Fluoride Science is Tobacco Science

Chris Neurath quotes Chris Bryson (author of The Fluoride Deception) when he says: "Fluoride Science is Tobacco Science" and this osteosarcoma story is a very good example of that. Bryson's full quote (made in FAN's videotaped interview with him), is:

Fluoride science is corporate science,
fluoride science is DDT science,
it's asbestos science,
it's tobacco science,
it's a racket!

Not only does Chris Neurath help us distinguish the good from bad science on both sides of this issue, but he also has the ability to effectively communicate the complexities of scientific research to the FAN team and others, which is extremely valuable to our efforts. Our readers will have observed this skill from Chris's graphical presentation of the World Health Organization's data on tooth decay trends by country. This colorful graph has been used literally thousands of times around the world. In one simple picture it shows that tooth decay rates in 12-year-olds have been decreasing as fast (if not faster) in non-fluoridated countries as fluoridated ones. In other words, as far as tooth decay today is concerned there is no difference in 12-year-olds whether that child has grown up in a fluoridated or a non-fluoridated country.


A few years ago a similar graph appeared in the British Medical Journal, but no acknowledgment was given to Chris. Others might have been upset by this omission but not Chris. He is happy simply to reveal the truth to anyone who is prepared to look for it. Over to Chris.

How I ended up fighting fluoridation.
By Chris Neurath

I was raised by my parents to believe fluoride and fluoridation were wonderful, progressive things. Before fluoridated toothpaste was available, and before our tap water was fluoridated, my father brought home bottles of fluoride drops from the pharmacy. My brothers and I were supposed to put it in orange juice every day. I remember wondering why we were given something from a bottle with a huge skull and crossbones on it. I don't remember my parent's explanations, but I'm sure I trusted them on this.

In hindsight, I'm glad I didn't like orange juice so I only occasionally took the fluoride. I had no cavities growing up, in contrast to the mouthfuls of both parents, and I always attributed this to the fluoride drops. Our family dentist encouraged this belief. Little did I know that in my generation we all had fewer cavities than our parents, irregardless of whether we ingested fluoride.

It wasn't until sometime in my 30s that I ever came across anyone who openly questioned fluoridation. He was a genial older man who suddenly became argumentative when the subject somehow arose and I claimed my lack of cavities was living proof that fluoride worked. I dismissed him as a crank. Not until years later did I realize I might have been the uninformed person.

When I first met Paul and Ellen Connett they were working on trash incinerators, not fluoride. I worked on this and several other environmental issues for many years with them. Paul and Ellen are both naturally talented at seeing through the lies and spin that poison so many environmental health issues. I was trained as a scientist, but it took me a while to realize how much science gets twisted when a vested interest is at stake. But even with my developing suspicion of manipulated science, I was stunned to read an investigative article on the dark history of fluoridation, first published by the Connetts in their tiny circulation environmental newsletter. The Christian Science Monitor had cancelled the story, and no mainstream media would touch it, so the authors Chris Bryson and Joel Griffiths gave it to the Connetts.

The Bryson/Griffith article tied the early promotion of fluoridation to promotion of atomic weapons. One memorable personal incident from my youth was probably what kept me from dismissing this as outrageous "conspiracy theory".

Back in high school, we got a reprieve from my chemistry class one day, to see a special presentation by a traveling "lecturer" from the Atomic Energy Commission, given to the entire school. He started out by tossing three whiffle balls into the audience, one of which chanced to go straight to me. He then asked the catchers of the balls to join him on stage. Once there, he announced that one of the balls was radioactive, whereupon the kid next to me dropped his like a hot potato. Being by nature more reserved, I just stood there waiting to find out what would happen next. The presenter singled me out to stay on stage as a "volunteer". He then offered a bottle of Coca-cola and asked me to drink some, after which he announced it had been spiked with radioactive iodine. He held his impressive looking Geiger counter at my neck, near my thyroid, and the clicking went crazy. This entire "stunt" was framed to demonstrate how harmless radiation really was. Although I was not at all happy with what went on, I came away, as did most of the kids in the audience, assuming that radiation really was something that could be "fun" to play with, and not that threatening.

That subliminal message stuck with me for years ... until I chanced to run into the brainiest kid from my high school, who was then studying physics at MIT. Somehow that presentation on atomic energy came up and he said he had been asked to help the presenter behind the scenes ... and he knew what had really gone on. The stunts with radioactivity were all faked. The presenter's Geiger counter had a tiny radioactive collar which he could slip back and forth over the detector to make it click at will. There was no radioactive whiffle ball, and no radioactive Coke. I was stunned to realize our government lies - intentionally - to deceive school children. In particular, about the safety of radiation and atomic energy.

The almost unbelievable revelations in the Bryson/Griffith article finally got me to seriously question my previous faith in fluoridation. But I can understand why most Americans still believe what they were told time and again as children ... that fluoridation is wonderful and anyone who questions it is crazy. For several more years I was still wary of joining the Connett's campaign on fluoridation. But then I started delving into the science itself.

The first dip I took was when Paul asked me to review the seminal reports of the first fluoridation "community trials" in the US, from the 1940s. I couldn't believe the shoddiness of these studies. They are truly "junk science".

But I was still wary of getting involved in the issue. Then Paul asked me to look into some of the cancer studies. Having investigated other environmental causes of cancer I had a special interest in this field, so I accepted. The Yiamouyiannis/Burk work was intriguing, but not fully convincing to me. Then a member of the National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewing fluoride suggested I look at a much more recent case-control study on fluoride and bone cancer by Kitty Gelberg. I started wading through the 400 page dissertation and the published paper, and realized there were gross errors in both. For example, Gelberg had somehow confused the males with the females! She had never caught this error and neither had the peer reviewers or any readers. In several key tables, she confused cases with controls, which is an even more fundamental error than switching males with females. There were other errors and many questionable interpretations. Gelberg concluded there was no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, but buried in her study I saw evidence that suggested otherwise. I called Gelberg to try to straighten out the errors and to ask about some of the interpretations. It was the first she had ever heard about the possibility of errors in the 10 years since her work had been published. After grudgingly admitting the errors, she broke off any communication. My respect for "fluoridation science" dropped to a new low. Gelberg works as an epidemiologist for the New York State Department of Health, which happens to be one of the leading promoters of fluoridation in the US. It was a disappointing revelation that public servants can stonewall and ignore inquiries from the public.

About the same time as this Gelberg experience, in 2005, FAN was tipped off to the existence of Elise Bassin's Harvard doctoral dissertation on fluoride and osteosarcoma. This study had been completed four years previously but had been so effectively buried that it was unknown even to the expert NRC panel doing an exhaustive review of fluoride toxicology. Michael Connett went to Harvard to read the only "public" copy available anywhere, but was only allowed to photocopy a limited portion of it. His initial impression was this was a very important study. I made an appointment to see it myself. I was stunned by what I read. Bassin's high quality study had found a very strong link between fluoride exposure during a certain period of life (6th - to 8th years), and later developing osteosarcoma. I was equally shocked by the fact that this work had been hidden from the public for four years while Bassin's faculty advisor, Chester Douglass, who ran the study, went around the world lying to people, saying his research had found no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma.

Reading the Bassin dissertation, deep in the bowels of Harvard's Medical Library, was the turning point for me on fluoride. Here was clear evidence that the fluoride added to 2/3rds of American's drinking water was causing a frequently fatal form of cancer. This study isn't enough to "prove" fluoride causes cancer, but the fact that it had been hidden from the public and scientific community oof that, in Chris Bryson's words: "fluoride science is tobacco science".

With pressure from FAN, and with the Environmental Working Group leading the demand for an investigation of the cover-up of the Bassin study, the Bassin study was eventually brought to the world's attention ... and has created a stir ever since. The NRC final report notes it as a crucial piece of evidence on the question of carcinogenicity. Later, Bassin finally published her work in a prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal, with three respected Harvard co-authors.

But the opening salvo of the "tobacco science" attack on Bassin's work appeared on the same day her paper was published, in the same journal! Douglass wrote a "letter to the editor" where he questions the repeatability of Bassin's findings, and announces he is analyzing additional data sets from his study and believes they will not confirm her findings. Douglass says he will publish his results within months. His letter is full of omissions and misleading claims, but will be used for the next five years to dismiss Bassin's paper. In those five years, Douglass kept promising to publish his results for all to see, but never did ... until this year (Kim et al 2011). The publication of what Douglass suggests is the "last word" on fluoride and osteosarcoma, took him nearly 20 years! The study was originally scheduled to be completed in about 5 years.

And what does his "final word" paper actually contain? No evidence able to refute Bassin's study, because Douglass never even addresses the key evidence in Bassin's study (i.e. the critical period when children were exposed` - their 6th to 8th years). Douglass' study was actually much smaller than Bassin's, especially in the age group of 0-20 years. Douglass' paper even states that he had insufficient number of subjects in this age range to derive any conclusions.

Douglass also ended up with a control group that was much older and had a much different sex ratio, than his case group. Such drastic differences mean his entire study is of questionable validity. He is essentially comparing apples to oranges.

Douglass claims his method of estimating fluoride exposure is superior to Bassin's. Douglass used bone fluoride levels, whereas Bassin used a careful history of drinking water and other fluoride sources. Douglass' method using bone fluoride is incapable of pinpointing when a child was exposed to fluoride, whereas Bassin's is the best available method for timing exposure. The timing of exposure turned out to be the critical risk factor in Bassin's study. Douglass' study can not even address this key factor.

Douglass ignored a large portion of his data from a control group of people who did not have any cancer. Instead, he looked only at a control comparison group comprised of people who had types of bone cancer other than osteosarcoma. Bassin's controls did not have any type of cancer. Since fluoride concentrates so highly in bone tissue, there is a plausible mechanism for it to increase the risk of any type of bone cancer, not just osteosarcoma. Virtually no fluoride studies have ever looked for risks in anything but osteosarcoma, so it is disingenuous for Douglass to imply that there is no evidence linking these other types of bone cancer to fluoride. If fluoride does cause these other types of bone cancer, then his bone cancer controls are a terrible choice and invalidate his findings.

Given these three potentially fatal weaknesses of Douglass' much-heralded study, the fluoridationist spin machine had to go into overdrive to claim his work refuted Bassin's.

Perhaps because of the vulnerability of Douglass' final word on fluoride-osteosarcoma, there has been a recent flurry of low quality ecological studies from fluoridating countries, all claiming to find no link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Or perhaps these studies were done because Douglass was so many years late in producing his promised work, that fluoridating countries decided they needed something to try to counter Bassin. I have carefully reviewed each of these studies, from Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. They are all much weaker study designs than Bassin's case-control study. It is not surprising that these studies were unable to find a link.

So, on the final day of 2011, the issue of fluoride's carcinogenicity is still hot. It is a potential death knell for fluoridation, and the promoters know it and are scared. FAN will continue to use the best science to uncover the truth.

As Dr. John Colquon asked, is there any number of "prevented cavities" that can justify the life of one child who dies of bone cancer?

Video: Cell damage as Fluoride is introduced to the cellular environment http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=8D1299CC3E46CB378C44D0E39AC6AB7A

The Real Ron Paul

Latest on Tsunami Debris Increase Hitting West Coast Vancouver Island & Washington State

Source: AFP Dec. 26, 2011


Source: CBC Dec. 27, 2011

Implications of the MF Global Scandal

Source: http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/12/run-on-global-banking-systemhow-close.html

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27, 2011

A Run On The Global Banking System—How Close Are We? by Gonzalo Lira

Nine weeks after its bankruptcy, the general public still hasn’t quite realized the implications of the MF Global scandal.

My own sense is, this is the first tremor of the earthquake that’s coming to the global financial system. And how the central banks and financial regulators treated the “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” that had exposure to MF Global—to the detriment of the ordinary, blameless customer who got royally ripped off in its bankruptcy—is both the template of how the next financial crisis will be handled, and an accelerator that will make the next crisis happen that much sooner.

So first off, what happened with MF Global?

Simple: It went bankrupt—because it made bad bets on European sovereign debt, by way of leveraging positions 100-to-1. Yeah, I know: Stupid. Anyway, they went bankrupt—which in and of itself is no big deal. It’s not as if it’s the first time in history that a brokerage firm has gone bust. But to me, the big deal in this case was the way the bankruptcy was handled.

Now there are several extremely serious aspects to the MF Global case: Specifically, how their customers were shut out of their brokerage accounts for over a week following the bankruptcy, which made it impossible for those customers to sell out of their positions, and thus caused them to lose serious money; and of course how MF Global was more adept than Mandrake the Magician at making money disappear—about $1 billion, in fact, which still hasn’t turned up. These are quite serious issues which merit prolonged discussion, investigation, prosecution, and ultimately jailtime.

But for now, I want to discuss one narrow aspect of the MF Global bankruptcy: How authorities (mis)handled the bankruptcy—either willfully or out of incompetence—which allowed customer’s money to be stolen so as to make JPMorgan whole.

From this one issue, it seems clear to me that we can infer what will happen when the next financial crisis hits in the nearterm future.

Brokerage firms hold clients’ money in what are known as segregated accounts. This is the money that brokerage firms hold for when a customer makes a trade. If a brokerage firm goes bankrupt, these monies are never touched—because they never belonged to the firm, and thus are not part of its assets.

Think of segregated accounts as if they were the content in a safety deposit box: The bank owns the vault—but it doesn’t own the content of the safety deposit boxes inside the vault. If the bank goes broke, the customers who stored their jewelry and pornographic diaries in the safe deposit boxes don’t lose a thing. The bank is just a steward of those assets—just as a brokerage firm is the steward of those customers’ segregated accounts.

But when MF Global went bankrupt, these segregated accounts—that is, the content of those safe deposit boxes—were taken away from their rightful owners—that is, MF Global’s customers—and then used to pay off other creditors: That is, JPMorgan.

(The mechanics of how this was done are interesting, but insanely complicated, and ultimately not relevant to this discussion. To grossly simplify, MF Global pledged customer assets to JPMorgan, in a process known as rehypothecation—customer assets which MF Global did not have a right to. Needless to say, JPMorgan covered its ass legally. Ethically? Morally? Black as night.)

This was seriously wrong—and this is the source of the scandal: Rather than being treated as a bankruptcy of a commodities brokerage firm under subchapter IV of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy law, MF Global was treated as an equities firm (subchapter III) for the purposes of its bankruptcy.

Why does this difference of a single subchapter matter? Because in a brokerage firm bankruptcy, the customers get their money first—because after all, it’s theirs—while in an equities firm bankruptcy, the customers are at the end of the line.

In the case of MF Global, what should have happened was for all the customers to get their money first. Then everyone else—including JPMorgan—would have picked over the remaining scraps. And the monies MF Global had already pledged to JPMorgan? They call it clawback for a reason.

The Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which handled the bankruptcy, should have done this—but instead, the Merc was more concerned with making JPMorgan whole than with protecting the money that rightfully belonged to MF Global’s 40,000 customers.

Thus these 40,000 MF Global customers had their money stolen—there’s no polite way to characterize what happened. And this theft was not carried out by MF Global—it was carried out by the authorities who were charged with handling the firm’s bankruptcy.

These 40,000 customers were not Big Money types—they were farmers who had accounts to hedge their crops, individuals owning gold (like Gerald Celente—here’s his account of what happened to him)—

—in short, ordinary investors. Ordinary people—and they got screwed by the regulators, for the sake of protecting JPMorgan and other big fry who had exposure to MF Global.

That, in a nutshell, is what happened.

Now, what does this mean?

It means that nobody’s money is safe. It means that regulators care more about protecting the so-called “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” than about protecting Ordinary Joe investors. It means that, when crunchtime comes, central banks and government regulators will allow SIFI’s to get better, and let the Ordinary Joes get fucked.

So far, so evil—but here comes the really troubling part: It is an open secret that there are more paper-assets than there are actual assets. The markets are essentially playing musical chairs—and praying that the music never stops. Because if it ever does—that is, if there is ever a panic, where everyone decides that they want their actual asset instead of just a slip of paper—the system would crash.

And unlike with fiat currency, where a central bank can print all the liquidity it wants, you can’t print up gold bullion. You can’t print up a silo of grain. You can’t print up a tankerful of oil.

Now, question: When is there ever a panic? When is there ever a run on a financial system?

Answer: When enough participants no longer trust the system. It is the classic definition of a tipping point. It’s not that all of the participants lose faith in the system or institution. It’s not even when most of the participants lose faith: Rather, it’s when a mere some of the participants decide they no longer trust the system that a run is triggered.

And though this is completely subjective on my part—backed by no statistics except scattered anecdotal evidence—but it seems to me that MF Global has shoved us a lot closer to this theoretical run on the system.

As I write this, a lot of investors whom I know personally—who are sophisticated, wealthy, and not at all the paranoid type—are quietly pulling their money out of all brokerage firms, all banks, all equity firms. They are quietly trading out of their paper assets and going into the actual, physical asset.

Note that they’re not trading into the asset—they’re simply exchanging their paper-asset for the real thing.

Why? MF Global.

“The MF Global scandal has made it clear that the integrity of the system has disappeared,” said a good friend of mine, Tuur Demeester, who runs Macrotrends, a Dutch-language newsletter out of Brugge. “The banks are insolvent, the governments are insolvent, and all that’s left is for the people to realize what’s going on—and that will start a panic.”

He hit it on the head: Some of the more sophisticated people—like Tuur, like some of my acquaintances, (like myself, frankly)—have realized that the MF Global scandal means that there is no safety for any paper investment: The integrity of the systems has been completely shattered. If in the face of one medium-sized brokerage firm going under, the regulators will openly allow ordinary people to be ripped off for the sake of protecting the so-called “Systemically Important Financial Institutions”—in this case JPMorgan—what will happen if there is a system-wide run? What if two or three MF Globals happen simultaneously?

Will they protect the citizens’ money? Or will they protect the “Systemically Important Financial Institutions”?

I think we know the answer.

And I think we all know the answer to the question of whether there will be crisis flashpoint in the near-term future: After all, as Demeester pointed out, all the banks and all the governments are broke.

Thus it’s only a matter of time before they come for your money.

At SPG, we’ve been putting together Scenarios for other black swan events which are becoming increasingly likely: What to do if the eurozone breaks up, what to do if you have to leave America, what to do if there is an Israeli-Iranian war, what to do if there is forced dollar devaluation, and so on.

Now, because of this open kleptocracy and cronyism being shown by the financial authorities in the wake of the MF Global bankruptcy, we’ve been obliged to put together a new Scenario, devoted exclusively to preparing for a run on the markets: What to do in order to protect your assets from regulatory malfeasance, if there is a system-wide MF Global-type breakdown and a subsequent run on the entire financial system.

And there will be such a run on the system: It’s only a matter of time. In fact, the handling of the MF Global affair has sped up the timeframe for this run on the system, because the forward-edge players—such as Demeester, myself, and my other acquaintances who understand the implications of the bankruptcy—realize that the regulators will side with the banksters, and not the ordinary investors: So we are preparing accordingly.

Once there is a full-on panic, anyone with money in the system will lose at least a big chunk of it, in one of two ways, or a combination thereof:

• One, the firms—commodities brokerage firms, equity firms, investment banks and commercial banks—will not allow people to withdraw the totality of their money, and/or they will put a withdrawal cap of some sort, enforced by the central banks and other regulatory bodies. (Like they did in Argentina.)

• Two, the central banks will “provide liquidity”—that is, print money—while simultaneously declaring a banking holiday to, quote, “calm the markets”. During that bank holiday, the currency will be devalued by double digits—which will mean that your cash holdings will essentially be taxed to save the banksters—again. (Like they did in Argentina.)

Thus apart from proving that the United States really is Argentina with nukes, the MF Global bankruptcy has proven something crucial: The central banks and government regulators have completely fallen into the trap of confusing the welfare of the “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” with the welfare of the system itself. They don’t seem to realize that the SIFI’s are actors within the system—not the system itself.

We critics of the current, corrupt state of affairs also sometimes confuse the SIFI’s with the system itself, whenever we say, “The whole system is corrupt!”

But the system is not corrupt—it’s the regulators and SIFI’s who are corrupt. If nothing else, the handling of the MF Global bankruptcy has proven that, once and for all. That’s why we’re pulling out our money now—while we still can.

Because once the general public catches on to what we already know . . . oh boy.

If you’re interested, check out the SPG preview page. The various Scenarios I discussed above (”When the Euro Breaks”, ”Exit America”, ”An Israeli-Iranian War”, etc.) are currently available. The Scenario discussing how to protect assets from a system-wide run will appear on January 20.

Failure to curb oil speculation indicates continued economic failure of Obama Administration

Source: http://real-economics.blogspot.com/2011/05/failure-to-curb-oil-speculation.html

Friday, May 27, 2011

Posted by Tony Wikrent at 11:49 AM

Most people on the left in the U.S hailed Barack Obama's election as President as proof of the man's political genius. Here was an African-American, with the middle name Hussein, who defied the political odds, to win the White House. Never mind that the Republicans had mis-ruled the country into the worst financial and economic collapse since the First Great Depression (Krugman is now writing about this period we live in being the third big depression in the country's history), causing an overwhelming number of Americans to demand a radical change in policies. In this wave of euphoria from November 2008 on, those few (such as your correspondents) who warned that Obama's choices of economic advisers and officials were danger signals that Obama was going to error badly on economic policies, were ignored or even shouted down. (See also The Bankers on Obama's Team, from Mother Jones, January 2010.)

The President's choices showed clearly he was an acolyte of the ruling elites' "neo-liberal" a.k.a. conservative a.k.a. shock doctrine economic policies in which the so-called "free market" is considered more astute and more efficient at allocating society's resources than the political system of government is. One example of the complete failure of "neo-liberal" economic policies is that the United States is more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy, after four solid decades of complete bi-partisan "consensus" that the U.S. should achieve energy independence. I for one explicitly warned that the failure to destroy the political power of Wall Street and enact policies that favored investment in the real economy of production and distribution instead of the financial economy of speculation and regulatory arbitrage, would lead Obama into a terrible economic situation when it came time for his re-election: Will Obama forfeit a second term because of Wall Street?

The steep rise of oil and gasoline prices since the eruption of mass social protests in the Middle East and North Africa is a prime example of how the Obama administration's reluctance to interfere in the "free market" creates the economic conditions that will make the President's re-election ever more difficult. Simply put, Americans are feeling squeezed at the gas pump, and this is smothering whatever precious little economic recovery there is. The CEO of Wal-Mart last month sniffled that high gas prices are forcing Wal-Mart customers to spend a lot less this year.

Yesterday, it was revealed that Wikileaks show that Saudi officials have repeatedly warned American officials to crack down on speculators in the oil markets since 2008. The Saudis even told our not-so-bright public servants that if more oil was pumped out of Saudi fields, it would be near impossible to find actual buyers for the oil.

By Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — When oil prices hit a record $147 a barrel in July 2008, the Bush administration leaned on Saudi Arabia to pump more crude in hopes that a flood of new crude would drive the price down. The Saudis complied, but not before warning that oil already was plentiful and that Wall Street speculation, not a shortage of oil, was driving up prices.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al Naimi even told U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker that the kingdom would have difficulty finding customers for the additional crude, according to an account laid out in a confidential State Department cable dated Sept. 28, 2008,
"Saudi Arabia can't just put crude out on the market," the cable quotes Naimi as saying. Instead, Naimi suggested, "speculators bore significant responsibility for the sharp increase in oil prices in the last few years," according to the cable.
What role Wall Street investors play in the high cost of oil is a hotly debated topic in Washington. Despite weak demand, the price of a barrel of crude oil surged more than 25 percent in the past year, reaching a peak of $113 May 2 before falling back to a range of $95 to $100 a barrel.
The Obama administration, the Bush administration before it and Congress have been slow to take steps to rein in speculators.
Read more.

FireDogLake is now reporting that yesterday a group of Democratic Senators, and Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont, met with the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler. Gensler is a former Goldman Sachs vampire squidling, and was decried, by yours truly and others, as an example of all that's wrong with American political economy when he was nominated by Obama. Senator Sanders apparently took a very hard line with Gensler in demanding that the CFTC use its new powers under Dodd-Frank to regulate the oil futures markets by to setting position limits on what any one firm can hold in oil futures contracts:

I found it somewhat unusual for Sanders to so bluntly state that the CFTC is flat-out breaking the law, especially after their enforcement action this week. But it’s hard to come to another conclusion. Dodd-Frank was explicit, that position limits needed to be in place by January 17, 2011. It’s May 27, and nothing has happened.
Read more.

Other examples of the way Obama's continued belief in neo-liberal "shock doctrine" economics is crippling the administration's economic policies were provided by another writer on FireDogLake, who noted the following points:

1. All seven of the firms represented on the Obama Jobs Commission are increasing their overseas investments, thus undermining all efforts at creating jobs for American citizens;

2. The administration continues to be in favor of passing the free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea, though it is trying to use the trade agreements as pressure to get Republicans to accept expanded assistance for American workers who will lose their jobs. Thus, there is no longer any real debate over whether or not so-called "free trade" agreements help create new American jobs by boosting exports; the loss of American jobs is simply accepted as a result of the "free market."

3. And, the administration is doing nothing about the terrible practice of companies refusing to even consider people who are unemployed in their hiring of new employees. This is having disastrous effects on Americans who have been unemployed for more than a few months.

The FireDogLake author points to a USA Today article last Thursday on the horrible job market in the U.S.:

The nation has 5% fewer jobs today — a loss of 7 million — than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s.
In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.

Right now, the political elites in the Democratic Party are merrily reassuring themselves that the recent victory of a Democrat in the special Congressional election in the hard red 26th District in upstate New York means, because of Republicans' over-reaching in their attempt to dismantle Medicare, the tide has now turned in Democrats' favor for the general election next year. What's really going on is that the citizens continue to shift back and forth between two terrible political choices, in their increasingly desperatesearch to find leaders who do not worship at the altar of economic shock doctrine neo-liberalism. Until Wall Street and the futures markets in Chicago are smashed, and the credit, monetary, and banking systems are forced to again be subservient and submissive to the needs of working people and the real economy, there can be no economic recovery - a recovery that the Obama team will be increasingly desperate to find, or conjure up through spin, as election day approaches.

Ron Paul Campaign Theme Song

Source: http://itunesbomb.com/

http://rcreader.com/commentary/paul-personifies-party-platform/

Picture Source: Iowa River Cities Reader

Source: The Daily Paul / RevPAC

MF Global: What Really Happened & Where the Customers' Money Is

It's a complex story and an early example of what is happening between the City of London and the EU right now. The following article by Bob English is indispensable in understanding what MF Global and it's internal and external counter parties and custodian have done. Should also look up recent reporting on "rehypothecation."

Source: http://english.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/mf-global-bankruptcy-cheat-sheet-where.html

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011

The MF Global Bankruptcy Cheat Sheet: Where are the missing customer funds and how can customers and creditors preserve their rights?

Currently, over $500,000,000 in customer segregated funds is missing from MF Global Inc., the US broker/dealer and futures commission merchant (FCM) that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last Monday, October 31, 2011. This is simply unprecedented in the futures industry, which passed relatively unscathed through the 2008 turmoil. When an FCM is about to declare bankruptcy, the brokerage accounts have historically been separated or sold from the failing entity to protect the integrity of the customer accounts. This did not occur with MF Global, and now the cash in 50,000 active accounts is frozen and subject to the actions of the trustee, James W. Giddens (the same trustee who was appointed to Lehman Bros.).

How could this have happened? Where are the missing funds? What can be done about it? This article will attempt to offer some theories and possible courses of action...

[Long but good read at: http://english.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/11/mf-global-bankruptcy-cheat-sheet-where.html]

Related video #1

Additional couple of recent articles that back up the above earlier article:

Zerohedge: Guest Post: Legality Of MF Global Asset Transfer Questioned

NYT: Email Clues in Tracking MF Global Client Funds

Related video #2

This is the test case of how to handle the rehypothecation collapse from Europe and the City of London's infinite leveraging. The custodian creditors in the expected collapse would like to be able to steal the segregated funds of customers of their corporate debtors.

Medical Journal Article: Effects of Fukushima Fallout in the U.S.

Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article--14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html

Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

Separate Source: Data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported March 13-Sept.3, 2011.

Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2011 -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.

The IJHS article will be published Tuesday and will be available online as of 11 a.m. EST at http://www.radiation.org.

Just six days after the disastrous meltdowns struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived over American shores. Subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water, and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S. The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).

Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation."

Mangano is executive director, Radiation and Public Health Project, and the author of 27 peer-reviewed medical journal articles and letters.

Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."

Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of a related news event will be available on the Web at http://www.radiation.org as of 4 p.m. EST/2100 GMT on December 19, 2011. Embargoed copies of the medical journal article are available by contacting Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.

SOURCE: Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman, International Journal of Health Services

Latest on Fukushima Tsunami Debris

Source: http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/report-first-debris-japan-tsunami-reaches-west-coa/nF3mS/

Source: MOXNEWS.COM of KIRO7 TV: Washington state

Thursday, Dec. 15, 2011
Report: First debris from Japan tsunami reaches West Coast
Curtis Ebbesmeyer and Jim Ingraham

PORT ANGELES, Wash. — Two Seattle oceanographers say a large black float that was found two weeks ago at the northwestern tip of Washington is the first piece of debris identified as coming from the tsunami in Japan, the Peninsula Daily News reports.

The researchers who have tracked wind and water currents in the Pacific since 1970 had predicted that the first debris to appear would be something like the large, 55-gallon sized float because it is lightweight and sits well above the water. They said about a fourth of the 100 million tons of debris from Japan should reach beaches up and down the West Coast.

"It's just a monstrous debris field coming our way," said Curt Ebbesmeyer, one of the oceanographers.

Just how monstrous? About the size of California, according to Ebbesmeyer's estimation. While the bulk of it is still in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, at least 10 black buoys with Japanese markings, commonly used in fish farming, have washed up on beaches from Ocean Shores to Neah Bay. Similar ones have been found wedged into a debris field [well] north of Hawaii.

Graphic: Mar. 11, 2011 Tsunami debris missing Hawaii,

Source: http://flotsametrics.com/

"That's about as good as the evidence gets for first arrivals," Ebbesmeyer said.

He said computer models by his partner, Jim Ingraham, predicted that the first flotsam would arrive in Washington by last Halloween. The buoys are relatively light and ride high on the water, where the wind can carry them 20 miles per day -- about three times faster than the majority of the debris is moving.

"We're at the beginning of the beginning," Ebbesmeyer said.

He added that he hopes beachcombers will treat the debris with respect because some of it will contain human remains and personal belongings. He advised anyone who finds debris to call police if they spot it, so it can be secured, inspected and that loved ones in Japan can be notified. He also said he thinks it would be prudent to check the debris for radioactivity.

People can report debris at http://flotsametrics.com/

Source: Canada TV: Tofino, BC

Source: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_IAEA_to_coordinate_Pacific_monitoring_141211a.html

IAEA to Coordinate Pacific Monitoring

by World Nuclear News, 14 December 2011

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is bringing together 24 countries in the Pacific Ocean region to help monitor the movement of radionuclides released from the Fukushima nuclear accident.

The accident in March this year on Japan's Eastern seaboard caused an unprecedented emission of radioactive materials to sea, mainly iodine and caesium. A major outflow occurred between 1-6 April when a leak from a trench containing electrical cables caused an estimated 4.7 petabecquerels of radioactivity to be released. Lesser outflows have also continued to occur as run-off from the plant and countryside has taken place, while an unknown amount is due to atmospheric emissions which have blown out to sea.

Many countries in the Pacific region have expressed concern that this contamination could potentially damage their coastal environments and negatively impact communities and economies. This led to the IAEA board approving a technical cooperation project during its annual meeting in June.

Twenty-four countries are particpating in the project: Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, the Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. Running from 2011 to 2015 under Australian leadership, the budget allocated for the project is around $1.3 million. (U.S., Canada, Russia not listed in this project.)

The project seeks to harmonise the measurements of various radioisotopes in marine waters, biota, sediments and suspended material so that a more comparable and verifiable picture of the wider ocean contamination can be established. The IAEA will serve to boost local measurement capabilities, and facilitate the exchange of data between countries.

According to the IAEA, despite the fact that radioactive material is expected to be "significantly diluted by time" as it has mixed with the vast body of water in the Pacific, ocean currents will act to transport material throughout the wider Pacific area "for the foreseeable future."

"It is expected that the enormous dilution capacity of the Pacific Ocean will lead to low residual concentrations of radionuclides in ocean waters such that any significant contamination of marine food in coastal waters outside of Japan will not occur," said IAEA technical officer Hartmut Nies. "To date, only caesium -134 and caesium -137 were detected far offshore from the Japanese coast in the prevailing Kuroshio Ocean current at levels of less concern."

The first meeting for the project took place in Australia in August, while a training workshop was held in the IAEA Environmental Laboratories in Monaco from 21-25 November. The workshop led to the adoption of a quality management system and database for the future monitoring efforts. The project is expected to run till 2015, with a first progress report due in 2012.

BREAKING AD: Newt Gingrich: "Selling Access"

Another Shade of Blue: Tahiti, Moorea, Rangiroa, & Huahine

WOW, EPIC, EPIC: MF Global & The Great Wall Street Re-Hypothecation Scandal

Source: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Securities/Insight/2011/12_-_December/MF_Global_and_the_great_Wall_St_re-hypothecation_scandal/

MF Global and the Great Wall Street Re-Hypothecation Scandal

By Christopher Elias (UK) 12/7/2011

(Business Law Currents) A legal loophole in international brokerage regulations means that few, if any, clients of MF Global are likely to get their money back. Although details of the drama are still unfolding, it appears that MF Global and some of its Wall Street counterparts have been actively and aggressively circumventing U.S. securities rules at the expense (quite literally) of their clients.

MF Global's bankruptcy revelations concerning missing client money suggest that funds were not inadvertently misplaced or gobbled up in MF’s dying hours, but were instead appropriated as part of a mass Wall St manipulation of brokerage rules that allowed for the wholesale acquisition and sale of client funds through re-hypothecation. A loophole appears to have allowed MF Global, and many others, to use its own clients’ funds to finance an enormous $6.2 billion Eurozone repo bet.

If anyone thought that you couldn’t have your cake and eat it too in the world of finance, MF Global shows how you can have your cake, eat it, eat someone else’s cake and then let your clients pick up the bill. Hard cheese for many as their dough goes missing.

FINDING FUNDS

Current estimates for the shortfall in MF Global customer funds have now reached $1.2 billion as revelations break that the use of client money appears widespread. Up until now the assumption has been that the funds missing had been misappropriated by MF Global as it desperately sought to avoid bankruptcy.

Sadly, the truth is likely to be that MF Global took advantage of an asymmetry in brokerage borrowing rules that allow firms to legally use client money to buy assets in their own name - a legal loophole that may mean that MF Global clients never get their money back.

REPO RECAP

First a quick recap. By now the story of MF Global’s demise is strikingly familiar. MF plowed money into an off-balance-sheet maneuver known as a repo, or sale and repurchase agreement. A repo involves a firm borrowing money and putting up assets as collateral, assets it promises to repurchase later. Repos are a common way for firms to generate money but are not normally off-balance sheet and are instead treated as “financing” under accountancy rules.

MF Global used a version of an off-balance-sheet repo called a "repo-to-maturity." The repo-to-maturity involved borrowing billions of dollars backed by huge sums of sovereign debt, all of which was due to expire at the same time as the loan itself. With the collateral and the loans becoming due simultaneously, MF Global was entitled to treat the transaction as a “sale” under U.S. GAAP. This allowed the firm to move $16.5 billion off its balance sheet, most of it debt from Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Ireland.

Backed by the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), it was a clever bet (at least in theory) that certain Eurozone bonds would remain default free whilst yields would continue to grow. Ultimately, however, it proved to be MF Global’s downfall as margin calls and its high level of leverage sucked out capital from the firm. For more information on the repo used by MF Global please see Business Law Currents MF Global – Slayed by the Grim Repo?

Puzzling many, though, were the huge sums involved. How was MF Global able to “lose” $1.2 billion of its clients’ money and acquire a sovereign debt position of $6.3 billion – a position more than five times the firm’s book value, or net worth? The answer it seems lies in its exploitation of a loophole between UK and U.S. brokerage rules on the use of clients funds known as “re-hypothecation”.

RE-HYPOTHECATION

By way of background, hypothecation is when a borrower pledges collateral to secure a debt. The borrower retains ownership of the collateral but is “hypothetically” controlled by the creditor, who has a right to seize possession if the borrower defaults.

In the U.S., this legal right takes the form of a lien and in the UK generally in the form of a legal charge. A simple example of a hypothecation is a mortgage, in which a borrower legally owns the home, but the bank holds a right to take possession of the property if the borrower should default.

In investment banking, assets deposited with a broker will be hypothecated such that a broker may sell securities if an investor fails to keep up credit payments or if the securities drop in value and the investor fails to respond to a margin call (a request for more capital).

Re-hypothecation occurs when a bank or broker re-uses collateral posted by clients, such as hedge funds, to back the broker’s own trades and borrowings. The practice of re-hypothecation runs into the trillions of dollars and is perfectly legal. It is justified by brokers on the basis that it is a capital efficient way of financing their operations much to the chagrin of hedge funds.

U.S. RULES

Under the U.S. Federal Reserve Board's Regulation T and SEC Rule 15c3-3, a prime broker may re-hypothecate assets to the value of 140% of the client's liability to the prime broker. For example, assume a customer has deposited $500 in securities and has a debt deficit of $200, resulting in net equity of $300. The broker-dealer can re-hypothecate up to $280 (140 per cent. x $200) of these assets.

But in the UK, there is absolutely no statutory limit on the amount that can be re-hypothecated. In fact, brokers are free to re-hypothecate all and even more than the assets deposited by clients. Instead it is up to clients to negotiate a limit or prohibition on re-hypothecation. On the above example a UK broker could, and frequently would, re-hypothecate 100% of the pledged securities ($500).

This asymmetry of rules makes exploiting the more lax UK regime incredibly attractive to international brokerage firms such as MF Global or Lehman Brothers which can use European subsidiaries to create pools of funding for their U.S. operations, without the bother of complying with U.S. restrictions.

In fact, by 2007, re-hypothecation had grown so large that it accounted for half of the activity of the shadow banking system. Prior to Lehman Brothers collapse, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) calculated that U.S. banks were receiving $4 trillion worth of funding by re-hypothecation, much of which was sourced from the UK. With assets being re-hypothecated many times over (known as “churn”), the original collateral being used may have been as little as $1 trillion – a quarter of the financial footprint created through re-hypothecation.

BEWARE THE BRITS: CIRCUMVENTING U.S. RULES

Keen to get in on the action, U.S. prime brokers have been making judicious use of European subsidiaries. Because re-hypothecation is so profitable for prime brokers, many prime brokerage agreements provide for a U.S. client’s assets to be transferred to the prime broker’s UK subsidiary to circumvent U.S. rehypothecation rules.

Under subtle brokerage contractual provisions, U.S. investors can find that their assets vanish from the U.S. and appear instead in the UK, despite contact with an ostensibly American organisation.

Potentially as simple as having MF Global UK Limited, an English subsidiary, enter into a prime brokerage agreement with a customer, a U.S. based prime broker can immediately take advantage of the UK’s unrestricted re-hypothecation rules.

LEHMAN LESSONS

In fact this is exactly what Lehman Brothers did through Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), an English subsidiary to which most U.S. hedge fund assets were transferred. Once transferred to the UK based company, assets were re-hypothecated many times over, meaning that when the debt carousel stopped, and Lehman Brothers collapsed, many U.S. funds found that their assets had simply vanished.

A prime broker need not even require that an investor (eg hedge fund) sign all agreements with a European subsidiary to take advantage of the loophole. In fact, in Lehman’s case many funds signed a prime brokerage agreement with Lehman Brothers Inc (a U.S. company) but margin-lending agreements and securities-lending agreements with LBIE in the UK (normally conducted under a Global Master Securities Lending Agreement).

These agreements permitted Lehman to transfer client assets between various affiliates without the fund’s express consent, despite the fact that the main agreement had been under U.S. law. As a result of these peripheral agreements, all or most of its clients’ assets found their way down to LBIE.

MF RE-HYPOTHECATION PROVISION

A similar re-hypothecation provision can be seen in MF Global’s U.S. client agreements. MF Global’s Customer Agreement for trading in cash commodities, commodity futures, security futures, options, and forward contracts, securities, foreign futures and options and currencies includes the following clause:

“7. Consent To Loan Or PledgeYou hereby grant us the right, in accordance with Applicable Law, to borrow, pledge, repledge, transfer, hypothecate, rehypothecate,loan, or invest any of the Collateral, including, without limitation, utilizing the Collateral to purchase or sell securities pursuant to repurchase agreements [repos] or reverse repurchase agreements with any party, in each case without notice to you, and we shall have no obligation to retain a like amount of similar Collateral in our possession and control.”

In its quarterly report, MF Global disclosed that by June 2011 it had repledged (re-hypothecated) $70 million, including securities received under resale agreements. With these transactions taking place off-balance sheet it is difficult to pin down the exact entity which was used to re-hypothecate such large sums of money but regulatory filings and letters from MF Global’s administrators contain some clues.

According to a letter from KPMG to MF Global clients, when MF Global collapsed, its UK subsidiary MF Global UK Limited had over 10,000 accounts. MF Global disclosed in March 2011 that it had significant credit risk from its European subsidiary from “counterparties with whom we place both our own funds or securities and those of our clients”.

CAUSTIC COLLATERAL

Matters get even worse when we consider what has for the last 6 years counted as collateral under re-hypothecation rules.

Despite the fact that there may only be a quarter of the collateral in the world to back these transactions, successive U.S. governments have softened the requirements for what can back a re-hypothecation transaction.

Beginning with Clinton-era liberalisation, rules were eased that had until 2000 limited the use of re-hypothecated funds to U.S. Treasury, state and municipal obligations. These rules were slowly cut away (from 2000-2005) so that customer money could be used to enter into repurchase agreements (repos), buy foreign bonds, money market funds and other assorted securities.

Hence, when MF Global conceived of its Eurozone repo ruse, client funds were waiting to be plundered for investment in AA rated European sovereign debt, despite the fact that many of its hedge fund clients may have been betting against the performance of those very same bonds.

OFF BALANCE SHEET

As well as collateral risk, re-hypothecation creates significant counterparty risk and its off-balance sheet treatment contains many hidden nasties. Even without circumventing U.S. limits on re-hypothecation, the off-balance sheet treatment means that the amount of leverage (gearing) and systemic risk created in the system by re-hypothecation is staggering.

Re-hypothecation transactions are off-balance sheet and are therefore unrestricted by balance sheet controls. Whereas on balance sheet transactions necessitate only appearing as an asset/liability on one bank’s balance sheet and not another, off-balance sheet transactions can, and frequently do, appear on multiple banks’ financial statements. What this creates is chains of counterparty risk, where multiple re-hypothecation borrowers use the same collateral over and over again. Essentially, it is a chain of debt obligations that is only as strong as its weakest link.

With collateral being re-hypothecated to a factor of four (according to IMF estimates), the actual capital backing banks re-hypothecation transactions may be as little as 25%. This churning of collateral means that re-hypothecation transactions have been creating enormous amounts of liquidity, much of which has no real asset backing.

The lack of balance sheet recognition of re-hypothecation was noted in Jefferies’ recent 10Q (emphasis added):

“Note 7. Collateralized Transactions
We pledge securities in connection with repurchase agreements, securities lending agreements and other secured arrangements, including clearing arrangements. The pledge of our securities is in connection with our mortgage−backed securities, corporate bond, government and agency securities and equities businesses. Counterparties generally have the right to sell or repledge the collateral.Pledged securities that can be sold or repledged by the counterparty are included within Financial instruments owned and noted as Securities pledged on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. We receive securities as collateral in connection with resale agreements, securities borrowings and customer margin loans. In many instances, we are permitted by contract or custom to rehypothecate securities received as collateral. These securities maybe used to secure repurchase agreements, enter into security lending or derivative transactions or cover short positions. At August 31, 2011 and November 30, 2010, the approximate fair value of securities received as collateral by us that may be sold or repledged was approximately $25.9 billion and $22.3 billion, respectively. At August 31, 2011 and November 30, 2010, a substantial portion of the securities received by us had been sold or repledged.

We engage in securities for securities transactions in which we are the borrower of securities and provide other securities as collateral rather than cash. As no cash is provided under these types of transactions, we, as borrower, treat these as noncash transactions and do not recognize assets or liabilities on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. The securities pledged as collateral under these transactions are included within the total amount of Financial instruments owned and noted as Securities pledged on our Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition."

According to Jefferies’ most recent Annual Report it had re-hypothecated $22.3 billion (in fair value) of assets in 2011 including government debt, asset backed securities, derivatives and corporate equity- that’s just $15 billion shy of Jefferies total on balance sheet assets of $37 billion.

HYPER-HYPOTHECATION

With weak collateral rules and a level of leverage that would make Archimedes tremble, firms have been piling into re-hypothecation activity with startling abandon. A review of filings reveals a staggering level of activity in what may be the world’s largest ever credit bubble.

Engaging in hyper-hypothecation have been Goldman Sachs ($28.17 billion re-hypothecated in 2011), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (re-pledged $72 billion in client assets), Royal Bank of Canada (re-pledged $53.8 billion of $126.7 billion available for re-pledging), Oppenheimer Holdings ($15.3 million), Credit Suisse (CHF 332 billion), Knight Capital Group ($1.17 billion),Interactive Brokers ($14.5 billion), Wells Fargo ($19.6 billion), JP Morgan($546.2 billion) and Morgan Stanley ($410 billion).

Nor is lending confined to between banks. Intra-bank re-hypothecation is also possible as evidenced by filings from Wells Fargo. According to disclosures from Wachovia Preferred Funding Corp, its parent, Wells Fargo, acts as collateral custodian and has the right to re-hypothecate and use around $170 million of assets posted as collateral.

LIQUIDITY CRISIS

The volume and level of re-hypothecation suggests a frightening alternative hypothesis for the current liquidity crisis being experienced by banks and for why regulators around the world decided to step in to prop up the markets recently. To date, reports have been focused on how Eurozone default concerns were provoking fear in the markets and causing liquidity to dry up.

Most have been focused on how a Eurozone default would result in huge losses in Eurozone bonds being felt across the world’s banks. However, re-hypothecation suggests an even greater fear. Considering that re-hypothecation may have increased the financial footprint of Eurozone bonds by at least four fold then a Eurozone sovereign default could be apocalyptic.

U.S. banks direct holding of sovereign debt is hardly negligible. According to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), U.S. banks hold $181 billion in the sovereign debt of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain. If we factor in off-balance sheet transactions such as re-hypothecations and repos, then the picture becomes frightening.

As for MF Global’s clients, the recent adoption of an “MF Global rule” by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to ban using client funds to purchase foreign sovereign debt, would seem to suggest that it was indeed client money behind its leveraged repo-to-maturity deal - a fact that will likely mean that very few MF Global clients few get their money back.

Written with Jack Bunker and Nanette Byrnes.

See also: "Why The UK Trail Of The MF Global Collapse May Have "Apocalyptic" Consequences For The Eurozone, Canadian Banks, Jefferies And Everyone Else" at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/why-uk-trail-mf-global-collapse-may-have-apocalyptic-consequences-eurozone-canadian-banks-jeffe

Japanese Researchers: Let's Dump Contaminated Soil into the Ocean!

Source: http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2011/12/university-researchers-lets-dump.html

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011

University Researchers: Let's Dump Contaminated Soil into the Ocean!

Scholars who participated in the Japanese Ministry of Education's radiation mapping are proposing dumping the contaminated soil removed as the result of utterly useless "decontamination" efforts into the depth of the Pacific Ocean, 2000 meters deep.

The researchers will propose their plan to the government as a practical solution to literally mountains of soil contaminated with cesium, plutonium, tellurium, radioactive silver, strontium...

Asahi Shinbun (12/5/2011) reports:

An idea has surfaced among researchers to dump the soil contaminated by the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident into the ocean, as it is difficult to secure the storage space to store the soil removed in decontamination efforts. The idea will certainly be greeted with strong criticism from the public both domestic and international, but the researchers plan to propose it to the national government as one of the practical solutions.

Decontamination is the responsibility of the national government in the areas where the annual cumulative radiation exposure would exceed 1 millisievert. The plan is to scrape off the top soil, store it in the temporary storage areas in the affected municipalities, and then transport it to an intermediary storage facility to be built somewhere in Fukushima Prefecture. It is expected that 15 to 31 million cubic meters of contaminated soil will be removed within the prefecture. If the final disposal plan remains undecided, the intermediary storage could become permanent. The government hasn't secured the land to create the intermediary storage facility.

Considering this situation, a group of researchers who participated in the soil contamination mapping by the Ministry of Education and Science, including Professor Isao Tanihata of Osaka University Research Center for Nuclear Physics and Professor Koji Nakai of Tokyo University of Science, proposed the deep sea solution in a workshop held on December 3 at Osaka University. The best method, according to the group, would be to put the contaminated soil in containers that would withstand corrosion and high water pressure, and sink the containers in the coastal water more than 2000 meters deep.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY AREVAMIRPAL :: LAPRIMAVERA AT 12:24 PM

Debris from Japanese Tsunami to Reach U.S. Soon

Source for below: http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/japanfaqs.html

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS: Marine Debris Generated from the 2011 Japan Tsunami

Download an informational handout on what we know about Japan tsunami marine debris (344kb).

Of all Earth’s natural hazards, tsunamis may be among the most infrequent, but they pose a major threat to coastal populations, particularly in the seismically active Pacific Ocean. The tragedy of the March 2011 tsunami in Japan had far-reaching effects that included the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii. As the tsunami receded from land, it washed much of what was in the inundation zone into the ocean. Heavier materials sank closer to shore while the buoyant materials went on to make up the debris fields we have seen in satellite imagery and aerial photos of the waters surrounding Japan. Below are information and answers to some frequently asked questions about the marine debris generated from the tsunami in Japan. Please stay tuned to this webpage for updates and more information.

FAQs:

1. When will the debris from the tsunami in Japan reach the U.S.?

2. How much debris is there? Is there a debris field?
   5 to 20 million tons of Japan tsunami marine debris

3. Is the debris radioactive?

4. What about navigational safety hazards created by the tsunami debris?

5. What is NOAA doing about the tsunami-generated marine debris?

6. How should we begin monitoring our shoreline debris?

7. How do I report significant sightings of at-sea marine debris?

8. Where can I get more information about tsunamis?

Acknowledgments

When will the debris from the tsunami in Japan reach the U.S.?

Many variables affect whether and how long it will take debris items from Japan to reach the U.S. For most areas it is a matter of years, not days or weeks. Scientists are relying on computer models to predict the debris items’ path, but models can only assume general direction and timing. Since winds and ocean currents constantly change, it’s very difficult to predict an exact date and locationfor the debris’ arrival on our shores without more information.

Independent models run by NOAA and University of Hawaii researchers agree on the general direction and drift rate of debris generated by the tsunami in Japan. Right now, models tell us some debris could pass near or wash ashore in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as early as this (2011/2012) winter (based on reported sightings of debris by the Russian ship STS Pallada(September 2011)), approach the West Coast of the United States in 2013, and circle back to Hawaii (main Hawaiian Islands) in 2014 to 2016.

Contact James Churnside in NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) to discuss the NOAA Ocean Surface Current Simulator model. Contact University of Hawaii’s Drs. Nikolai Maximenko and Jan Hafner (International Pacific Research Center) to discuss their model.

NOAA has run OSCURS (Ocean Surface Current Simulator), a numeric model for ocean surface currents, to predict the movement of marine debris generated by the Japan tsunami over five years. The results are shown here. Year 1 = red; Year 2 = orange; Year 3 = yellow; Year 4 = light blue; Year 5 = violet. The OCSURS model is used to measure the movement of surface currents over time, as well as the movement of what is in or on the water. Map courtesy of J. Churnside (NOAA OAR) and created through Google.

How much debris is there? Is there a debris field?

First, the debris is not in a “debris field” rather, there are many items scattered across a large area of the North Pacific. The debris clumped together when it first washed into the ocean, but it has since dispersed, making it very difficult to locate. Some items may break apart into smaller pieces or sink, depending on what the item is made of. It is very difficult to detect individual pieces of debris with satellite imagery.

5 to 20 million tons of Japan tsunami marine debris?

We were unable to find the source of the figures quoted in the media of five to 20 million tons of marine debris generated by the Japan tsunami. A figure of 25 million tons has been mentioned in the media, but that is an estimate of the total quantity of debris from the disaster (Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan).

Is the debris radioactive?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Food and Drug Administration are monitoring for radioactivity. It is considered highly unlikely the tsunami-generated marine debris would be contaminated with radioactive material. Because the debris was washed out to sea before the release of radioactive water from the power plant, the contamination route is improbable. Additionally, radioactivity of debris sighted by the Russian ship STS Pallada in September 2011 was measured by the crew with a Geiger counter. Results showed no radioactivity.

What about navigational safety hazards created by the tsunami debris?

If you have questions about navigation safety, please contact theU.S. Coast Guard and view the U.S. Department of Transportation'sMARAD advisory.

What is NOAA doing about the tsunami-generated marine debris?

NOAA is doing several things:

• The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) is coordinating with internal and external NOAA partners to explore the best actions for addressing the debris.

• The MDP is working with internal and external NOAA partners on a Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Assessment and Response Framework for holistic and cooperative planning to respond to the potential threats posed by marine debris resulting from the Japan tsunami.

• NOAA is one of the lead members on a Japan Tsunami Debris Workgroup including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and University of Hawaii researchers among others.

• NOAA is working with EPA on a joint informational "Tsunami Debris Workgroup Bulletin." Sign up to receive this bulletin.

• NOAA is gathering information on significant sightings of marine debris in the N. Pacific through NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operation’s Pacific fleet of vessels, the NOAA Voluntary Observing Ship Program, and NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program and their work with the Hawaii longline fishing industry.

• NOAA is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service onshoreline debris monitoring in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

• NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) tracked the debris. Soon after the tsunami, fields of debris were visible from satellites. Over time the debris dispersed, and as of April 14, NESDIS could no longer detect debris in satellite imagery.

• NOAA convened scientists to review available data, including modeling output, and provide insight on debris fate and transport.

How should we begin monitoring our shoreline debris?

The NOAA Marine Debris Program (MDP) is happy to provide information to individuals or groups interested in undertaking shoreline monitoring studies for Japan tsunami marine debris. Effective monitoring of changes in environmental conditions, such as the abundance of marine debris, requires a good deal of forethought. Here are some tips and suggestions:

1. Clear objectives and methods: Monitoring projects should have clearly stated objectives and use agreed-upon methods and field measurements to allow for comparability of data with previous research and that conducted in other areas.
2. Baseline data monitoring: In order to detect a change in the concentration of marine debris over time, reliable baseline data is needed. Thus, if you are interested in monitoring to detect a pulse of tsunami-related debris, we suggest regular sampling begin well before the expected arrival of the tsunami debris in your area. At least one year would be ideal.
3. Debris type information: Gathering information on the type of debris found (e.g., lumber, plastic, rubber, fabric, metal, glass) is important. With this information, changes in the types and amounts of marine debris over time may be seen. For example, you may begin to notice an unusual increase in a certain type of debris item around the time of predicted tsunami debris arrival to your area.
4. There’s an app for that: If you who wish to contribute to the collection of baseline marine debris information, consider downloading and using the Marine Debris Tracker smartphone application (http://www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu/) to record, visualize, and share data.

To request a copy of the MDP's Shoreline Survey Field Guide and electronic data sheet please send an email toMDsightings@gmail.com.

How do I report significant sightings of at-sea marine debris?

Information on significant marine debris sightings in the North Pacific Ocean is greatly needed and can be reported toMDsightings@gmail.com (please indicate if the information can be displayed on a public website).

Where can I get more information about tsunamis?

A wealth of information exists on tsunamis, including:
http://www.tsunami.noaa.gov/
http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/
http://www.weather.gov/om/brochures/tsunami.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/c1187/
and many more.

Acknowledgments

This information was compiled with the information and expertise of representatives from NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and National Ocean Service as well as the International Pacific Research Center (UH Manoa), U.S. EPA, National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Coast Guard.