclear materials.

Leave a comment

High Levels of Radiation Found at Fukushima, 460,000 Bq/L; Removing fuel in Unit 1 Storage Pool to Start 2017 — NHK World


  • High levels of radiation found at Fukushima, 460,000 Bq/L; Removing fuel in unit 1 storage pool to start 2017 — NHK World

***Note from Anna: Sometimes I rant,  hence the origin of my blog name. So this is for all of the scientists, farmers, educators, politicians, parents, doctors, and advocate in the United States:






By 2015 you realize what everyone has been saying when the following things start to occur:

Widespread immune, neurological, and muscular disorders.

Soldiers from Japan being deactivated from service due to Hodgkin’s Lymphoma cancers.

Mass heart attacks.

Mass outbreaks of cancer similar to what is currently happening in Malibu, California.

Widespread crops death including vegetables, fruits, wheat, hemp, and marijuana. You can’t grow organic medications if your crops are contaminated.

Inability to create medicine to handle the creation of new medicines because the researchers and scientists will also be getting sick and dying.

Outbreaks in crimes and cultural misunderstandings as sick people from Japan come seeking safe haven, which they should ABSOLUTELY get because AMERICA was complicit in poisoning them. if the situation was reversed American citizens would want, and demand, the same kind of help.

Budgetary crashes resulting in lack of FEMA or police resources.

You’ve been warned. DO SOMETHING!



Originally posted on Japan Safety : Nuclear Energy Updates:

View original

Leave a comment

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required

The New York Times SHAILA DEWAN October 26, 2014
Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. © Angela Jimenez for The New York Times Carole Hinders at her modest, cash-only Mexican restaurant in Arnolds Park, Iowa. Last year tax agents seized her funds. ARNOLDS PARK, Iowa — For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her funds, almost $33,000.The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.“How can this happen?” Ms. Hinders said in a recent interview. “Who takes your money before they prove that you’ve done anything wrong with it?”The federal government does.Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes.

The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.

“They’re going after people who are really not criminals,” said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. “They’re middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.”

On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”

Richard Weber, the chief of Criminal Investigation at the I.R.S., said in a written statement, “This policy update will ensure that C.I. continues to focus our limited investigative resources on identifying and investigating violations within our jurisdiction that closely align with C.I.’s mission and key priorities.”

He added that making deposits under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements, called structuring, is still a crime whether the money is from legal or illegal sources. The new policy will not affect seizures that have already occurred.

Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family for 27 years. © Bryan Thomas for The New York Times Jeff Hirsch, an owner of Bi-County Distributors on Long Island. The government seized $447,000 from the business, a candy and cigarette distributor run by one family…

The I.R.S. is one of several federal agencies that pursue such cases and then refer them to the Justice Department. The Justice Department does not track the total number of cases pursued, the amount of money seized or how many of the cases were related to other crimes, said Peter Carr, a spokesman.

But the Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm that is seeking to reform civil forfeiture practices, analyzed structuring data from the I.R.S., which made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005. Only one in five were prosecuted as a criminal case.

The practice has swept up dairy farmers in Maryland, an Army sergeant in Virginia saving for his children’s college education and Ms. Hinders, 67, who has borrowed money, strained her credit cards and taken out a second mortgage to keep her restaurant going.

Her money was seized under an increasingly controversial area of law known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows law enforcement agents to take property they suspect of being tied to crime even if no criminal charges are filed. Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.

Owners who are caught up in structuring cases often cannot afford to fight. The median amount seized by the I.R.S. was $34,000, according to the Institute for Justice analysis, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.

Under the Bank Secrecy Act, banks and other financial institutions must report cash deposits greater than $10,000. But since many criminals are aware of that requirement, banks also are supposed to report any suspicious transactions, including deposit patterns below $10,000. Last year, banks filed more than 700,000 suspicious activity reports, which are reviewed by over 100 multiagency task forces.

There is nothing illegal about depositing less than $10,000 unless it is done specifically to evade the reporting requirement. But often a mere bank statement is enough for investigators to obtain a seizure warrant. In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years.

There are often legitimate business reasons for keeping deposits below $10,000, said Larry Salzman, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice who is representing Ms. Hinders and the Long Island family pro bono. For example, he said, some grocery store owners in Fraser, Mich., had an insurance policy that covered only up to $10,000 cash. When they neared the limit, they would make a deposit.

Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement and that for decades, she thought she had been doing everyone a favor.

“My mom had told me if you keep your deposits under $10,000, the bank avoids paperwork,” she said. “I didn’t actually think it had anything to do with the I.R.S.” Lawyers say it is not unusual for depositors to be advised by financial professionals, or even bank tellers, to keep their deposits below the reporting threshold.

In the Long Island case, the company, Bi-County Distributors, had three bank accounts closed because of the paperwork burden of its frequent cash deposits, said Jeff Hirsch, the eldest of three brothers who own the company. Their accountant then recommended staying below the limit, so the company began using the excess cash to pay vendors, and carried on for more than a decade.

More than two years ago, the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. Mr. Salzman, who has taken over legal representation of the brothers, has argued that prosecutors violated a strict timeline laid out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, passed in 2000 to curb abuses.

The office of the federal attorney for the Eastern District of New York said the law’s timeline did not apply in this case. The federal attorney’s office said that parties often voluntarily negotiated to avoid going to court, and that Joseph Potashnik, the Hirsches’ first lawyer, had been engaged in talks until just a few months ago. But Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books.

“I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”

Bi-County has survived only because longtime vendors have extended credit — one is owed almost $300,000, Mr. Hirsch said. Twice, the government has made settlement offers that would require the brothers to give up an “excessive” portion of the money, according to a new court filing.

“We’re just hanging on as a family here,” Mr. Hirsch said. “We weren’t going to take a settlement, because I was not guilty.”

Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe deposit box. All of the money came from his paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he finally deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money a second time. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”

The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000. As a result, the eldest of his three daughters had to delay college by a year.

“Why didn’t the teller tell me that was illegal?” he said. “I would have just plopped the whole thing in the account and been done with it.”

, ,

Leave a comment


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 63 other followers