July 2014 in Fukushima 98,000,000 Becquerels Leaked from Radioactive Water Tanks

98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

  Fukushima Diary 

On 9/4/2014, Tepco reported they found highly contaminated water leaking from the joint part of two tanks.

 

It was desalinated concentrated water. Cs-134/137 density was 9,800,000 Bq/m3, All β nuclide density to include Sr-90 was 98,000,000,000 Bq/m3.

They found the crack on the joint part. It became clear that contaminated water facilities are being deteriorated.

 

Tepco fixed the crack with bonding agent and plastic bag for emergency measure, however they haven’t announced any fundamental resolution for the deterioration of the entire facilities.

They comment the leaked volume was only 1L.

 

2 98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

 

98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

 

 

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/date/2014/201409-j/140904-01j.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241395_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241399_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241410_5851.html

http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241411_5851.html

 

 

 

I tried to install a Bitcoin button on the sidebar. Because I don’t have bitcoin, I can’t test it to see if it works. I would be very glad if you use it for a test._____

_____

Français :

98 milliards de Bq de radioactivité β ont fuit d’une citerne

 

Le 4 septembre 2014, Tepco rapporte qu’ils ont découvert une fuite d’eau extrêmement radioactive à la jointure entre deux citernes.

 

Il s’agit d’eau concentrée et désalinisée. La radioactivité en Cs 134/137 était de 9,8 millions de Bq/m³, La radioactivité β, dont du Sr 90 était à 98,000,000,000 (98 milliards) Bq/m³.

Ils ont découvert une fissure sur la partie jointive. Il est devenu clair que les équipements de stockage des eaux extrêmement radioactive se détériorent.

Tepco a réparé la fissure en urgence avec du mastic et des sacs en plastique, ils n’ont néanmoins pas présenté de direction fondamentale à suivre contre la détérioration de tous les équipements.
Ils ont déclaré quel le volume de la fuite n’a été que de 1 litre.

2 98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank
98,000,000 Bq of all β leaked from contaminated water tank

http://photo.tepco.co.jp/date/2014/201409-j/140904-01j.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241395_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241399_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241410_5851.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/2014/1241411_5851.html

J’ai essayé de mettre un bouton pour Bitcoin dans la barre de droite. Je ne peux pas le tester parce que je n’ai pas de compte bitcoin. Je serai grandement reconnaissant à celle/celui qui voudra bien l’utiliser pour le tester.

 

 

***NOTE FROM ANNA: Is is very simple. Fukushima nuclear power plant has been saturating the Pacific Ocean with radioactive mixed oxide fuels. It is rapidly spreading to the Atlantic Ocean. No sea water=NO FARMS=no life. PAY ATTENTION!!!

Fukushima/Becquerel radioactivity exposure information:

Conversion chart: http://www.asknumbers.com/RadioactivityConversion.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Becquerel

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

http://orise.orau.gov/reacts/guide/measure.htm

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/health_effects.html

http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/14928/1/Neglis-Aplastic-Anemia.html

http://www.newsweek.com/near-fukushima-report-exclusion-zone-66453

 

 

LEAF [ The Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Cannabis ]

From Medical Jane Zach Reichard  

January 19, 2013

http://www.medicaljane.com/2013/01/19/cannabis-the-foundation-of-health/#

Arizona Facing New Medical Marijuana Legal Challenge

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/state-facing-new-medical-marijuana-legal-challenge/article_57453c0c-3005-11e4-b6c3-0019bb2963f4.html
PHOENIX — State health officials are facing a new legal challenge over a provision in the voter-approved Medical Marijuana Act that bars those who live within 25 miles of a dispensary from growing their own plants.

The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court contends that giving some the right to grow but not to others is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

Billy B. Hayes, who is not at attorney but filed the legal papers on behalf of himself and others, also contends the system gives dispensary operators a monopoly in violation of state constitutional provisions.

Hayes, a resident of El Mirage, wants Judge Arthur Anderson to rule that all of the more than 50,000 medical marijuana patients in Arizona are eligible to grow their own plants without fear of prosecution. And recognizing the case could take months, if not longer, Hayes is asking Anderson to block state health officials from enforcing the no-grow provisions while the lawsuit is proceeding.

The 2010 voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act allows those with specified medical conditions and a doctor’s recommendation to obtain up to 2 1/2 ounces of the drug every two weeks. And the law required the state to set up a system of privately run but state regulated dispensaries to sell the drug.

But the law also says those not within 25 miles could grow up to 12 plants of their own. Initially, that meant all marijuana patients, as there were no dispensaries when the law was approved. But state health officials, in renewing the annual permits for users, have rescinded their growing privileges when a dispensary opened nearby.

Health Director Will Humble acknowledged the law does create a disparity between those who can continue to grow their own drugs and those forced to purchase what they need from a dispensary. But he said the argument is not with him or his department, but with the people who crafted the 2010 initiative — and the voters who decided they wanted a restrictive system limiting use for medical purposes.

“The voters were told that this is a dispensary-based system that has inventory controls to prevent diversion of marijuana to non-cardholders,” he said. “That the program we delivered.”

Humble said this lawsuit seeks to undermine that with more of a free-for-all approach.

“One of the fundamental things that you lose in that kind of a system are the inventory controls that prevent diversion of marijuana to non-cardholders,” he said.

“When somebody’s growing 12 of their own plants in their own house, they could share it with anybody, not legally,” Humble continued. “But for all practical purposes, the inventory controls are lost.’

Humble said he’s not a lawyer and cannot address the legal questions being raised.

“But I can tell you we’re going to go toe-to-toe with the plaintiffs on this case and defend the law that the voters approved,” he said.

This is not the first challenge to the 25-mile restriction.

Last year Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper rejected arguments by two men that the limit on growing marijuana violated a state constitutional provision which guarantees patients the right to decide their own health care. She also said nothing in the law forces them into any compulsory program.

But Cooper may have provided the roadmap for this lawsuit.

“The 25-mile provision does appear to create two groups of Arizona Medical Marijuana Act participants based on residence,” she wrote. But Cooper said the two men never raised that issue and she would not rule “in a vacuum as to its validity.”

No date has been set for a hearing.

 

***Note from Anna: Arizona voters you have been flat-out betrayed. Don’t get mad, get even. Vote out the traitors.

97th Annual Arizona Tax Conference October 8-10, 2014 in Tucson

October 8-10, 2014
JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort
Tucson AZ

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e9mp5jpea43919ec&llr=fljn4vdab

Co-sponsored by the Arizona Department of Revenue and the Arizona Association of Assessing Officers

http://www.azdor.gov/

Join tax and public policy professionals from across Arizona at the 97th Annual Arizona Tax Conference.

This year’s conference features timely presentations on topics of interest to Arizona’s tax professionals and many concurrent sessions that enable the attendee to customize their conference experience.  

 Check out the schedule of events here.  

Register Now!

Cancellation Policy

Occasionally, unforseeable work demands prevent registrants from attending this event, even though they have registered. In such instances, it is essential that the registrant CANCEL their registration in writing. Cancellations must be directed to: Vicki Chappel at vchappel@azdor.gov. Registering for but not attending the conference is not a form of cancellation.

  • Cancellations received on or before September 8, 2014 will receive a full refund.
  • Cancellations received September 9-19, 2014 are subject to a $100 cancellation fee. In instances where payment is outstanding, you will receive an invoice for the cancellation fee.
  • No refunds will be given for cancellations received on or after September 20, 2014. 

Lodging Accommodations

J.W. Marriott Starr Pass Resort

To book your room you may call: 1.877.622.3140 or 1.506.474.2009

or book your hotel room online at the conference rate please click here. 

To receive the conference room rate, please specify that you are attending the “Arizona State Tax Conference“. 

You may guarantee your room with a major credit card. 

Hotel Rate: $86 + tax

All reservations must be made by September 26, 2014 to secure the conference rate.

Hotel Cancellations must be made a minimum of 72 hours in advance. 

***Note from Anna***

Arizona MMJ dispensaries and retail/MMJ farmers please stay on top of your tax laws. Don’t get blindsided by the IRS.

Overdose Of Prescription Drug Oxycodone Even Deadlier Than Heroin

By Pooja Bhagat | International Business Times  August 31, 2014 8:57 PM EST

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/564650/20140831/oxycodone-opioid-drug-overdose-awareness-day.htm#.VATUp6NhBki

Shocking revelations about oxycodone, which is a commonly used opioid painkiller, have emerged during the Overdose Awareness Day held on Sunday. As per the report released by National Coronial Information Systems, oxycodone has even surpassed notorious drug heroine with respect to being the deadliest opioid drug in Australia.

During the span of five years from 2007 to 2011, more than 3000 deaths have been recorded due to overdose on this opioid-based prescription medicine. This number has surpassed the deaths caused in the same span of time by heroin overdose.

As per the report, about three quarters of all opioid drug deaths are results of an overdose, particularly when these drugs were taken with other deadly narcotics and/or alcohol.

The acting CEO of Penington Institute, Wendy Dodd, shared some serious concerns with Herald Sun.com over these revelations. Penington Institute is a non-profit organization, which works closely with the issue of problematic drugs. “Heroin deaths appear to be declining which is great news, but pharmaceutical overdoses are rising alongside spiralling prescription rates,” she said.

Oxycodone is commonly used as a pain killer. It is a kind of narcotic pain medication. Another potentially dangerous medical drug identified is Fentanyl. It is available under the brand names Actiq, Duragesic, Lazanda and Sublimaze. This drug is mainly given to patients experiencing moderate to severe pain and who are already on opioid medications.

International Overdose Awareness Day is a global affair, which happens every year on August 31. It aims to raise the awareness of drug overdose and its fatal effects.

http://www.overdoseday.com/

Some of the points discussed in relation to oxycodone and other opioid drugs are mentioned in the following:

  • As per the data provided to Penington institute by Australian Bureau of Statistics, deaths are occurring every day due to drug overdose in Australia.
  • Overdoses even out-numbered the road fatalities in 2012. As per the statistics, overdose deaths totalled 1,427 in 2012, while road deaths, which have been steadily declining, ended the year at 1,338.
  • Oceania, which includes Australia and New Zealand, has a higher than the world average drug mortality rate. The UNODC said there were between 1,600 and 1,900 drug-related deaths in 2012.

To contact the editor, e-mail: editor@ibtimes.com

***Note from Anna: In America marijuana is considered more dangerous than Oxycodone.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone

Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:

Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien

Schedule V

Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:

cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin

 

From  Drugrehab101.com:

http://www.drugrehab101.com/articles89.html

“…The 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) revealed that 3,000,000 people over the age of 11 had tried OxyContin® for a nonmedical purpose, and 615,000 people tried OxyContin® for nonmedical use for the first time in 2004. But oxycodone is well in the public eye because it has widespread legal use, with 38,100,000 prescriptions in 2005, of which over 19% were for OxyContin®.

The 2006 Monitoring the Future Study revealed these figures for 2005 nonmedical use of OxyContin® by teens:

Nonmedical Use of OxyContin® by Students for the Year 2005

Grade

Percentage of Students

8th grade

1.8%

10th grade

3.2%

12th grade

5.5%

The use of oxycodones depends to a certain extent on the particular drug in question. Oxycodone is available in the U.S. as an oral solution, as tablets, and as extended release tablets. Combined with acetaminophen, it is available as an oral solution, as capsules, and as tablets. Combined with aspirin, it is available as a tablet.

OxyContin®, available as a time-release tablet, may be used intact, or crushed and chewed, snorted, or dissolved in water and then injected. The products that combine oxycodone with acetaminophen or aspirin are also abused orally.

Opioids, including Oxycodone, carry the risk of addiction, which is why they are “scheduled” drugs. They are abused both in overdoses when prescribed and used outside of prescriptions to get high, often accompanied with alcohol.

As early as the 1920s, oxycodone sold as Eukodal, was reported to create a “striking euphoria,” and its euphoric effects have been sought since.”

Other desired effects include:

  • euphoria
  • pain-killing properties
  • reduced anxiety
  • relaxation

Unsought effects include:

  • addiction
  • overdose

How is Oxycodone Used, Stats and Effects Sources:

  • emedicine.com
  • whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
  • drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov
  • nlm.nih.gov
  • deadiversion.usdoj.gov
  • prescription-drug-rehab.com

 

Reschedule DEA Medical Marijuana as Class Five

http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

 

“The Drug Enforcement Administration was created by President Richard Nixon through an Executive Order in July 1973 in order to establish a single unified command to combat “an all-out global war on the drug menace.” At its outset, DEA had 1,470 Special Agents and a budget of less than $75 million. Today, the DEA has nearly 5,000 Special Agents and a budget of $2.02 billion.”

http://www.justice.gov/dea/about/history.shtml

DEA Drug Schedules

Drugs, substances, and certain chemicals used to make drugs are classified into five (5) distinct categories or schedules depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential.

The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence.

As the drug schedule changes– Schedule II, Schedule III, etc., so does the abuse potential– Schedule V drugs represents the least potential for abuse. A Listing of drugs and their schedule are located at Controlled Substance Act (CSA) Scheduling or CSA Scheduling by Alphabetical Order.

These lists describes the basic or parent chemical and do not necessarily describe the salts, isomers and salts of isomers, esters, ethers and derivatives which may also be classified as controlled substances. These lists are intended as general references and are not comprehensive listings of all controlled substances.

Please note that a substance need not be listed as a controlled substance to be treated as a Schedule I substance for criminal prosecution. A controlled substance analogue is a substance which is intended for human consumption and is structurally or pharmacologically substantially similar to or is represented as being similar to a Schedule I or Schedule II substance and is not an approved medication in the United States. (See 21 U.S.C. §802(32)(A) for the definition of a controlled substance analogue and 21 U.S.C. §813 for the schedule.)

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, less abuse potential than Schedule I drugs, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone

Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:

Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien

Schedule V

Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:

cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin

 

***Note from Anna: Reclassify medical marijuana on the DEA class schedule, allow it’s use for home grows, and tax it in reasonable fashion for retail. End the black market. Impeach, recall,or fire any cop or politician on the city, state, and federal levels who doesn’t agree.

Colorado Marijuana Tax Fifth Amendment Hearing on Friday August 22 2014

For immediate release: August 21, 2014

*Please COPY and REDISTRIBUTE*

{Denver} — There will be a preliminary injunction hearing in Denver
District Court on Friday in a lawsuit brought by marijuana civil rights
activists seeking to protect their Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Plaintiffs will argue in front of The Honorable Judge
John Madden IV that payment of marijuana taxes violates a citizen’s Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination, since marijuana remains illegal
under federal law.

*THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND THIS HEARING*

Date: Friday, August 22, 2014
Time: 9am to 12noon
Location: Denver District Court (Old Building)
1437 Bannock St.
Denver, Colorado
Courtroom #203: The Honorable Judge John Madden IV

Note: Please dress nicely and maintain quiet in the courtroom. Bring a
photo ID with, as you may have to show it to get through courthouse
security.

*BACKGROUND*
Attorney Robert J. Corry, Jr. filed the lawsuit on June 9, 2014 seeking to
permanently end Colorado’s marijuana taxes, on the grounds that payment of
the taxes forces citizens to incriminate themselves as criminals under
federal law.

The complaint was filed on behalf of an unnamed licensed medical and retail
marijuana center, the “No Over Taxation” issue committee (which campaigned
against Proposition AA, the marijuana tax issue approved by Colorado voters
in 2013) and several individuals, including Kathleen Chippi, Larisa
Bolivar, Miguel Lopez and William Chengelis.

Corry is seeking unspecified damages and a refund of all tax monies
collected by the state.

If successful, Corry’s lawsuit could be the basis for overturning ALL
regulations regarding marijuana licensing and registration in Colorado on
the same grounds.

As long as marijuana remains illegal under federal law,
states cannot require people to give any information about themselves in
order to distribute or purchase marijuana. ANY and ALL requirements to
identify oneself would result in a “real and appreciable” risk of
self-incrimination, and would require a citizen to implicate himself in
federal crimes.

As witnesses, the State of Colorado has called attorneys Brian Vicente and
Christian Sederberg, two self-proclaimed “marijuana lawyers” who helped
campaign for Amendment 64, to provide testimony to support the State’s
assertion that payment of these taxes is not incriminating.

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Corry cites a 1973 Colorado Supreme Court case (People vs. Duleff) that
overturned a man’s conviction for “selling marijuana without a license”
because compliance with the licensing requirement would have required that
person to violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination and
reveal a violation of federal law. Corry writes, “The Colorado Supreme
Court held specifically that the Fifth Amendment prohibits state licensing
requirements that force a person to reveal a violation of federal law.”

From the Duleff decision, Corry quotes the Colo. Sup. Ct.:
“The Fifth Amendment prohibits licensing requirements from being used as a
means of discovering past or present criminal activity which is subject to
prosecution by calling attention to the licensee and his
activities….There is no doubt that the information which Duleff would
have been required to disclose would have been useful to the investigation
of his activities, would have substantially increased the risk of
prosecution, and may well have been a direct admission of guilt under
federal law. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from such compulsory,
incriminating disclosures and provides a complete defense to prosecution.”
– Colorado Supreme Court (1973)

Corry also cites a 1969 US Supreme Court case (Timothy Leary v. United
States) in which the highest court in the country overturned Leary’s
marijuana possession conviction and ruled that the federal Marihuana Tax
Act of 1937 was illegal, due to the fact that a person seeking a tax stamp
and complying with the law would be forced to incriminate himself, in
violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Corry writes, “Marijuana-specific taxes require plaintiffs and any other
person paying said taxes to incriminate themselves as committing multiple
violations of federal law, including but not limited to, participating in,
aiding and abetting, or conspiring to commit a ‘continuing criminal
enterprise’ and ‘money laundering.’ These illegally-collected taxes are
ultimately laundered by the State of Colorado through J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, which also participates knowingly in the continuing criminal
enterprise.” Item 67, Corry complaint filed 6/9/14.

Corry concludes, “It is illegal for government to retain tax monies
illegally collected in violation of the constitution, so all amounts must
be returned, and all records related to previous tax payments, destroyed.”

Corry asks the Court to:
“Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and/or
permanent injunction ordering the Defendants, and all those acting in
concert with them, to cease and desist from enforcement of the marijuana
tax statutes, to cease and desist from any further collection, deposit, or
laundering of the marijuana taxes, for a full refund of marijuana tax
monies paid by any person or entity, and for destruction of all tax records
and identifying information after full refunds are made.”

“The state can’t have it both ways. If it’s illegal under federal law, you
cannot collect taxes on it,” says Kathleen Chippi, a plaintiff and member
of the Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project. “We have another
case pending in the Colorado Supreme Court now, Coats v. Dish Network,
where Colorado Attorney General John Suthers argues that medical marijuana
patients can be fired from their jobs for using medical marijuana off-duty,
even though it is legal under state law. Suthers argues in the Coats case
that, since marijuana is still illegal under federal law, patients have no
rights.”

“Yet Suthers and Hickenlooper, as kingpins in their continuing criminal
enterprise, happily collect and spend the marijuana taxes, even though they
were collected in spite of multiple clear violations of federal law,”
Chippi concludes.

Read Boulder Weekly article on Federal Preemption issues and the Coats v.
Dish Lawsuit (5/22/14):
http://www.boulderweekly.com/article-12900-local-attorney-argues-fed-laws-donrst-apply-to-mmj.html

*FOR MORE INFORMATION*

Click here to read the complaint
No Over Taxation, et al, v. Hickenlooper, et al
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/colorado/propaa.complaint.corry.pdf

People v. Duleff (Colorado Supreme Court case)
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/legal/colorado/people.v.duleff.html

US v. Leary (US Supreme Court case)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/6/

Read more about the Fifth Amendment here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project
*DONATE ONLINE*
http://www.cannabislawsuits.com/

Denver 420 Rally
http://420rally.org/

Law Firm of Robert J. Corry, Jr.
http://www.robcorry.com/

*PRESS CONTACTS*

Contact: Robert J. Corry, Jr.: (303) 634-2244
Kathleen Chippi: 888-EAT-HEMP (888-328-4367)

Provided as a Public Service by the:
Cannabis Therapy Institute
Phone: 877-420-4205
Web: http://www.CannabisTherapyInstitute.com/
Email: info@cannabistherapyinstitute.com

 

***Note from Anna: Fight for your right to cannabis or lose it. The politicians have made it very,very clear that all marijuana cultivation is going into the full control of the Federal government, no matter what the state governors think. Dispensaries, activists, and patients had better pay 100 percent attention to this case.  Every state in America is looking at Colorado for direction with setting,or eliminating, cannabis legalization laws.

If the Colorado activists lose, patients in all of the marijuana states can expect mediocre mass-produced GMO’d, barely effective weed for the little people and high-quality organic cannabis for the rich.That is if it isn’t banned altogether due to quality control, supply and demand, or greed issues by the people in control of it’s cultivation.

If citizens refuse to participate in making sure cannabis is legal then definitely learn to grow your own, but don’t be surprised if home grows of any size are met with full police/FBI/DEA response. Rich people will not allow for the poor people to prosper financially with cannabis because it means THEY lose money and the citizens would be united to vote out ALL of the politicians who betrayed them.

Time is running out until the big money fake activists and lobbyists, hell-bent on locking up cannabis for the friends, politicians, and big businesses who pay them, betray the MMJ patients. The lobbyists and politicians will absolutely betray their constituents for Election 2016 profits. Voter abuses have happened before, and they will happen again if the citizens do not very closely monitor the actions of their politicians.

 

Japan to Start Exporting Fukushima Rice to Singapore / “Singapore Was Convinced to Lift Import Restriction”

Rice produced in Fukushima is going to be exported to Singapore.

JA Zen-Noh (The National Federation of Agricultural Cooperative Associations) announced on 8/18/2014.

Since 311, the government of Singapore banned importing Fukushima rice. JA Zen-Noh comments they have convinced the government of Singapore to deregulate the safety level of rice.

Currently the press release is removed from the website of JA Zen-Noh for some reason.

 

http://search.zennoh.or.jp/bizsearch_asp/search?corpId=atc130002&vc=1&layout=1&hits=10&q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%80%80%E8%BC%B8%E5%87%BA&p=1&t%5B%5D=1

 

http://maguro.2ch.sc/test/read.cgi/poverty/1408364601/l50

 

 

You read this now because we’ve been surviving until today.

_____

Français :

Le Japon va commencer à exporter du riz de Fukushima sur Singapour / “Singapour a été convaincu pour lever les restrictions d’importation”

 

Le riz produit à Fukushima va être exporté sur Singapour.

JA Zen-Noh (la Fédération Nationale des Associations de Coopératives Agricoles Japonaises) l’a annoncé ce 18 août 2014.
Le gouvernement de Singapour avait interdit l’importation du riz de Fukushima depuis le 11-3. JA Zen-Noh déclare qu’ils ont convaincu le gouvernement de Singapour de déréguler le niveau de sécurité du riz.

Actuellement, le communiqué de presse a été retiré du site web de la JA Zen-Noh.

http://search.zennoh.or.jp/bizsearch_asp/search?corpId=atc130002&vc=1&layout=1&hits=10&q=%E3%82%B7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AC%E3%83%9D%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%80%80%E8%BC%B8%E5%87%BA&p=1&t%5B%5D=1

http://maguro.2ch.sc/test/read.cgi/poverty/1408364601/l50

Vous pouvez lire ceci parce que nous avons survécu jusqu’à aujourd’hui.

 

***Note from Anna: If that radioactive rice spreads and mixes with Monsanto crops farms worldwide will be contaminated.

Oil Companies Fracking Into Drinking Water Sources, New Research Shows

Energy companies are fracking for oil and gas at far shallower depths than widely believed, sometimes through underground sources of drinking water, according to research released Tuesday by Stanford University scientists.

Though researchers cautioned their study of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, employed at two Wyoming geological formations showed no direct evidence of water-supply contamination, their work is certain to roil the public health debate over the risks of the controversial oil and gas production process.

Fracking involves high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to crack geological formations and tap previously unreachable oil and gas reserves. Fracking fluids contain a host of chemicals, including known carcinogens and neurotoxins.

Fears about possible water contamination and air pollution have fed resistance in communities around the country, threatening to slow the oil and gas boom made possible by fracking.

Fracking into underground drinking water sources is not prohibited by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which exempted the practice from key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. But the industry has long held that it does not hydraulically fracture into underground sources of drinking water because oil and gas deposits sit far deeper than aquifers.

The study, however, found that energy companies used acid stimulation, a production method, and hydraulic fracturing in the Wind River and Fort Union geological formations that make up the Pavillion gas field and that contain both natural gas and sources of drinking water.

“Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel and millions of gallons of fluids containing numerous inorganic and organic additives were injected directly into these two formations during hundreds of stimulation events,” concluded Dominic DiGiulio and Robert Jackson of Stanford’s School of Earth Sciences in a presentation Tuesday at the American Chemical Society conference in San Francisco.

The scientists cautioned that their research, which is ongoing and has yet to be peer-reviewed, “does not say that drinking water has been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.”

Rather, they point out that there is no way of knowing the effects of fracking into groundwater resources because regulators have not assessed the scope and impact of the activity.

“The extent and consequences of these activities are poorly documented, hindering assessments of potential resource damage and human exposure,” DiGiulio wrote.

Underground sources of drinking water, or USDWs, are a category of aquifers under the Safe Drinking Water Act that could provide water for human consumption.

“If the water isn’t being used now, it doesn’t mean it can’t be used in the future,” said DiGiulio, a Stanford research associate who recently retired from the Environmental Protection Agency. “That was the intent of identifying underground sources of drinking water: to safeguard them.”

The EPA documented in 2004 that fracking into drinking water sources had occurred when companies extracted natural gas from coal seams. But industry officials have long denied that the current oil and gas boom has resulted in fracking into drinking water sources because the hydrocarbon deposits are located in deeper geological formations.

“Thankfully, the formations where hydraulic fracturing actually is occurring…are isolated from USDWs by multiple layers and often billions of tons of impenetrable rock,” said Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry group.

Industry officials had not seen the Stanford research.

DiGiulio and Jackson plotted the depths of fracked wells, as well as domestic drinking water wells in the Pavillion area. They found that companies used acid stimulation and hydraulic fracturing at depths of the deepest water wells near the Pavillion gas field, at 700 to 750 feet, far shallower than fracking was previously thought to occur in the area.

“It’s true that fracking often occurs miles below the surface,” said Jackson, professor of environment and energy at Stanford. “People don’t realize, though, that it’s sometimes happening less than a thousand feet underground in sources of drinking water.”

Companies say that fracking has never contaminated drinking water. The EPA launched three investigations over the last six years into possible drinking water contamination by oil and gas activity in Dimock, Pa.; Parker County, Texas; and Pavillion, Wyo. After initially finding evidence of contamination at the three sites, the EPA shelved the investigations amid allegations by environmentalists and local residents that the regulator succumbed to political pressure.

Jackson said the Stanford study’s findings underscore the need for better monitoring of fracking at shallower depths. “You can’t test the consequences of an activity if you don’t know how common it is,” he said. “We think that any fracking within a thousand feet of the surface should be more clearly documented and face greater scrutiny.”

The Stanford study focuses on Pavillion, in part because of DiGiulio’s familiarity with the area when he served as an EPA researcher in the latter stages of the Pavillion water study. Industry and the state of Wyoming questioned the EPA’s methodology after its 2011 draft report found the presence of chemicals associated with gas production in residents’ well water. In June 2013, the EPA turned over the study to Wyoming regulators, whose work is being funded by EnCana, the company accused of polluting the water in Pavillion.

The EPA study looked at whether chemicals migrated upward from fracked geological zones into people’s well water. The Stanford research does not explore the possibility of migration, focusing instead on the injection of fracking chemicals directly into geological formations that contain groundwater.

The EPA does not keep track of whether underground sources of drinking water have been hydraulically fractured as part of oil and gas development, said Alisha Johnson, a spokeswoman. “EPA does not maintain a database of all the wells being hydraulically fractured across the country,” she said in an email.

In their presentation, DiGiulio and Jackson noted that the EPA considers the Wind River formation and the Fort Union stratum below it to be underground sources of drinking water. The conventional image of tight geological formations where fracking occurs is that they are monolithic stretches of rock. But the scientists say the geology of the two formations is mostly sandstone of varying permeability and water.

“People think these formations are impermeable, and so they wonder, ‘Why are you worrying about water?’” DiGiulio said. “But it is an extremely heterogeneous environment, with areas of low and high permeability mixed together and with many lenses conducting water.”

Follow @neelaeast for energy and environmental news.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times

***Note from Anna; Big pharma wastes combined with nuke storage wastes combined with Monsanto wastes equals a full-on disaster to the environment, keeps the citizens trapped in a toxic economy, and will create a public health hazard nightmare by Winter 2015.The U.S. budget is not stable. Obamacare is not stable. Fracking causes immune system disorders.

From By | Jan 31, 2014 at Medical Daily:

…According to a recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, babies born near fracking sites are 30 percent more likely to have birth defects.”

http://www.medicaldaily.com/birth-defects-result-fracking-natural-gas-wells-put-fetus-risk-congenital-heart-neural-tube-problems

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/122/1/ehp.1306722.pdf

Fracking is absolutely unnecessary. There is an entirely new generation of scientists emerging that can better handle the challenges associated with sustainable energy creation. They are much better suited to effectively managing multicultural global infrastructure issues than their predecessors.

 

 

New Study Says U.S. Underestimated Keystone XL Emissions

By ,  August 13, 2014

By Nick Cunningham for Oilprice.com

A new report says the U.S. government dramatically underestimated the level of greenhouse gas emissions that would result if the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline becomes a reality.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_KEYSTONE_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The study, by the Stockholm Environmental Institute,http://www.sei-us.org/, found that building the pipeline, which would connect Canada’s oil-rich tar sands to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, would produce greenhouse gas emissions at least four times higher than the U.S. State Department’s official estimate.

The study’s authors said that the U.S. officials did not take into account the fact that, by providing an outlet for Canada’s tar sands to reach international buyers, global oil supplies would increase, resulting in a moderate price decline of about $3 per barrel, according to the study. Basic economic theory dictates that lower prices would lead to greater consumption.

More specifically, the study estimates that global oil consumption increases by 0.6 barrels for every barrel http://www.climatecentral.org/news/keystone-xl-will-spike-oil-demand-and-co2-17884

of oil added to global supply. The study finds that global greenhouse gas emissions would increase by 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.http://phys.org/news/2014-08-keystone-carbon-pollution-figured.html

There are a couple of interesting things about the findings. First, 121 million tons of carbon dioxide is barely a rounding error, considering that the world emits 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. And the impact pales in comparison to what’s produced by the hundreds of coal plants in the U.S. and world.

Nevertheless, the emissions are not trivial. The 121 million added tons of annual CO2 emissions is like building an additional 31 average-sized coal-fired power plants. (That figure assumes EPA’s estimate of 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per power plant, per year.)

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html

Keystone XL pipeline supporters like to play down the environmental impact of the project, but since the U.S. is implementing new regulations to reduce the climate impact from its existing inventory of coal-fired power plants, choosing to add the equivalent emissions of 31 new coal plants seems a little odd.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said he would approve Keystone only if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Given the figures from the latest study, the pressure on him to reject the pipeline is certain to increase.

And it is important to note that it is not at all clear the extent to which the Canadian tar sands will be developed if Keystone XL isn’t built. Some oil will certainly be transported by rail — as the American Petroleum Institute noted in its response to this study — but there is no way that rail will be able to move the equivalent amount of oil that the pipeline would handle, or at least, not without a monumental effort to expand rail capacity.

The Keystone XL would have a capacity to carry 830,000 barrels per day, which is roughly how much oil the entire rail system carried on average in 2013.

The capacity to carry oil by rail would thus need to approximately double from 2013 levels in order to handle the same amount of oil that Keystone XL will carry. While possible, shipping oil by rail adds about $5 to $10 to the cost of moving each barrel of crude oil. That would likely force tar sands producers to cut back on production because the marginal barrel would no longer be profitable. Thus, fewer emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/us/rail-transport-of-crude-oil-increases-as-pipeline-falls-short.html?_r=1

Moreover, the industry wouldn’t be fighting so hard for the pipeline if the tar sands were going to be produced and exported anyway. Other pipeline routes could get the tar sands out, but those have also run into trouble. A proposed route to the east coast just recently hit a wall in Maine,

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Another-Export-Route-for-Oil-Sands-Blocked.html

and a pipeline to Canada’s west coast is also facing some serious hurdles. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Canadian-Supreme-Court-Ruling-Throws-Major-Pipeline-into-Doubt.html

(For a great depiction of all the major oil pipelines in North America, the organization Frac Tracker has put together an excellent map, which you can see here).

http://maps.fractracker.org/latest/?appid=606e1b991ddf45369a30a8216848f038

There are other reasons to approve the pipeline – it could add to North American energy security, for example, or it could simply be an important source of additional global supply – but with this latest study, it will be much harder for the White House to argue that Keystone XL would have a minimal impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

This article was originally published on Oilprice.com.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/New-Study-Says-U.S.-Underestimated-Keystone-XL-Emissions.html

 http://www.nasdaq.com/article/new-study-says-us-underestimated-keystone-xl-emissions-cm379592The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.