UK news story: selenium

[Mj]

http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003

MJ

[Don Wiss]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:21:21 +0100, "MJ"
<sqeyyd@spdyyq.dd.com> wrote:

>http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003

The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
suggesting.

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.

[Mj]

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
news:nnnhkv02g9nrht58on3fpu34vek6a1ffhk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:21:21 +0100, "MJ"
> <sqeyyd@spdyyq.dd.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
>
> The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
> kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
> suggesting.

Y'see: everywhere we go, the *cereals lobby* gets its bloody
propaganda in!!

Thanks, Don.

MJ

[Mooshie Pe]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:21:21 +0100, "MJ"
<sqeyyd@spdyyq.dd.com> posted:

>http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
>
>MJ
>
Isn't the Rowett institute that mob who was ordered by the
court to apologise to Monsanto or someone about a fraudulent
potato experiment?

[Alter Ego]

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
message news:<
> >MJ
> >
> Isn't the Rowett institute that mob who was ordered by the
> court to apologise to Monsanto or someone about a fraudulent
> potato experiment?

No. Rowett Institute was said to be partly funded by
Monsanto. The scientist Pusztai who made the claims was
sacked back around August 1998 by the Institute. Naturally
such a claim of a lectin risk being introduced into potatoes
couldn't be permitted without punishment given the financial
interests involved.

Therefore you "mob" comment is a smear.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 21:20:45 +0100, "MJ"
<sqeyyd@spdyyq.dd.com> posted:

>
>"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message
>news:nnnhkv02g9nrht58on3fpu34vek6a1ffhk@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:21:21 +0100, "MJ"
>> <sqeyyd@spdyyq.dd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
>>
>> The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
>> kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
>> suggesting.
>
>Y'see: everywhere we go, the *cereals lobby* gets its bloody
>propaganda in!!

What bothers me is how these folk know that they are deficient
in selenium. If you eat a varied wholefood diet, you won't be
deficient in anything.

[Alf Christ]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:54:47 -0400, Don Wiss
<donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
>kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
>suggesting.

If you multiply dily/weekly amount of the different sources
you mention with the concentration of Se, what are most
important then?? Brazil nuts. I for my part never eat brazil
nuts, so I guess for my part, content of Se in Brazil nuts
plays zero for my Se intake. For my part, wheat is source no
1. And concentration of Se in wheat is therefor of the most
uttermost importance. Use of acidifying fertilizers lower
availability of Se in soil, and the more acid soil, the less
is available. Unfortunately, this is the case in most of
Europe and Se-concentration in cereals drops annually by
several promille :-( In England by procents :-( From bout
110 ug/kg down to about 25 ug/kg in a few years :-( Over
here, it was official policy to keep Se content in cereals
constant. Now the central trading is banned due to EEC
regulations, and price of cereal is the only regulating,
making wheat being bought is cheap, Se-devoid wheat, and not
Se-rich US and Canada wheat which is at moment more
expensive on the free market.

[Mattlb]

Mooshie peas wrote:

> >> >http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
> >>
> >> The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
> >> kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
> >> suggesting.
> >
> >Y'see: everywhere we go, the *cereals lobby* gets its
> >bloody propaganda in!!
>
> What bothers me is how these folk know that they are
> deficient in selenium. If you eat a varied wholefood diet,
> you won't be deficient in anything.

Actually selenium can be an exception to that rule, because
its presence in plants depends on its presence in the soil and
certain areas of the world have soil with virtually no
selenium in. If your diet contains food from all over the
world you might be okay, but if you're restricted to food in
your country you may not be.

MattLB

[Don Wiss]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, MattLB
<mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> wrote:

>Mooshie peas wrote:
>
>> >> >http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
>> >>
>> >> The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver,
>> >> and kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
>> >> suggesting.
>> >
>> >Y'see: everywhere we go, the *cereals lobby* gets its
>> >bloody propaganda in!!
>>
>> What bothers me is how these folk know that they are
>> deficient in selenium. If you eat a varied wholefood diet,
>> you won't be deficient in anything.
>
>Actually selenium can be an exception to that rule, because
>its presence in plants depends on its presence in the soil
>and certain areas of the world have soil with virtually no
>selenium in. If your diet contains food from all over the
>world you might be okay, but if you're restricted to food in
>your country you may not be.

Are not livers and kidneys available in every country?

Don <donwiss at panix.com>.

[Mooshie Pe]

On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:00 -0700, e2p71828@futurelnk.net (Alter
Ego) posted:

>Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
>message news:<
>> >MJ
>> >
>> Isn't the Rowett institute that mob who was ordered by the
>> court to apologise to Monsanto or someone about a
>> fraudulent potato experiment?
>
>No. Rowett Institute was said to be partly funded by
>Monsanto. The scientist Pusztai who made the claims was
>sacked back around August 1998 by the Institute. Naturally
>such a claim of a lectin risk being introduced into potatoes
>couldn't be permitted without punishment given the financial
>interests involved.
>
>Therefore you "mob" comment is a smear.

You've read more into it than intended. I apologise for the
cross cultural faux pas here. I must be more careful. In Oz,
"mob" is just a neutral word for group. No Mafia connection or
organised crime inferred. Our aboriginal brothers and sisters
use "mob" for any group or wider family of aboriginals. Quite
charming IMHO.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:45:44 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:54:47 -0400, Don Wiss
><donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
>>The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver, and
>>kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
>>suggesting.
>
>If you multiply dily/weekly amount of the different sources
>you mention with the concentration of Se, what are most
>important then?? Brazil nuts. I for my part never eat brazil
>nuts, so I guess for my part, content of Se in Brazil nuts
>plays zero for my Se intake. For my part, wheat is source no
>1. And concentration of Se in wheat is therefor of the most
>uttermost importance. Use of acidifying fertilizers lower
>availability of Se in soil, and the more acid soil, the less
>is available. Unfortunately, this is the case in most of
>Europe and Se-concentration in cereals drops annually by
>several promille :-( In England by procents :-( From bout
>110 ug/kg down to about 25 ug/kg in a few years :-( Over
>here, it was official policy to keep Se content in cereals
>constant. Now the central trading is banned due to EEC
>regulations, and price of cereal is the only regulating,
>making wheat being bought is cheap, Se-devoid wheat, and not
>Se-rich US and Canada wheat which is at moment more
>expensive on the free market.

But grazing animals need Se for their health so that eating
them, and seafood, and all the variety available in your
supermarket will surely supply plenty of Se.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:48:12 +0100, MattLB
<mattlb@FAKEBITangelfire.com> posted:

>Mooshie peas wrote:
>
>> >> >http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/uk.cfm?id=932722003
>> >>
>> >> The best sources for selenium are brazil nuts, liver,
>> >> and kidneys. Not in the hard wheat which that article is
>> >> suggesting.
>> >
>> >Y'see: everywhere we go, the *cereals lobby* gets its
>> >bloody propaganda in!!
>>
>> What bothers me is how these folk know that they are
>> deficient in selenium. If you eat a varied wholefood diet,
>> you won't be deficient in anything.
>
>Actually selenium can be an exception to that rule, because
>its presence in plants depends on its presence in the soil
>and certain areas of the world have soil with virtually no
>selenium in. If your diet contains food from all over the
>world you might be okay, but if you're restricted to food in
>your country you may not be.

Thus the age-old advice to vary your diet as much as you can.
Seafood always has selenium in it, coz that's where all the
selenium from deficient land has gone to :)

My supermarket is chockers with food from all over the
World. I imagine it is not very different from most other
developed areas.

[Alf Christ]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:04:58 -0400, Don Wiss
<donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>Are not livers and kidneys available in every country?

The problem is that the animals often also lack enough
selenium. Just by the same reason

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:42:10 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>But grazing animals need Se for their health so that eating
>them, and seafood, and all the variety available in your
>supermarket will surely supply plenty of Se.

Our animals do not get Se from grazing due to lack of Se in
plants. They get some Se from injections by a vet. But
restrictions says you re not allowed to slaughter the animals
until the Se is removed by dilution. (Toxicologists has more
to say over here than nutritionists)

[Alter Ego]

Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
news:<ii7rkvk8rvm22sq9qdd88dhgu82h5u8knn@4ax.com>...
> On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:00 -0700, e2p71828@futurelnk.net (Alter
> Ego) posted:
>
> >Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in
> >message news:<
> >> >MJ
> >> >
> >> Isn't the Rowett institute that mob who was ordered by
> >> the court to apologise to Monsanto or someone about a
> >> fraudulent potato experiment?
> >
> >No. Rowett Institute was said to be partly funded by
> >Monsanto. The scientist Pusztai who made the claims was
> >sacked back around August 1998 by the Institute. Naturally
> >such a claim of a lectin risk being introduced into
> >potatoes couldn't be permitted without punishment given the
> >financial interests involved.
> >
> >Therefore you "mob" comment is a smear.
>
> You've read more into it than intended. I apologise for the
> cross cultural faux pas here. I must be more careful. In Oz,
> "mob" is just a neutral word for group. No Mafia connection
> or organised crime inferred. Our aboriginal brothers and
> sisters use "mob" for any group or wider family of
> aboriginals. Quite charming IMHO.

I understood. What I was saying that we need to realize the
scientist must seen as separate from the Institute (not part
of the group or as you say the mob).

Moreover, Monsanto likely didn't have a lawsuit or judgement
against the Institute as it did what Monsanto would have
desired. The Institute fired/terminated the scientist.

I am not making any judgements either way rather it seemed to
me you were making judgements about the Institute because of
scientist that was fired. The evidence is that these two have
different agendas. Recall the topic of the first posting of
this thread.

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:59:38 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>My supermarket is chockers with food from all over the
>World. I imagine it is not very different from most other
>developed areas.

The problem over here is that most of the food is not marked
where it comes from. And for meat, you do not know whether a
vet has been around and given the animal a dose or more of
selenium or not. Sheep and pigs has to be injected with
selenium now and then in order to not be ill. Like white
muscle disease in sheep, a severe muscle disease which is
quite usual over here in selenium free areas.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:10:26 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:04:58 -0400, Don Wiss
><donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Are not livers and kidneys available in every country?
>
>The problem is that the animals often also lack enough
>selenium. Just by the same reason

And haven't these animals then got problems, which the farmer
diagnoses, and treats the soil with Se?

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:25:03 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>And haven't these animals then got problems, which the farmer
>diagnoses, and treats the soil with Se?

Finnland has tried to correct soil, but it is very difficult,
in order not to get too high values (remember, inorganic
arsenite is non-toxic compared to Se)

[Larry Hoov]

> Mooshie peas wrote:

> > What bothers me is how these folk know that they are
> > deficient in selenium.

They know they are deficient in selenium because dietary
analyses have been conducted. Real scientists, doing lab work,
collecting data. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with empiricism?

>> If you eat a varied wholefood diet, you won't be deficient
> > in anything.

What bothers me, Mooshie dear, is how you have such a high
opinion of your false assumptions. You seem unable to separate
fact from theory. The theory that a varied wholefood diet
prevents nutrient deficiencies has never been shown to be
true. If I'm wrong, prove it. but I'm telling you, your
statement is a statement of faith, not fact. Never once
proven. Not even extrapolated from existing evidence. It was
conjured up out of "thin air".

Recent changes in international trade practises, such as the
development of the EU, have reduced the amount of North
American wheat entering Europe. It turns out that this staple
food had been the sole major source of selenium for the vast
majority of the population in some rather large regions of
Europe, e.g. the British Isles. Average selenium intake has
been falling for a number of years, in any case, but it has
fallen precipitously over the last few years due to this
single change in trade. Selenium deficiency-related diseases
are already on the increase.

Rather than simply denouncing people who post abstracts (you
*can* read, can't you?), why don't you read a few of the
abstracts I posted in the megavitamin thread. Your last
statement, above, is demonstrably false, and I have provided
sufficient evidence of that, in those abstracts. And, BTW, I
am a practising scientist, and I understand all of what I post
(abstracts), and its significance to the discussion, or I
would not post it. So blow that argument out your ass, OK?

My opinions are backed by fact. They are formed from calm
reflection upon empirical evidence. Your assertion that a
varied diet meets all nutritional needs is based on a
political statement first formulated by politicians, perhaps
50 years ago. You are not even aware of how ignorant you are.

Lar

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:00:07 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:42:10 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>But grazing animals need Se for their health so that eating
>>them, and seafood, and all the variety available in your
>>supermarket will surely supply plenty of Se.
>
>Our animals do not get Se from grazing due to lack of Se in
>plants. They get some Se from injections by a vet. But
>restrictions says you re not allowed to slaughter the animals
>until the Se is removed by dilution. (Toxicologists has more
>to say over here than nutritionists)

See my previous about treating the soil.

[Mooshie Pe]

On 28 Aug 2003 10:16:15 -0700, e2p71828@futurelnk.net (Alter
Ego) posted:

>Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
>news:<ii7rkvk8rvm22sq9qdd88dhgu82h5u8knn@4ax.com>...
>> On 25 Aug 2003 12:15:00 -0700, e2p71828@futurelnk.net
>> (Alter Ego) posted:
>>
>> >Mooshie peas <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
>> >news:<
>> >> >MJ
>> >> >
>> >> Isn't the Rowett institute that mob who was ordered by
>> >> the court to apologise to Monsanto or someone about a
>> >> fraudulent potato experiment?
>> >
>> >No. Rowett Institute was said to be partly funded by
>> >Monsanto. The scientist Pusztai who made the claims was
>> >sacked back around August 1998 by the Institute. Naturally
>> >such a claim of a lectin risk being introduced into
>> >potatoes couldn't be permitted without punishment given
>> >the financial interests involved.
>> >
>> >Therefore you "mob" comment is a smear.
>>
>> You've read more into it than intended. I apologise for the
>> cross cultural faux pas here. I must be more careful. In
>> Oz, "mob" is just a neutral word for group. No Mafia
>> connection or organised crime inferred. Our aboriginal
>> brothers and sisters use "mob" for any group or wider
>> family of aboriginals. Quite charming IMHO.
>
>I understood. What I was saying that we need to realize the
>scientist must seen as separate from the Institute (not part
>of the group or as you say the mob).
>
>Moreover, Monsanto likely didn't have a lawsuit or judgement
>against the Institute as it did what Monsanto would have
>desired. The Institute fired/terminated the scientist.
>
>I am not making any judgements either way rather it seemed to
>me you were making judgements about the Institute because of
>scientist that was fired. The evidence is that these two have
>different agendas. Recall the topic of the first posting of
>this thread.

And remember, my first input was a question.

[Ron]

>"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > > Mooshie peas wrote: What bothers me is how these folk
> > > know that they are deficient in selenium.
>
> They know they are deficient in selenium because dietary
> analyses have been conducted.
>
> > > If you eat a varied wholefood diet, you won't be
> > > deficient in anything.
>
> The theory that a varied wholefood diet prevents nutrient
> deficiencies has never been shown to be true.
--
You both miss the point. A varied wholefood diet will provide
all the essential (DRI) nutrients, but it doesn't solve the
problem of individual genetic shortcomings, with its
individual excesses and deficiencies. Even if you get your
recommended daily requirements of selenium, but your intake of
for instance zinc, magnesium, or a number of heavy metals
(lead, cadmium, mercury...) is above normal, then selenium
metabolism will be inadequate *ratio-wise* and in a sense
become "deficient."

For the same reason no multi-vitamin / mineral formulation -
no matter how "optimally" formulated - will ever normalize
anyone's chemistry. This is only possible by individually
analyzing someone's chemistry and then taking care of as many
nutritional highs and lows as resources allow.

Of course don't expect your family doctor to send you "next
door" to get this analysis done, since there are not only very
few places around the world that are capable of accurately
measuring your nutritional shortcomings, but it also takes a
lot of nutritional know-how to resolve them. --Ron

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:11:13 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
<larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>My opinions are backed by fact. They are formed from calm
>reflection upon empirical evidence. Your assertion that a
>varied diet meets all nutritional needs is based on a
>political statement first formulated by politicians, perhaps
>50 years ago. You are not even aware of how ignorant you are.

What is good to see is that wellknown researchers start to
accept that selenium deficiency is of concern and that
national products isn't always the best source of nutrients.

On the other side, I doubt that Norwegian researchers still
accept the fact that Se is important for your health. I have
been argumenting with many of them since around 1976 (when I
started studying selenium biochemistry and nutrition) and
still I meet the same arguments that it is far to toxic to
have any health aspects, only toxicologically. They have on
the other side decided to set a RDA value of 10-20 ug daily.
(In that case, also Norwegian wheat should be safe as source,
containing about the same as UK wheat today, giving around 15
ug daily. (I guess nationalistic proudness are the important
factor here and that agriculture lobbying is the deciders of
that value)

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:33:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>See my previous about treating the soil.

To repeat, we don't have alkaline soil, so fertilizers has to
be added lethal doses of Se to have any effects. (in additions
to lot of chalk and alike) And, there are no benefits for the
agriculture to do any changes. The only changes done is to
reduce the RDA value to fit what is available. It has been
steadily reduced along with reduced amount of selenium in food
so there is no reason to warn against too little selenium in
diet. That way, agriculture is not to be criticized, and
pharmaceutical industry can freely cash a lot on
selenium-deficiency diseases. (I have a feeling that if people
start to critize, pharmaceutical industry will start to use
their contacts in Pentagon, and Norway will be the next
country for aa visit :-) )

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:00:06 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 06:59:38 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>My supermarket is chockers with food from all over the
>>World. I imagine it is not very different from most other
>>developed areas.
>
>The problem over here is that most of the food is not marked
>where it comes from.

All our packaged food MUST be.(Or at least the bulk of the
ingredients)

>And for meat, you do not know whether a vet has been around
>and given the animal a dose or more of selenium or not. Sheep
>and pigs has to be injected with selenium now and then in
>order to not be ill. Like white muscle disease in sheep, a
>severe muscle disease which is quite usual over here in
>selenium free areas.

I'm sure we just fling a bit of Se about the countryside when
the deficiency is detected. You don't need much on our soils.
Perhaps yours are too acid. Want a parcel of limestone? Plenty
here, I'll post you a 90 kg block from the hundreds I have in
my front yard :)

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:27:00 -0400, "Ron" <ron@70707.org>
wrote:

>Even if you get your recommended daily requirements of
>selenium, but your intake of for instance zinc, magnesium, or
>a number of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury...) is above
>normal, then selenium metabolism will be inadequate
>*ratio-wise* and in a sense become "deficient."

When has it been published that zinc and magnesium intake
affect selenium metabolism in a negative way?? Heavy metals
on the other side form extremely little soluble salts with
selenium, also silver and gold. AgS is much more soluble than
AgSe, for example, and these are far more soluble than
mercury selenide

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:58:12 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 11:25:03 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>And haven't these animals then got problems, which the
>>farmer diagnoses, and treats the soil with Se?
>
>Finnland has tried to correct soil, but it is very difficult,
>in order not to get too high values (remember, inorganic
>arsenite is non-toxic compared to Se)

Is that a typo for Finland, Alf, or do you Norvegicus
personnae spell the land of the Finns that way? Or is is a
"in" joke?

Maybe our soil treatments are more successful coz of the
generally alkaline soils. You surely don't need much.

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:36:50 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>Is that a typo for Finland, Alf, or do you Norvegicus
>personnae spell the land of the Finns that way? Or is is a
>"in" joke?

Finnland is the way people of Finnland want it spelled.
Finland is considered a demeaned way of spelling it (don't ask
me why, each time I forget myself and spell it the old way,
and some of my friends over there see that way of spelling, I
get a warning :-)

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:36:50 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>Maybe our soil treatments are more successful coz of the
>generally alkaline soils. You surely don't need much.

In most of our lands it is sour and alkaline free. So we have
to add enormous amounts of Ca.

[Matti Nark]

Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:12:16 +0200 in article
<qe99lvcrrcih76vosjfre1k20hbuqbfg70@4ax.com> Alf
Christophersen <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Finnland is the way people of Finnland want it spelled.
>
Not exactly. English speaking people call our country Finland,
while in German language it is Finnland. We ourselves call it
Suomi, which is Finland in Finnish language.

--
Matti Narkia

[William A.]

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:sba9lv4oiee7uf62ibbjt4lfd50nbveifu@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:33:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
> <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
> >See my previous about treating the soil.
>
> To repeat, we don't have alkaline soil, so fertilizers has
> to be added lethal doses of Se to have any effects. (in
> additions to lot of chalk and alike) And, there are no
> benefits for the agriculture to do any changes. The only
> changes done is to reduce the RDA value to fit what is
> available. It has been steadily reduced along with reduced
> amount of selenium in food so there is no reason to warn
> against too little selenium in diet. That way, agriculture
> is not to be criticized, and pharmaceutical industry can
> freely cash a lot on selenium-deficiency diseases. (I have a
> feeling that if people start to critize, pharmaceutical
> industry will start to use their contacts in Pentagon, and
> Norway will be the next country for aa visit :-) )

I think they pretty much "own" you nation already. Indeed,
here in the States it looks like the R. Durbin/H. Clinton bill
among other will set the stage for supplements being removed
from the market. Further, expect the nation to become more
war-like if current trends continue. The current
Administration is seeking to breakdown the division of Church
and State. If the clerics and their religions get on the tax
based gravy train, they will serve the people up for all sorts
of military adventures and toxic social
experiments/oppressions as the decades progress. Even the
opposite party is weak kneed in front the designs of the
clerics. Their desire is to run public services not as has
been done the passed but with a free hand to discriminate.
Indeed, by executive orders some of this is becoming possible.
Their desire for public tax funds to run church based school
systems means that the common culture already in decline will
fade faster. Americans have forgotten the history of old
country i.e. religious intolerance, old church state religion
oppression and corruption.

To forget history results in the tendency to repeat of
history...... ......William A. Noyes

[Ken Leande]

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:sba9lv4oiee7uf62ibbjt4lfd50nbveifu@4ax.com... ...
> (I have a feeling that if people start to critize,
> pharmaceutical industry will start to use their contacts
> in Pentagon, and Norway will be the next country for aa
> visit :-) )

You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
killed almost every day in Iraq because Americans thought that
a mass murdering, torturing, thug like Saddam Hussein
shouldn't reign with impunity. I know it's not a European
concept to give a damn about such things (not until it's
happening to them). But, at the very least, you might suspect
that your off colored humor is not timely. :(

Ken

[John De Ho]

Ken Leander wrote...

> You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
> killed almost every day in Iraq because Americans thought
> that a mass murdering, torturing, thug like Saddam Hussein
> shouldn't reign with impunity

Revisionist! It was for the WMD, right? After all, there was a
time not so long ago when Cheney and Rummy thought Saddam was
a good investment.

--
John de Hoog http://dehoog.org

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:51:10 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> wrote:

>I think they pretty much "own" you nation already. Indeed,
>here in the States it looks like the R. Durbin/H. Clinton
>bill among other will set the stage for supplements being

Am afraid they have been for long time :-(

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:20:34 -0500, "Ken Leander"
<kleander@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
>killed almost every day in Iraq because Americans thought
>that a mass murdering, torturing, thug like Saddam Hussein
>shouldn't reign with impunity. I know it's not a European
>concept to give a damn about such things (not until it's
>happening to them). But, at the very least, you might suspect
>that your off colored humor is not timely. :(

If your people had chosen another guy for president than an
oil man whose friends got kicked out of Iraq many years ago
because nationalising the oil industry (I remember well the
US companies swearing that once in future, Iraq would pay the
bill), I think most of the guys had been doing other things
than being killed in Iraq. And it is this revenge culture
that make me utter such sayings. And, if you had been seeing
Norwegian TV or look at Norwegian stand up comedians, you
will find I'm not the only one. We have already so much US
owned industry here (that is, Norwegian industry bought up
forcily by US billionairs who dislike concurrents, like Freia
being bought by one of US biggest chokolate producers (we
just wait for the message that all Freia productions has been
moved either to US or to an Asian lowcost country :-( and so
applies to most of our industry, if we are not nice and ask
for more wages, all our industry employing us will be moved
to a low cost, Asian country by US share holders. It is our
reality :-( )

[Mj]

"Ken Leander" <kleander@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bj3mm3$loq$1@geraldo.
>
> You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
> killed almost
every
> day in Iraq because Americans thought that a mass murdering,
> torturing,
thug
> like Saddam Hussein shouldn't reign with impunity. I know
> it's not a
European
> concept to give a damn about such things (not until it's
> happening to
them).

Get this o/t shit out of the newsgroup NOW, before you are
made to EAT IT by people who *know* and *can prove* just how
recent, superficial, uninformed and insincere is all this *big
talk* about how 'Americans thought that a mass-murdering,
torturing thug shouldn't reign with impunity'.

MJ

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 -
2 August 1990 Prepared by Nathaniel Hurd. 15 July 2000
(updated 12 December 2001 by Nathaniel Hurd and Glen
Rangwala).

Before 1980
a.. Following the 1967 Arab-Israeli War Iraq severed
diplomatic relations with the U.S. In late 1979 the State
Department (SD) put Iraq on its list of States sponsoring
groups categorized by the SD as "terrorist."[1]

1980
b.. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) asserted in a
report that Iraq has been 'actively acquiring' Chemical
Weapons [CW] capacities since the mid-1970s.[2]

1982
c.. Despite intelligence reports that Iraq still sponsored
groups on the SD's terrorist list, and "apparently without
consulting Congress", the Reagan Administration removed
Iraq from the State terrorism sponsorship list in 1982.[3]
The removal made Iraq eligible for U.S. dual-use and
military technology.[4]

1983
d.. A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support
groups on the SD' s terrorist list.[5]
e.. Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW)
against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly
increased CW use in 1983. Reagan's Secretary of State,
George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on
Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year's
end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in
late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983,
giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD
and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of
Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]
f.. Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be
weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian
kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise
of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq
from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan
administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes
helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from
the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of
Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz)
lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq
of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying.
See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to
spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
g.. Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly
began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to
transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and
other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy's Prime
Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

1984
h.. The SD announced on 6 March that, based on "available
evidence," it "concluded" that Iraq used "lethal chemical
weapons" (specifically mustard gas) in fresh fighting with
Iran.[13] On 20 March, U.S. intelligence officials said
that they had "what they believe to be incontrovertible
evidence that Iraq has used nerve gas in its war with Iran
and has almost finished extensive sites for mass-producing
the lethal chemical warfare agent".[14]
i.. European-based doctors examined Iranian troops in March
1984 and confirmed exposure to mustard gas.[15] The UN
sent expert missions to the battle region in March 1984,
February/March 1986, April/May 1987, March/April 1988,
July 1988 (twice), and mid-August 1988. These missions
detailed and documented Iraq's CW use.[16]
j.. According to the Washington Post, the CIA began in 1984
secretly to gi ve Iraq intelligence that Iraq uses to
"calibrate" its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. In
August, the CIA establishes a direct Washington-Baghdad
intelligence link, and for 18 months, starting in early
1985, the CIA provided Iraq with "data from sensitive U.S.
satellite reconnaissance photography...to assist Iraqi
bombing raids." The Post's source said that this data was
essential to Iraq's war effort.[17]
k.. The United States re-established full diplomatic ties
with Iraq on 26 November,[18] just over a year after
Iraq's first well-publicized CW use and only 8 months
after the UN and U.S. reported that Iraq used CWs on
Iranian troops.

1985
l.. In 1985 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill
to put Iraq back on the State terrorism sponsorship
list.[19] After the bill's passage, Shultz wrote to the
bill's sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, cited the U.S.'
"diplomatic dialogue on this and other sensitive issues, "
claimed that "Iraq has effectively distanced itself from
international terrorism," and stated that if the U.S.
found that Iraq supports groups practicing terrorism "we
would promptly return Iraq to the list."[20] Rep. Berman
dropped the bill and explicitly cited Shultz's
assurances.[21]
m.. Iraq's Saad 16 General Establishment's director wrote a
letter to the Commerce Department (CD) detailing the
activities in Saad's 70 laboratories. These activities had
the trademarks of ballistic missile development.[22]

1986
n.. The Defense Department's (DOD) Under Secretary for Trade
Security Policy, Stephen Bryen, informed the Commerce
Department's (CD) Assistant Secretary for Trade
Administration in November that intelligence linked the
Saad 16 research center with ballistic missile
development.[23] Between 1985 and 1990, CD approved many
computer sales to Iraq that go directly to Saad
16. CD approved over $1 million worth of computer equipment
for sale to Saad 16 after Commerce received the
above-mentioned November letter from DOD.[24] As of 1991
Saad 16 reportedly contained up to 40% U.S.-origin
equipment.[25]

1988
a.. The CD approved exports in January and February to
Iraq's SCUD missile program's procurement agency. These
exports allowed Iraq to extend SCUD range far enough to
hit allied soldiers in Saudi Arabia and Israeli civilians
in Tel Aviv and Haifa.[26]
b.. On 23 March, London's Financial Times and several other
news organizations reported from Halabja, located in Iraqi
Kurdistan, that several days prior Iraq used CWs on
Halabja's Kurds.[27]
c.. In May, two months after the Halabja assault, Peter
Burleigh, Assistant Secretary of State in charge of
northern Gulf affairs, encouraged U.S.-Iraqi corporate
cooperation at a symposium hosted by the U.S.-Iraq
Business Forum. The U.S.-Iraq Business Forum had strong
(albeit unofficial) ties to the Iraqi government.[28]
d.. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a team
to Turkey to speak to Iraqi Kurdish refugees and assess
reports that Iraq "was using chemical weapons on its
Kurdish population."[29] This report reaffirmed that
between 1984 and 1988 "Iraq repeatedly and effectively
used poison gas on Iran," the UN missions' findings, and
the chemical attack on Halabja that left an estimated
4,000 people dead.[30]
e.. Following the Halabja attack and Iraq's August CW
offensive against Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. Senate unanimously
passed on 8 September the "Prevention of Genocide Act of
1988" the day after it is introduced.[31] The act cuts off
from Iraq U.S. loans, military and non-military
assistance, credits, credit guarantees, items subject to
export controls, and U.S. imports of Iraqi oil.[32]
f.. Immediately after the bill's passage the Reagan
Administration announced its opposition to the bill,[33]
and SD spokesman Charles Redman called the bill
"premature".[34] The Administration works with House
opponents to a House companion bill, and after numerous
legislation compromises and end-of-session haggling, the
Senate bill died "on the last day of the legislative
session".[35]
g.. According to a 15 September news report, Reagan
Administration officials stated that the U.S. intercepted
Iraqi military communications marking Iraq's CW attacks on
Kurds.[36]
h.. U.S. intelligence reported in 1991 that the U.S.
helicopters sold to Iraq in 1983 were used in 1988 to
spray Kurds with chemicals.[37]
i.. "Reagan administration records show that between
September and December 1988, 65 licenses were granted for
dual-use technology exports. This averages out as an
annual rate of 260 licenses, more than double the rate for
January through August 1988."[38]
j.. A general note about the Security Council's reaction to
Iraq's CW use. Between 1984 and the implementation of the
ceasefire on 20 August 1988 the UN Security Council passed
six resolutions directly or indirectly related to the
"situation between Iran and Iraq." In 1984, Security
Council Resolution (SCR) 552 "condemns [Iran's] recent
attack on commercial ship en route to and from ports of
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia"[39] but it did not pass a
resolution on the Iran-Iraq War generally or the UN expert
mission's chemical weapons March findings specifically.
During all of 1985 the Security Council did not pass a
resolution on the "situation between Iran and Iraq" or
Iraq's chemical weapons use therein. Although the UN's
expert mission concluded in March 1986 that Iraq used
chemical weapons on Iranian troops,[40] SCR 582 (1986)
symmetrically noted "that both the Islamic Republic of
Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the
Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous
and Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
signed at Geneva on 7 June 1925"[41] and "deplores...in
particular the use of chemical weapons contrary to
obligations under the 1925 Protocol".[42] Resolution 588
(1986) did not mention chemical weapons.[43] In 20 July
1987, SCR 598 again deplored "in particular the use
chemical weapons contrary to obligations of the 1925
Protocol",[44] but does not elaborate. After considering
the expert mission's 25 April 1988 report, the Security
Council in Resolution 612 is "dismayed" by chemical
weapons' continued use and "more intensive scale".[45]
Furthermore, the Council "affirms the necessity that" both
parties observe the 1925 Geneva Protocol, "condemns
vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons" and
"expects both sides to refrain from the future use of
chemical weapons".[46] SCR 619 (1988) focused on
implementing the United Nations Iran-Iraq Military
Observer Group and did not mention chemical weapons.[47]
After the ceasefire, the Security Council considered the
reports of the expert missions from 20-25 July and 2-19
August 1988 and stated in SCR 620 that it is "deeply
dismayed" by the "continued use of chemical weapons" and
that "such use against Iranians has become more intense
and frequent".[48] Despite identifying Iranians as more
frequent chemical weapons targets, the Security Council
did not condemn Iraq. Rather, the Security Council
"condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the
conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Iraq"[49]. All of the subsequent four resolutions, passed
between 1989-1990 and relevant to "the situation between
Iran and Iraq," pertained to the United Nations Iran-Iraq
Military Observer Group and as such omitted any reference
to chemical weapons use.[50]

The Security Council could only condemn Iraq by name for
using chemical weapons through non-binding Presidential
statements, over which permanent members of the Security
Council do not have an individual veto. On 21 March 1986,
the Security Council President, making a "declaration" and
"speaking on behalf of the Security Council," stated that
the Council members are "profoundly concerned by the
unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical
weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces
against Iranian troops...[and] the members of the Council
strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in
clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which
prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons".[51] The US
voted against the issuance of this statement, and the UK,
Australia, France and Denmark abstained. However, the
concurring votes of the other ten members of the Security
Council ensured that this statement constituted the first
criticism of Iraq by the Security Council. A similar
Presidential statement was made on 14 May 1987, which noted
that the Council was "deeply dismayed" about the CW use
against Iranian forces and civilians.

1989
k.. In March, CIA director William Webster testified before
Congress that Iraq was the largest CW producer in the
world.[52]
l.. James Baker received an SD memo stating that Iraq was
diligently developing chemical, biological, and new
missiles, and that Baker was to "express our interest in
broadening U.S.-Iraqi ties" to Iraqi Under-Secretary
Hamdoon.[53]
m.. Although the CIA and the Bush Administration knew that
Iraq's Ministry of Industry and Military Industrialization
(MIMI) "controlled entities were involved in Iraq's
clandestine nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
programs and missile programs ... the Bush administration
[approved] dozens of export licenses that [allowed] United
States and foreign firms to ship sophisticated U.S.
dual-use equipment to MIMI-controlled weapons
factories".[54]
n.. By October 1989, when all international banks had cut
off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security
Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1
billion in agricultural loan guarantees. These guarantees
freed for Iraq hard cash to continue to buy and develop
WMDs, and are suspended only on 2 August 1990, the same
day that Iraq invaded Kuwait. Richard Haass, then a
National Security Council official, and Robert Kimmitt,
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, also told
the Commerce Department (CD) not to single Iraq out for
dual-use technology restrictions.[55]
o.. When one American firm twice contacted the CD with
concerns that their product could be used for nuclear
weapons (NW) and ballistic missiles, the CD simply
requested Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use,
said that a license and review was unnecessary, and
convinced the company that shipment was acceptable.[56]

1990
p.. From July 18 to 1 August (Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2
August) the Bush Administration approved $4.8 million in
advanced technology product sales to Iraq. End-buyers
included MIMI and Saad 16. Mimi was identified in 1988 as
a facility for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
programs. In 1989 Saad was linked to CW and NW
development.[57]
q.. The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of
advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq
invades Kuwait.[58] Overview
r.. Items sent from the U.S. during the Reagan and Bush
Administrations that helped Iraq's non-conventional
weapons programs and that were shipped to known military
industrial facilities include:
s.. Computers to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear
weapons;[59] machine tools and lasers to extend
ballistic missile range;[60] graphics terminals to
design and analyze rockets;[61] West Nile Fever virus, a
known potential BW agent, sent by the U.S. government's
Centers for Disease Control (CDC);[62] the agents for
botulism, tetnus, and anthrax.[63]
t.. One study lists 207 firms from 21 countries that
contributed to Iraq's non-conventional weapons program
during and after the Iran-Iraq war. E.g., West German
(86); British (18); Austrian (17); French (16); Italian
(12); Swiss (11); and American (18).[64]
u.. Throughout the U.S. exports to Iraq, several agencies
were supposed to review items relevant to national
security or that could be diverted for a nuclear program.
The reviewers included the SD, DOD, Energy Department,
Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination (included
representatives from Commerce Dept., Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency (ACDA), the intelligence community, and
DOD).[65] Sometimes CD did not send items to reviewers. On
other occasions, reviewers objected, and CD still approved
the items. Stephen Bryen, Deputy Under Secretary of DOD
for Trade Security Policy during the second Reagan
Administration, claimed that the DOD objected to 40% of
applications that CD actually sent to DOD for review.
Compare with a 5% DOD objection rate to dual-use
technology applications for export to the U.S.S.R. during
that same time period.[66]

--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
----

Footnotes
[1] Mark Phythian, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain
Secretly Built Saddam's War Machine, (Boston:
Northeastern University Press, 1997), p. 11.
[2] Phythian, pp. 73-74. Phythian cites Financial Times, 23
February 1983.
[3] Milt Freudenheim, Barbara Slavin and William C. Rhoden,
"The World in Summary; Readjustments In the Mideast", New
York Times, 28 February 1982.
[4] Phythian, p. 34.
[5] Bruce W. Jentleson, With Friends Like These: Reagan,
Bush, and Saddam, 1982-1990, (New York: W.W. Norton,
1994), p. 52.
[6] Leonard A. Cole, The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of
Biological and Chemical Warfare, (New York: W.H. Freeman,
1997), p. 87. Shultz's comment is from George P. Shultz,
Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1993), p. 238, quoted in
Jentleson, p.
7.
[8] "CW Use in Iran-Iraq War", declassified on 2 July 1996
and placed on the website of the Federation of American
Scientists.
[9] Phythian, pp. 37-38.
[10] Phythian, p. 37.
[11] Phythian, p. 38. Phythian cites former NSC official
Howard Teicher and Radley Gayle, Twin Pillars to Desert
Storm: America's Flawed Vision in the Middle East from
Nixon to Bush, (New York: William Morrow, 1993), p. 275.
[12]Phythian, p. 35. Phythian cites Murray Waas and Craig
Unger, "In the Loop: Bush's Secret Mission," New
Yorker, p. 70.
[13] Phythian, p. 36. Phythian cites Alan Friedman, Spider's
Web: Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit,
(London: Faber, 1993), pp. 81-84.
[14] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Says
Iraqis Used Poison Gas Against Iranians in Latest
Battles," New York Times, (March 6, 1984) for State
Department quote.
[15] Cole, p. 243, n36. See Seymour M. Hersh, "U.S. Aides Say
Iraqis Made Use of a Nerve Gas," New York Times (March
30, 1984). Quotation marks are for Hersh's words.
[16] Jentleson, p. 76.
[17] Jentleson, p. 76.
[18] Bob Woodward, "CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War; Target Data
From U.S. Satellites Supplied for Nearly 2 Years,"
Washington Post, 15 December 1986.
[19] Bernard Gwertzman, "U.S. Restores Full Ties With Iraq But
Cites Neutrality in Gulf War," New York Times, 27
November 1984.
[20] Jentleson, p. 54.
[21] Jentleson, p. 54. Jentleson quotes from Letter from
Secretary of State George Shultz to Congressman Howard L.
Berman, 20 June 1985.
[22] Jentleson, p. 54.
[23] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee
on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic
Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in
Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening
the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.11.
[24] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening
the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para.10.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid, para.9.
[27] Prepared statement of Gary Milhollin, director, Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control, before the Subcommittee
on Technology and National Security of the Joint Economic
Committee of the U.S. Congress, 23 April 1991. Cited in
Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening
the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991, para. 25.
[28] Andrew Gowers and Richard Johns, "Iraq Uses Chemical
Bombs on Its Own Citizens, " The Financial Times, 23
March 1988.
[29] Jentleson, p. 84-85.
[30] Peter W. Galbraith and Christopher van Hollen, Jr., staff
report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S.
Senate, Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan: Iraq's Final
Offensive, October 1988, p. v.
[31] Galbraith and van Hollen, p. 30.
[32] Jentleson, p. 78.
[33] U.S. Senate, "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," 100th
Congress, 2nd session, 8 September 1988.
[34] Jentleson, p. 78.
[35] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on
Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[36] Jentleson, p. 78.
[37] Robert Pear, "U.S. Says It Monitored Iraqi Messages on
Gas," New York Times, 15 September 1988.
[38] Henry Weinstein and William C. Rempel, "Big Help from
U.S.; Technology was Sold with Approval -- and
Encouragement -- from the Commerce Department but Often
over Defense Officials' Objections," The Los Angeles
Times, 13 February 1991.
[39] Jentleson, p. 88. Jentleson cites U.S. Department of
Commerce, "Approved Licenses to Iraq, 1985-1990".
[40] S/Res/552, 1 June 1984, paragraph 4.
[41] Nick Ludington, "U.N. Says Iraq Used Poison Gas in War
Against Iran," The Associated Press, 14 March 1986.
[42] S/Res/582, 24 February 1986, preamble.
[43] S/Res/552, 24 February 1986, para. 2.
[44] S/Res/588, 8 October 1986
[45] S/Res/598, 20 July 1987, preamble
[46] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, preamble
[47] S/Res/612, 9 May 1988, para. 1-3
[48] S/Res/619, 9 August 1988
[49] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, preamble
[50] S/Res/620, 26 August 1988, para. 1
[51] S/Res/631, 8 February 1989; S/Res/242, 29 September 1989;
S/Res/251, 29 March 1990; S/Res/671, 27 September 1990;
and S/Res/676, 28 November 1990
[52] S/17911 and Add. 1, 21 March 1986. Note that this is a
"decision" and not a resolution.
[53] Jentleson, p. 106. Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations, "Chemical and Biological
Weapons Threat: The Urgent Need for Remedies," Hearings,
101st Congress, 1st Session, 1 March 1989, pp. 27-45.
[54] Jentleson, p. 107. Jentleson cites and quotes State
Department memorandum, "Meeting with Iraqi Under
Secretary Hamdoon," 24 March 1989.
[55] Statement by Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Tex), "Details on
Iraq's Procurement Network," 102nd Congress, 2nd session,
10 August 1992.
[56] Douglas Frantz and Murray Waas, "Bush Secret Effort
Helped Iraq Build It's War Machine," Los Angeles Times,
23 February 1992.
[57] Jentleson, p. 110.
[58] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening
the Export Licensing System" .
[59] Stuart Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq",
Washington Post, 11 March 1991.
[60] Sub-committee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs
of the House Committee on Government Operations,
"Strengthening the Export Licensing System," 2 July 1991.
[61] Committee on Government Operations, House,
"Strengthening the Export Licensing System", 2 July
1991, section "National Security vs. Export Promotion:
Sales to Iraq," para. 16.
[62] Auerbach, "$1.5 Billion in U.S. Sales to Iraq".
[63] Committee on Government Operations, House, "Strengthening
the Export Licensing System".
[64] Cole, p. 85. Cole cites U.S. Senate, a report by chairman
Donald W. Riegle, Jr., and ranking member Alfonse M.
D'Amato of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related
Dual Use Exports to Iraq and Their Possible Impact on the
Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War, May 25,
1994, pp. 39-41.
[65] Cole, p. 82. Cole cites Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Poison
Gas Connection, (Los Angeles: Simon Wiesenthal Center,
1990) p. 46.
[66] Kenneth R. Timmerman, The Death Lobby: How the West
Armed Iraq, (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1991), pp. 202
and 410 n5.
[67] Jentleson, p. 62, Jentleson cites U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives, Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban
Affairs, "Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL)," Hearing,
102nd Congress, 1st Session, 9 April 1991, p. 79.

[Mj]

Sorry, but this part of the thread is now closing down. Thanks
for playing.

Discussion of *nutrition* and *related topics* continues
elsewhere...

MJ

"John de Hoog" <dehoog@dehoog.org> wrote in message
news:20030902233643.510$5c@news.newsreader.com...
> Ken Leander wrote...
>
> > You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
> > killed almost every day in Iraq because Americans thought
> > that a mass murdering, torturing, thug like Saddam Hussein
> > shouldn't reign with impunity
>
> Revisionist! It was for the WMD, right? After all, there was
> a time not so long ago when Cheney and Rummy thought Saddam
> was a good investment.
>
> --
> John de Hoog http://dehoog.org

[Mj]

Sorry, but this part of the thread is now closing down. Thanks
for playing.

Discussion of *nutrition* and *related topics* continues
elsewhere...

MJ

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:1gjblv8cp5sen5ek8ckeom8tpqm6u3qcha@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:20:34 -0500, "Ken Leander"
> <kleander@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
> >killed almost
every
> >day in Iraq because Americans thought that a mass
> >murdering, torturing,
thug
> >like Saddam Hussein shouldn't reign with impunity. I know
> >it's not a
European
> >concept to give a damn about such things (not until it's
> >happening to
them).
> >But, at the very least, you might suspect that your off
> >colored humor is
not
> >timely. :(
>
> If your people had chosen another guy for president than an
> oil man whose friends got kicked out of Iraq many years ago
> because nationalising the oil industry (I remember well the
> US companies swearing that once in future, Iraq would pay
> the bill), I think most of the guys had been doing other
> things than being killed in Iraq. And it is this revenge
> culture that make me utter such sayings. And, if you had
> been seeing Norwegian TV or look at Norwegian stand up
> comedians, you will find I'm not the only one. We have
> already so much US owned industry here (that is, Norwegian
> industry bought up forcily by US billionairs who dislike
> concurrents, like Freia being bought by one of US biggest
> chokolate producers (we just wait for the message that all
> Freia productions has been moved either to US or to an Asian
> lowcost country :-( and so applies to most of our industry,
> if we are not nice and ask for more wages, all our industry
> employing us will be moved to a low cost, Asian country by
> US share holders. It is our reality :-( )

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:11:13 -0400, "Larry Hoover"
<larryhoover@sympatico.ca> posted:

>> Mooshie peas wrote:
>
>> > What bothers me is how these folk know that they are
>> > deficient in selenium.
>
>They know they are deficient in selenium because dietary
>analyses have been conducted. Real scientists, doing lab
>work, collecting data. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with
>empiricism?

And that's how they found the following, I suppose.

Food Micrograms % DV* Brazil nuts, dried, unblanched, 1 oz 840
1200 Tuna, canned in oil, drained, 3 1/2 oz 78 111 Beef / calf
liver, 3 oz 48 69 Cod, cooked, dry heat, 3 oz 40 57 Noodles,
enriched, boiled, 1 c 35 50 Macaroni and cheese (box mix), 1 c
32 46 Turkey, breast, oven roasted, 3 1/2 oz 31 44
Macaroni,elbow, enriched, boiled, 1 c 30 43 Spaghetti w/ meat
sauce, 1 c 25 36 Chicken, meat only, 1/2 breast 24 34 Beef
chuck roast, lean only, oven roasted, 3 oz 23 33 Bread,
enriched, whole wheat, 2 slices 20 29 Oatmeal, 1 c cooked 16
23 Egg, raw, whole, 1 large 15 21 Bread, enriched, white, 2
slices 14 20 Rice, enriched, long grain,cooked, 1 c 14 20
Cottage cheese, lowfat 2%, 1/2 c 11 16 Walnuts, black, dried,
1 oz 5 7 Cheddar cheese, 1 oz 4 6

Now what I want to know, is how do they know how much of this
you or I eat. Or don't eat. Are they measuring the folks who
eat a typical crap diet?

>>> If you eat a varied wholefood diet, you won't be deficient
>> > in anything.
>
>What bothers me, Mooshie dear, is how you have such a high
>opinion of your false assumptions. You seem unable to
>separate fact from theory. The theory that a varied
>wholefood diet prevents nutrient deficiencies has never been
>shown to be true.

More to the point, it has never been shown to cause a
deficiency problem -- not just a theoretical shortfall from
some RDA or other, but a real problem. Empiricism I believe :)
Larry Dear.

>If I'm wrong, prove it.

I thought your grasp of the concept of science was better than
that, Larry Dear. I can't prove a lack of a problem. I've
looked for problems and found none. If you can point me to
some, I will be eternally grateful, Larry Dear.

>but I'm telling you, your statement is a statement of faith,
>not fact.

All hypotheses not yet falsified are thus, surely.

>Never once proven. Not even extrapolated from existing
>evidence. It was conjured up out of "thin air".

No, it's the advice from the distant past that has endured til
today, and has not yet been falsified. Please.... If you can.

>Recent changes in international trade practises, such as the
>development of the EU, have reduced the amount of North
>American wheat entering Europe. It turns out that this staple
>food had been the sole major source of selenium for the vast
>majority of the population in some rather large regions of
>Europe, e.g. the British Isles.

So they eat little of the foods listed above? They should vary
their diet more IMHO. But you appear to disagree with this
simple advice.

>Average selenium intake has been falling for a number of
>years, in any case, but it has fallen precipitously over the
>last few years due to this single change in trade. Selenium
>deficiency-related diseases are already on the increase.

In China? Or in Europe?

>Rather than simply denouncing people who post abstracts (you
>*can* read, can't you?), why don't you read a few of the
>abstracts I posted in the megavitamin thread.

None of them showed any problems with an unsupplemented
varied, wholefood diet. Show us one of these and I will read
it as relevant to my point. I will even change my mind. Not
unknown, but I've learned from long experience that to go
with the latest fad will only have you meeting yourself
coming back.

>Your last statement, above, is demonstrably false,

OK, badly put. I should have said that "If you eat a
varied, wholefood diet, you won't suffer any deficiency
problem, if you haven't got any metabolic disorders, of
course. My point is, just because it might be shown that
this or that RDA has not quite been achieved, does this
mean that a problem will occur.

>and I have provided sufficient evidence of that, in those
>abstracts.

Yes, you have demonstrated that some folks don't get this or
that RDA, but you haven't shown that folks who eat a varied,
wholefood diet will suffer any deficiency problem.

>And, BTW, I am a practising scientist,

OK you've got a PhD, I'm impressed.

>and I understand all of what I post (abstracts),

But as you don't work in the specific field, how do you weight
the significance of the finding in the scheme of things?

>and its significance to the discussion, or I would not post
>it. So blow that argument out your ass, OK?

You don't sound like a scientist, Larry Dear. You sound like
an angry little man. The papers you claim to understand just
don't have relevance to a varied, wholefood diet, sorry. If
you can't see that obvious point, I haven't much faith in you
as a scientist.

>My opinions are backed by fact.

Really? That's a funny thing for a self-proclaimed scientist
to assert, but then probably not :)

>They are formed from calm reflection upon empirical evidence.

Evidence of folk eating a varied wholefood diet all their
lives not having deficiency problems? Must have been different
"facts" than I read.

>Your assertion that a varied diet meets all nutritional needs
>is based on a political statement first formulated by
>politicians, perhaps 50 years ago. You are not even aware of
>how ignorant you are.

Good scientific argument. The diet I cite has been the basis
for expert advice down the ages. I've looked for it and seen
the common thread behind every latest fashion fad.

BTW, get it right, it's "varied WHOLEFOOD diet". No wonder you
don't seem to understand, Larry Dear :)

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:27:00 -0400, "Ron" <ron@70707.org>
posted:

>>"Larry Hoover" <larryhoover@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> > > Mooshie peas wrote: What bothers me is how these folk
>> > > know that they are deficient in selenium.
>>
>> They know they are deficient in selenium because dietary
>> analyses have been conducted.
>>
>> > > If you eat a varied wholefood diet, you won't be
>> > > deficient in anything.
>>
>> The theory that a varied wholefood diet prevents nutrient
>> deficiencies has never been shown to be true.
>--
>You both miss the point. A varied wholefood diet will provide
>all the essential (DRI) nutrients, but it doesn't solve the
>problem of individual genetic shortcomings, with its
>individual excesses and deficiencies. Even if you get your
>recommended daily requirements of selenium, but your intake
>of for instance zinc, magnesium, or a number of heavy metals
>(lead, cadmium, mercury...) is above normal, then selenium
>metabolism will be inadequate *ratio-wise* and in a sense
>become "deficient."
>
>For the same reason no multi-vitamin / mineral formulation -
>no matter how "optimally" formulated - will ever normalize
>anyone's chemistry. This is only possible by individually
>analyzing someone's chemistry and then taking care of as many
>nutritional highs and lows as resources allow.
>
>Of course don't expect your family doctor to send you
>"next door" to get this analysis done, since there are
>not only very few places around the world that are
>capable of accurately measuring your nutritional
>shortcomings, but it also takes a lot of nutritional
>know-how to resolve them. --Ron
>

But bottom line is, there is NO evidence that this
"normalising of chemistry" is of any benefit, eventually.

[Alf Christ]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:29:41 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>Now what I want to know, is how do they know how much of this
>you or I eat. Or don't eat. Are they measuring the folks who
>eat a typical crap diet?

Most of the values mentioned are valid only in the country
where the analyzes are done.

For bread over here, the values are much lower. But in
intake, bread dominate totally, weighed in gram throughout a
year. Brazil nuts are full of Se, but how many nuts do people
eat annually. For my part it is 0. (Never eaten it since
being a child and then I got a terrible rash). Maybe I eat 15
boxes of tuna during a year, it doesns't make mg of Se
throughout a year. But with 5 bread pieces daily, that could
have made an amount, but when the concentration is divided
with almost 4 during few years, the total amount declines
dramatically if you are not taking supplements. I for my part
take 400 ug daily.

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:27:00 -0400, "Ron" <ron@70707.org>
wrote:

>For the same reason no multi-vitamin / mineral formulation -
>no matter how "optimally" formulated - will ever normalize
>anyone's chemistry. This is only possible by individually
>analyzing someone's chemistry and then taking care of as many
>nutritional highs and lows as resources allow.

There is a far better way to measure selenium chemical
activity in cells. Measure activities of the selenoenzymes
like GSH-Px and the other known enzymes. Then you know much
better how good the correct incorporation is.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 18:51:10 +0800, "William A. Noyes"
<no.address@ctc.net> posted:

>
>"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
>wrote in message
>news:sba9lv4oiee7uf62ibbjt4lfd50nbveifu@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:33:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
>> <almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>>
>> >See my previous about treating the soil.
>>
>> To repeat, we don't have alkaline soil, so fertilizers has
>> to be added lethal doses of Se to have any effects. (in
>> additions to lot of chalk and alike) And, there are no
>> benefits for the agriculture to do any changes. The only
>> changes done is to reduce the RDA value to fit what is
>> available. It has been steadily reduced along with reduced
>> amount of selenium in food so there is no reason to warn
>> against too little selenium in diet. That way, agriculture
>> is not to be criticized, and pharmaceutical industry can
>> freely cash a lot on selenium-deficiency diseases. (I have
>> a feeling that if people start to critize, pharmaceutical
>> industry will start to use their contacts in Pentagon, and
>> Norway will be the next country for aa visit :-) )
>
>I think they pretty much "own" you nation already. Indeed,
>here in the States it looks like the R. Durbin/H. Clinton
>bill among other will set the stage for supplements being
>removed from the market. Further, expect the nation to become
>more war-like if current trends continue. The current
>Administration is seeking to breakdown the division of Church
>and State. If the clerics and their religions get on the tax
>based gravy train, they will serve the people up for all
>sorts of military adventures and toxic social
>experiments/oppressions as the decades progress. Even the
>opposite party is weak kneed in front the designs of the
>clerics. Their desire is to run public services not as has
>been done the passed but with a free hand to discriminate.
>Indeed, by executive orders some of this is becoming
>possible. Their desire for public tax funds to run church
>based school systems means that the common culture already in
>decline will fade faster. Americans have forgotten the
>history of old country i.e. religious intolerance, old church
>state religion oppression and corruption.
>
>To forget history results in the tendency to repeat of
>history...... ......William A. Noyes
>
>
>>
>

Hey, Noisy, do you think you could fix your computer clock?
Your messages appear right up the list. Your answers appear to
come before things that you are attempting to respond to.
Everyone else can get it right. Lucky Nick doesn't have to
adjust his :)

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:12:18 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:33:42 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>See my previous about treating the soil.
>
>To repeat, we don't have alkaline soil, so fertilizers has to
>be added lethal doses of Se to have any effects. (in
>additions to lot of chalk and alike) And, there are no
>benefits for the agriculture to do any changes. The only
>changes done is to reduce the RDA value to fit what is
>available. It has been steadily reduced along with reduced
>amount of selenium in food so there is no reason to warn
>against too little selenium in diet. That way, agriculture is
>not to be criticized, and pharmaceutical industry can freely
>cash a lot on selenium-deficiency diseases. (I have a feeling
>that if people start to critize, pharmaceutical industry will
>start to use their contacts in Pentagon, and Norway will be
>the next country for aa visit :-) )

I think I've asked you before, Alf, but what is wrong with
this American site?
http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/selen.html#food

[Ron]

>"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
> >"Ron" <ron@70707.org> posted: For the same reason no
> >multi-vitamin / mineral formulation - no matter how
> >"optimally" formulated - will ever normalize anyone's
> >chemistry. This is only possible by individually analyzing
> >someone's chemistry and then taking care of as many
> >nutritional highs and lows as resources allow.
> >
> >Of course don't expect your family doctor to send you
> >"next door" to get this analysis done, since there are
> >not only very few places around the world that are
> >capable of accurately measuring your nutritional
> >shortcomings, but it also takes a lot of nutritional
> >know-how to resolve them. --Ron
> >
>
> But bottom line is, there is NO evidence that this
> "normalising of chemistry" is of any benefit, eventually.
--
For most studies done on groups who did, or did not take
nutritional supplements, the evidence was mixed, or at best
weak in favor of supplementation, however no one's chemistry
was optimized by analyzing what they really needed - they were
all given the same supplements! If done selectively, after
first analyzing individual requirements, then yes, people will
largely benefit from optimized chemistry.

Consider a small sample of nutritional imbalances that can
result from a specific dietary life style, genetics, or as
part of aging, and then look at the consequences if left
untreated:

* Osteoporosis. Breaking a hip tremendously reduces longevity
or quality of life. You can reduce a nutritionally induced
risk by normalizing (among others) the status of calcium,
phosphorus, magnesium, fluoride, chromium, stomach acid, Vit
C, D, K...

* Arthritis (some types). Correct copper / sulfur
conflicts, also calcium, phosphorus, chromium, magnesium,
sodium, Vit B5...

* Meniere's Disease (falling reduces life expectancy).
Correct iron, sodium, potassium, folic acid, magnesium, Vit
A, Co-Q10...

* Depression. Correct calcium, magnesium, copper, iron,
iodine, manganese, sodium, potassium, Vit B1, B6, B12, Vit
C, inositol...

* Pernicious Anemia / nerve damage, preserve chromosome
integrity with Vit B12, folic acid...

* Congestive heart disease / arrhythmia. Correct sodium,
potassium, magnesium, calcium, zinc, Co-Q10...

* Cancer Prevention through adequate antioxidant / nutritional
support, which include excessive or deficient levels of
copper, calcium, zinc, selenium, molybdenum, phosphorus,
chlorine, iron, Vit A, Vit C, Vit E, Vit D, folic acid, beta
carotene, IP6, allium, flavonoids, ellagic acid, flax seed,
pancreatin, EFAs...

Many other conditions benefit from nutritional intervention,
including digestive problems, anxieties, dermatitis,
headaches, fatigue, goiter, menstrual / menopausal symptoms,
bruising, night blindness, postpartum depression, tachycardia,
muscle cramps, asthma, insomnia, anemia, prostatitis, etc,
etc, --Ron

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:35:12 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 11:29:41 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>Now what I want to know, is how do they know how much of
>>this you or I eat. Or don't eat. Are they measuring the
>>folks who eat a typical crap diet?
>
>Most of the values mentioned are valid only in the country
>where the analyzes are done.

Or in fact only for the foods analysed :)

>For bread over here, the values are much lower. But in
>intake, bread dominate totally, weighed in gram
>throughout a year.

But you surely get a lot of imported food like we do, of has
the EU totally isolated your food supplies?

>Brazil nuts are full of Se, but how many nuts do people eat
>annually. For my part it is 0. (Never eaten it since being
>a child and then I got a terrible rash). Maybe I eat 15
>boxes of tuna during a year, it doesns't make mg of Se
>throughout a year. But with 5 bread pieces daily, that
>could have made an amount, but when the concentration is
>divided with almost 4 during few years, the total amount
>declines dramatically if you are not taking supplements. I
>for my part take 400 ug daily.

Yep, you appear to be in a problematic situation. Both EU
and US would benefit from agricultural deregulation in so
many ways.

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:29:18 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>I think I've asked you before, Alf, but what is wrong with
>this American site?
>http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/selen.html#food

Why do you asc?? Maybe a little low RDA value. The Scottish
data seem to point that RDA maybe rather should be btw. 80
and 100 ug.

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:29:18 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>I think I've asked you before, Alf, but what is wrong with
>this American site?
>http://www.cc.nih.gov/ccc/supplements/selen.html#food

Is it the food values?? They are only usable for US citizens.
Our analyses are most often different (and far lower, very few
of them above 10 mcg(ug) pr 100 g food :-( )

[William A.]

"> >To forget history results in the tendency to repeat of
history......
> >......William A. Noyes
> >
> >
> >>
> >
>
>
> Hey, Noisy, do you think you could fix your computer clock?
> Your messages appear right up the list. Your answers appear
> to come before things that you are attempting to respond to.
> Everyone else can get it right. Lucky Nick doesn't have to
> adjust his :)

I happy along as it is the right month:-) You must understand,
I am a time traveler:-) It's the way to get good stock
analysis:-)

current local time is 6:30 pm daylights saving time 04
September 2003

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:16:05 GMT, Mooshie peas
<almostnothing@very.little> wrote:

>But you surely get a lot of imported food like we do, of has
>the EU totally isolated your food supplies?

For wheat, yes. We have to pay enormous amounts of customs
when importing from non-EU countries :-( Making Canada or US
wheat far more expensive than it was just a few years ago.
European wheat is almost free of Se.

One solution might be to import very tiny amounts of
Se-poisoned wheat from Mid-West US where wheat production
today is prohibited because Se-concentrations are far too high
and lethal to animals eating it directly. Mixing the flour at
levels of eg. 1 promille or so, should provide enough. But
there are problems here making the flour evenly distributed so
there is no chances that one kg packet contains more or less
all of it and thus kills a family or two eating the products
from that toxic pack :-(

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:44:51 GMT, Matti Narkia
<mnng@despammed.com> posted:

>Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:12:16 +0200 in article
><qe99lvcrrcih76vosjfre1k20hbuqbfg70@4ax.com> Alf
>Christophersen <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> wrote:
>>
>>Finnland is the way people of Finnland want it spelled.
>>
>Not exactly. English speaking people call our country
>Finland, while in German language it is Finnland. We
>ourselves call it Suomi, which is Finland in Finnish
>language.

Ahh, interesting, Thanks.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:12:16 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:36:50 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>Is that a typo for Finland, Alf, or do you Norvegicus
>>personnae spell the land of the Finns that way? Or is is a
>>"in" joke?
>
>Finnland is the way people of Finnland want it spelled.
>Finland is considered a demeaned way of spelling it (don't
>ask me why, each time I forget myself and spell it the old
>way, and some of my friends over there see that way of
>spelling, I get a warning :-)

Thanks, I'll take the hint

[Mooshie Pe]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:12:16 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> posted:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 13:36:50 GMT, Mooshie peas
><almostnothing@very.little> wrote:
>
>>Maybe our soil treatments are more successful coz of the
>>generally alkaline soils. You surely don't need much.
>
>In most of our lands it is sour and alkaline free. So we have
>to add enormous amounts of Ca.

The "not much" referred to Se, I am fully aware of how much
limestone is required to sweeten sour land.

Even more difficult to acidify calcareous land :)

[Alf Christ]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:44:51 GMT, Matti Narkia
<mnng@despammed.com> wrote:

>in German language it is Finnland. We ourselves call it
>Suomi, which is Finland in Finnish language.

I was mostly thinking about the Swedish-talking population who
still call it Finnland, not Suomi :-) They get very angry when
I by accident spell it Finland, also in English texts :-(

[Ken Leande]

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:1gjblv8cp5sen5ek8ckeom8tpqm6u3qcha@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:20:34 -0500, "Ken Leander"
> <kleander@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You know Alf, we still have young American soldiers being
> >killed almost every day in Iraq because Americans thought
> >that a mass murdering, torturing, thug like Saddam Hussein
> >shouldn't reign with impunity. I know it's not a
European
> >concept to give a damn about such things (not until it's
> >happening to them). But, at the very least, you might
> >suspect that your off colored humor is not timely. :(
>
> If your people had chosen another guy for president than an
> oil man whose friends got kicked out of Iraq many years ago
> because nationalising the oil industry (I remember well the
> US companies swearing that once in future, Iraq would pay
> the bill), I think most of the guys had been doing other
> things than being killed in Iraq. And it is this revenge
> culture that make me utter such sayings. And, if you had
> been seeing Norwegian TV or look at Norwegian stand up
> comedians, you will find I'm not the only one. We have
> already so much US owned industry here (that is, Norwegian
> industry bought up forcily by US billionairs who dislike
> concurrents, like Freia being bought by one of US biggest
> chokolate producers (we just wait for the message that all
> Freia productions has been moved either to US or to an Asian
> lowcost country :-( and so applies to most of our industry,
> if we are not nice and ask for more wages, all our industry
> employing us will be moved to a low cost, Asian country by
> US share holders. It is our reality :-( )

Your reality is that Norway is the third largest oil exporting
nation on the planet and your standard of living is one of the
most admired. Your countrymen pay homage to King Harold V.
Your Lagting is elected by Parliament. Your population growth
is half that of the USA and 1/6th that of Mexico.

Our reality is that George Bush isn't a King. The dogs of war
were unleashed by 99 to 1 in a Senate resolution with over a
2/3 majority in the House. Our military was instructed by
Congress to enforce all UN resolutions with respect to Iraq.
Saddam was directly responsible for the death of over 2
million people. Saddam's goons tried to murder an ex President
of the US.

It would be my wish that my countrymen were cheering the
landing of an American manned exploration party on Mars and
not wrestling with thugs and murderers in the middle east.
But, I understand our responsibility. And despite all the
hoopla and rhetoric of ill informed, moronic, stand-up
comedians in your country and mine, our Congress, and our
President, acted responsibly.

I noticed Norway didn't join the EU. If you're concerned about
Norwegian industry being over-run by American companies then
why not become part of a European trading block? Where are all
those moronic comedians when you need them for guidance, huh?

Ken

[Matti Nark]

Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:38:39 +0200 in article
<2toglvk9mv4llojav3r1vo68bgeb78bocb@4ax.com> Alf
Christophersen <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no> wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 19:44:51 GMT, Matti Narkia
><mnng@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>in German language it is Finnland. We ourselves call it
>>Suomi, which is Finland in Finnish language.
>
>I was mostly thinking about the Swedish-talking population
>who still call it Finnland, not Suomi :-) They get very
>angry when I by accident spell it Finland, also in English
>texts :-(

Then they don't know their own mother tongue, because
Finland is the correct country name also in Swedish. To my
knowledge the noun finne (Finn) is the only related Swedish
word with a double n. Even its synonym in Swedish,
finlandäre, has only one n.

--
Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

Fri, 05 Sep 2003 21:26:01 GMT in article
<kbvhlvkr5ha29pgh0aqb81fl58dr42vpc8@4ax.com> Matti Narkia
<mnng@despammed.com> wrote:

> Even its synonym in Swedish, finlandäre, has only one n.

The word was of course finländare.

--
Matti Narkia

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 14:36:29 -0500, "Ken Leander"
<kleander@hotmail.com> wrote:

>to Iraq. Saddam was directly responsible for the death of
>over 2 million people. Saddam's goons tried to murder an ex
>President of the US.

If that was the main reason, why didn't you hunt down Pol Pot,
responsible for many more killings?? I think I know why.
Cambodia don't produce oil. Period. Iraq oil is a key for US
to get more cheap gasoline to pester the atmosphere cheaply
for some 50 years more.

[Mooshie Pe]

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:14:08 -0400, "Ron" <ron@70707.org>
posted:

>>"Mooshie peas" <almostnothing@very.little> wrote in message
>> >"Ron" <ron@70707.org> posted: For the same reason no
>> >multi-vitamin / mineral formulation - no matter how
>> >"optimally" formulated - will ever normalize anyone's
>> >chemistry. This is only possible by individually analyzing
>> >someone's chemistry and then taking care of as many
>> >nutritional highs and lows as resources allow.
>> >
>> >Of course don't expect your family doctor to send you
>> >"next door" to get this analysis done, since there are
>> >not only very few places around the world that are
>> >capable of accurately measuring your nutritional
>> >shortcomings, but it also takes a lot of nutritional
>> >know-how to resolve them. --Ron
>> >
>>
>> But bottom line is, there is NO evidence that this
>> "normalising of chemistry" is of any benefit, eventually.
>--
>For most studies done on groups who did, or did not take
>nutritional supplements, the evidence was mixed, or at best
>weak in favor of supplementation, however no one's chemistry
>was optimized by analyzing what they really needed - they
>were all given the same supplements! If done selectively,
>after first analyzing individual requirements, then yes,
>people will largely benefit from optimized chemistry.

The assumption here is that if you don't use the
supplementation of some things they cause problems. If
supplementation is done below the UL dose, then the body will
take what it needs, and excrete or store what ir doesn't need.

>Consider a small sample of nutritional imbalances that can
>result from a specific dietary life style, genetics, or as
>part of aging, and then look at the consequences if left
>untreated:
>
>* Osteoporosis. Breaking a hip tremendously reduces longevity
> or quality of life. You can reduce a nutritionally induced
> risk by normalizing (among others) the status of calcium,
> phosphorus, magnesium, fluoride, chromium, stomach acid,
> Vit C, D, K...

Nope. Weight bearing exercise and sex hormones.

>* Arthritis (some types). Correct copper / sulfur
> conflicts, also calcium, phosphorus, chromium, magnesium,
> sodium, Vit B5...

Yet no-one agrees on this?

>
>* Meniere's Disease (falling reduces life expectancy).
> Correct iron, sodium, potassium, folic acid, magnesium, Vit
> A, Co-Q10...

>
>* Depression. Correct calcium, magnesium, copper, iron,
> iodine, manganese, sodium, potassium, Vit B1, B6, B12, Vit
> C, inositol...
>
>* Pernicious Anemia / nerve damage, preserve chromosome
> integrity with Vit B12, folic acid...
>
>* Congestive heart disease / arrhythmia. Correct sodium,
> potassium, magnesium, calcium, zinc, Co-Q10...
>
>* Cancer Prevention through adequate antioxidant /
> nutritional support, which include excessive or deficient
> levels of copper, calcium, zinc, selenium, molybdenum,
> phosphorus, chlorine, iron, Vit A, Vit C, Vit E, Vit D,
> folic acid, beta carotene, IP6, allium, flavonoids, ellagic
> acid, flax seed, pancreatin, EFAs...
>
>Many other conditions benefit from nutritional intervention,
>including digestive problems, anxieties, dermatitis,
>headaches, fatigue, goiter, menstrual / menopausal symptoms,
>bruising, night blindness, postpartum depression,
>tachycardia, muscle cramps, asthma, insomnia, anemia,
>prostatitis, etc, etc, --Ron

Don't tell me, you've been reading too much spam :)

This is almost all snake oil, with a tiny bit of truth here
and there.

Hey Ron, could you lose the double dash at the beginning of
your posts, it upsets some newsreaders.