17 August 2007
Watercone – An Ingenious Way To Turn Salt Water Into Fresh Water
Written by The Naib
[see also: their site]
The Watercone is an ingenious device that can take salty water and turn it into fresh water using only the power of the sun. The nice thing about this device is it is bone simple, uses the sun instead of fossil fuel, and is cheap to make and easy to use.
The Watercone is surprisingly a cone, that you place over a pan of salty water (or over a marsh, or any damp ground) leave it out in the sun, water evaporates, the condensation trickles down the side of the cone, at the end of the day you flip it over, remove the cap at the top and drink the water.
This device has the potential to really do a lot of good for a lot of people. So many people live in areas where the ground water has been polluted by salt incursion due to over pumping, or in areas that simply don’t have large fresh water sources (south pacific islands, sub-Saharan Africa, south-east Asia). The Watercone is made from UV resistant plastic and they claim that it will last up to five years, after which it can be used to collect rainwater and funnel it into bottles.
They claim that on average one Watercone can produce one liter of water per-day. I could image a whole fleet of these things for a village. They float, so you could place them over a small pool of salt water and just collect fresh water all day. At about 20 Euros it would pay for itself in a couple of months and provide potable water for the next 4-5 years. It is also recyclable and non-flammable.
The Watercone website has some really interesting information and I highly recommend checking it out.
1. Much cheaper than bottled water.
Watercone life expectancy: 3 to 5 years. Price: planned below € 20.- Average Price of 1 liter of bottled water in developing countries: $US 0,50. Presuming a daily usage of the Watercone and a daily average yield of 1 liter, the Watercone has paid for itself in about 2 mounth and will work for free the next 5-7 years!2. Absolutely, low concept and low tech.
As opposed to other types of solar stills which feature electronics, photo-voltaic cells, tubes, filters, many parts, etc. the Watercone concept is understood within seconds with absolutely no need for academic background. Additionally it (cone & pan) is made from Bayer Makrolon, a high-tech ultra-rugged and highly recyclable polycarbonate, virtually insensitive to UV exposure or breakage, an all too common result of rough transport.3. Perfect for coastal dwellers.
There are at least 50 sunny, developing countries worldwide with a significant amount of sea- or coastline. Many from their populations, hundreds of millions, live in nearest proximity to water but cannot drink it or use it for agriculture, because it is saltwater. Large families, hamlets, villages could all experience dramatically improved quality of life starting from as little as a dozen Watercones set up close by the sea.4. Perfect for medical purposes.
There are thousands of hospitals in developing countries, field and mobile hospitals, first aid and emergency medical units around the world that are located in sunny climates and lack condensed water. Outfitted with just a dozen Watercones, a little field hospital could harvest 15 liters of condensed water per day. More than enough to make a difference for life or death.5. Creates jobs.
For centuries water vendors have walked the markets of hamlets, villages and cities around the world, mostly in Africa, the Mid East and Asia. Based in the vicinity of salt or brackish water and outfitted with a minor credit line, these vendors could invest in a dozen Watercones and sell 15 liters of water a day and have their investment returned in no more than half a year.
15 August 2007
Sibel Edmonds’ case and the heroin connection
by lukery
Everyone is talking about “How a ‘Good War’ in Afghanistan Went Bad” in yesterday’s NYT – but what stands out for me is that in a 7-page article on Afghanistan, there’s not one mention of heroin, opium, or even poppies.
As a companion piece to the NYT article about losing the ‘good war,’ I strongly suggest that you read this recent article by former UK Ambassador to Uzebekistan, Craig Murray from late last month. Murray explains that Afghanistan is run by drug lords.
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds often points to the fact that whenever the media does mention the heroin industry, they almost never go beyond reporting about the poor farmers in the Afghan poppy fields. Sibel asks the leading question: “Who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?”
- lukery’s diary :: ::
Before I proceed, let’s start with a little background into Sibel’s case. When Sibel worked as a translator for the FBI, one of the main cases she was working on was a counter-intelligence operation against Turkey’s equivalent of AIPAC, the American Turkish Council (ATC). On the Turkish side, the ATC is (largely) represented by Turkey’s “Deep State – the politicians, military officers and intelligence officials who worked with drug bosses to move drugs from Afghanistan…” (On the American side, the ATC is represented by the ‘Defense’ contractors, and Turkey’s American lobbyists – people like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, former House Speaker Bob Livingston, former Defense Secretary William Cohen, former Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and others.)
Now, we’ve all heard the statistics that Afghanistan is the source of 90% of the world’s opium etc – but what many people don’t know is that most of that opium is imported into Turkey where it is transformed, on an industrial scale, into heroin. It is warehoused on an industrial scale, repackaged and marketed on an industrial scale, and re-exported on an industrial scale.
As Sibel says:
“This multi billion-dollar industry requires highly sophisticated networks and people. So, who are the real lords of Afghanistan’s poppy fields?
[snip]
These operations are run by mafia groups closely controlled by the MIT (Turkish Intelligence Agency) and the military. According to statistics compiled in 1998, Turkey’s heroin trafficking brought in $25 billion in 1995 and $37.5 billion in 1996. That amount makes up nearly a quarter of Turkey’s GDP. Only criminal networks working in close cooperation with the police and the army could possibly organize trafficking on such a scale. The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks.
In other words, the folks who supply much of the world’s heroin break bread (and share lots of dough) with their American counterparts at places like the American Turkish Council.
Sibel says that there are at least four people in Congress that she knows of who are being bribed by the Turkish gang, and according to Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, they also have “spies… inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon.”
In Craig Murray’s article, he notes all of the impressive statistics regarding Afghanistan’s opium production – 2006 beat the previous record by 60%, and this year promises to be stronger still – and then he makes two important points. Firstly, he says that all of the ‘value-add’ activity that was previously performed in Turkey (turning poppies into heroin) is now conducted within Afghanistan. We don’t know whether this is a massive shift in the underlying structure of the industry, or whether the incumbent gangs that Sibel refers to have simply decided to ‘off-shore’ their production from Turkey to Afghanistan. I suspect that it is the latter, simply because we haven’t seen the type of blood-bath that we would expect to see if there was a serious turf-war taking place.
From Murray’s piece:
” According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60 per cent. This year will be even bigger.
Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyond the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what our international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and ‘value-added’ operations.
It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.
(FTR, I have seen no evidence for Murray’s claim that Afghanistan is now primarily exporting heroin rather than opium)
The second point that Murray makes is that this activity takes place with the the active participation of the authorities, just as Sibel said was the case in Turkey.
Murray:
How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.
When we attacked Afghanistan, America bombed from the air while the CIA paid, armed and equipped the dispirited warlord drug barons – especially those grouped in the Northern Alliance – to do the ground occupation. We bombed the Taliban and their allies into submission, while the warlords moved in to claim the spoils. Then we made them ministers.
President Karzai is a good man. He has never had an opponent killed, which may not sound like much but is highly unusual in this region and possibly unique in an Afghan leader. But nobody really believes he is running the country. He asked America to stop its recent bombing campaign in the south because it was leading to an increase in support for the Taliban. The United States simply ignored him. Above all, he has no control at all over the warlords among his ministers and governors, each of whom runs his own kingdom and whose primary concern is self-enrichment through heroin.
More Murray:
He became concerned at the vast amounts of heroin coming from Afghanistan, in particular from the fiefdom of the (now) Head of the Afghan armed forces, General Abdul Rashid Dostum, in north and east Afghanistan.
Dostum is an Uzbek, and the heroin passes over the Friendship Bridge from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it is taken over by President Islam Karimov’s people…
The heroin Jeeps run from General Dostum to President Karimov. The UK, United States and Germany have all invested large sums in donating the most sophisticated detection and screening equipment to the Uzbek customs centre at Termez to stop the heroin coming through.
But the convoys of Jeeps running between Dostum and Karimov are simply waved around the side of the facility.
More Murray:
“In Afghanistan, General Dostum (Head of the Afghan armed forces)is vital to Karzai’s coalition, and to the West’s pretence of a stable, democratic government.
Opium is produced all over Afghanistan, but especially in the north and north-east – Dostum’s territory. Again, our Government’s spin doctors have tried hard to obscure this fact and make out that the bulk of the heroin is produced in the tiny areas of the south under Taliban control. But these are the most desolate, infertile rocky areas. It is a physical impossibility to produce the bulk of the vast opium harvest there.
That General Dostum is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minister of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. “
None of this information was included in the NYT’s 7 page article on how we ‘lost’ Afghanistan.
In fact, in a fantastic recent interview, Sibel wonders aloud whether the media silence is intentional:
“Who prevents the media, or is it happening, from publishing the real facts? The Turks, their involvement, UAE and their position in laundering this money, Pakistan and narcotics. It’s saying “Oops! They are our ‘allies’ and we don’t want to touch them. We don’t want to turn them off.” In fact, we have a lot of business, “sensitive diplomatic relations”, as John Ashcroft put it.”
As if to prove Sibel’s point, just last week, ABC’s blog The Blotter reported:
Heroin Found in Car Allegedly Owned by Top Afghan Border Official
A manhunt is on in Afghanistan for the man President Hamid Karzai wanted to name head of his country’s border police, ABC News has learned, following the discovery that the official owned a car filled with heroin intercepted by members of the Kabul City Criminal Investigations Division.
U.S. authorities confirmed the seizure of 130 kilograms of heroin in June in a car that allegedly belonged to Haji Zahir Qadir, the former chief of the border police for northern Takhar province.
Haji Zahir was not in the car when it was intercepted. His cousin and “right hand,” Bilal, was present and arrested.
Afghan officials say Karzai wanted to name Haji Zahir to head the border police, but a U.S. military intelligence assessment obtained by ABC News in 2006 named Zahir as a drug smuggler.
News of the seizure and the manhunt came at a most embarrassing time for Karzai, who was at Camp David with President George Bush to meet on regional issues, including the upsurge in violence in Afghanistan and cross-border issues with Pakistan.
The information fed to The Blotter was apparently designed to cause some embarrassment (coming 6 weeks after the event), but it wasn’t very embrassing at all. As best as I could tell, ABC’s blog entry was the only mention of this story at all, anywhere (1,2,3).
For more on my coverage of the heroin angle of Sibel’s case, see Sibel Edmonds: America’s Watergate, Sibel Edmonds & the Neocons’ Turkish Gravy-Train, and Daniel Ellsberg: Hastert got suitcases of Al Qaeda heroin cash, should be in jail.
I’ll give Craig Murray the final word:
“Remember this article next time you hear a politician calling for more troops to go into Afghanistan. And when you hear of another brave British life wasted there, remember you can add to the casualty figures all the young lives ruined, made miserable or ended by heroin in the UK.
They, too, are casualties of our Afghan policy.”
Let Sibel Edmonds Speak
Call Embarrass Waxman. Demand public open hearings:
DC phone: (202) 225-3976
LA phone: 323 651-1040
Capitol switchboard phone: 800-828-0498
10 August 2007
Fly me to the moon: space hotel sees 2012 opening
BARCELONA (Reuters) – “Galactic Suite,” the first hotel planned in space, expects to open for business in 2012 and would allow guests to travel around the world in 80 minutes.
Its Barcelona-based architects say the space hotel will be the most expensive in the galaxy, costing $4 million for a three-day stay.
During that time guests would see the sun rise 15 times a day and use Velcro suits to crawl around their pod rooms by sticking themselves to the walls like Spiderman.
Company director Xavier Claramunt says the three-bedroom boutique hotel’s joined up pod structure, which makes it look like a model of molecules, was dictated by the fact that each pod room had to fit inside a rocket to be taken into space.
“It’s the bathrooms in zero gravity that are the biggest challenge,” says Claramunt. “How to accommodate the more intimate activities of the guests is not easy.”
But they may have solved the issue of how to take a shower in weightlessness — the guests will enter a spa room in which bubbles of water will float around.
When guests are not admiring the view from their portholes they will take part in scientific experiments on space travel.
Galactic Suite began as a hobby for former aerospace engineer Claramunt, until a space enthusiast decided to make the science fiction fantasy a reality by fronting most of the $3 billion needed to build the hotel.
An American company intent on colonizing Mars, which sees Galaxy Suite as a first step, has since come on board, and private investors from Japan, the United States and the United Arab Emirates are in talks.
PLENTY RICH ENOUGH
If Claramunt is secretive about the identity of his generous backer, he is more forthcoming about the custom he can expect.
“We have calculated that there are 40,000 people in the world who could afford to stay at the hotel. Whether they will want to spend money on going into space, we just don’t know.”
Four million dollars might be a lot to spend on a holiday, but those in the nascent space tourism industry say hoteliers have been slow on the uptake because no one thought the cost of space travel would come down as quickly as it has.
Galactic Suite said the price included not only three nights in space. Guests also get eight weeks of intensive training at a James Bond-style space camp on a tropical island.
“There is fear associated with going into space,” said Claramunt. “That’s why the shuttle rocket will remain fixed to the space hotel for the duration of the guests’ stay, so they know they can get home again.”
In an era of concern over climate change, Galaxy Suite have no plans so far to offset the pollution implications of sending a rocket to carry just six guests at a time into space.
“But,” says Claramunt, “I’m hopeful that the impact of seeing the earth from a distance will stimulate the guests’ urge to value and protect our planet.”
Why Clinton’s Economy Was Better
Hale “Bonddad” Stewart
Two Republican presidential candidates have claimed the Clinton economy is nothing to emulate. Unfortunately, the facts do not bear this out. In fact, the 1990s was clearly one of the best economies we will see in our lifetime. While trashing Clinton is the usual easy out for Republicans, the facts here are clearly against them. So, to the Thompson and Giuliani campaign, I would say this: you’re wrong and here’s why.
First, let’s start with the balanced budget, which was part of Clinton’s plan from the beginning of his presidency.
The following is from On the Edge, by Elizabeth Drew, page 60:
Following the election [during the transition], Clinton realized there was little he could do about raising spending for his investments if he didn’t tackle the deficit…..He [Clinton] gradually came to see that the debt posed a threat to what he wanted to do to spur competitiveness and economic growth, as well as to revive the economy, and was using up capital that could otherwise go to public and private investment.(from page 73) The result was an economic program that was bold by conventional standards and did seek to reverse Reagonomics and redirect the country’s economic resources from consumption to longer-term investment, and at the same time to take a major bite out of the federal budget deficit. Clinton proposed deficit cuts of $493 billion over 5 years; increased spending, most of it on longer term investments such as job training, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, education, and promoting high-tech tax increases of $246 billion over five years; and net cuts in federal spending of $247 billion.
Clinton’s economic team of Robert Rubin, Lloyd Bentson (RIP), Leon Panetta and Alice Rivlin were all deficit hawks. All continually argued for a balanced budget. ;They won. Clinton came to realize the importance of balanced budgets.
But, why is a balanced federal budget so important?
It prevents crowding out. This is a fancy way of saying money that would finance the federal budget deficit is instead invested in private capital. Let me use the current situation as an example. According to the Bureau of Pupblic Debt the US has issued over $550 billion in net new debt per year for the last 4 years.. That means a little over $2 billion dollars was not invested in the private economy, but instead invested in US government bonds. The larger the deficit, the less money available for private investment.
Psychology and uncertainty. A budget deficit detracts from individual’s confidence in the market and the overall economy. As individual’s look to the federal deficit, they understand that at some time the government must pay back the money it borrows. That means the government will probably have to either raise taxes (more likely) or decrease spending (far less likely whichever party is in control of the government). ;Deficits create psychological uncertainty. The larger and more persistent the deficit, the less happy people are and the less prone they are to take economic risks.
Let’s coordinate three sets of data to illustrate the point. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficits/surpluses for years 1993-2000 were (respectively and in billions) $-255, -$203, -$164, -$21, +$69, +$125, +$236, +$128. So, the budget deficit continually decreased from 1993-1996, the budget surplus increased from 97-99 and the budget showed a surplus in 2000 although this was lower than the preceding year. In other words, the record indicates a clear path towards balancing the federal budget. This was not the result of a happy accident it was deliberate.
One of the prime reasons why the 1990s economy was so successful is the incredible amount of confidence this gave private investors. They could look at Washington with confidence, knowing politicians managed national finances were maturity. There was no talk to the deficit – was it too high, could it be maintained at current levels, will they ever get around to fixing it etc….. Simply put, investors had a sense of certainty and confidence about the economy. This encouraged them to take risks which helped everybody.
Jobs
From an overall jobs perspective, the Clinton team created 22,759,000 from January 1993 to December 2000. This breaks down to 2.8 million jobs/year. The labor participation rate increased from 66.2% in January 1993 to 67% in December 2000. The unemployment rate decreased from 7.7% in January 1993 to 3.9% in December 2000.
The Clinton team was focused in opening up new avenues of job creation that would benefit the middle class. Previously, manufacturing was the primary economic sector the helped the middle class. Total employment in this area increased from 16,790,000 in January 1993 to 17,181,000 or an overall increase of 391,000. This isn’t bad, but it certainly could be better (Under Bush, the manufacturing sector has lost 2.8 million jobs). However, the Clinton team’s focus on high-tech provided new avenues of wealth creation. Total information jobs increased from 2,656,000 in January 1993 to 3,706,000 in December 2000, or an increase of 1,050,000 million (Under Bush, information services have lost 560,000 jobs).
In addition to the beneficial effects of balancing the budget, Clinton’s economy was geared toward helping the middle class attain a better life. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly pay for non-supervisory workers increased from $10.63 in January of 1993 to $14.26 in December 2000 for an increase of 34.14%. Over the same period, the inflation measure increased from 138.1 to 174 for an increase of 25.99%. Therefore, the inflation adjusted hourly wage increased 8.15%.
Looking deeper in the data provided by the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances for 1998, the change is apparent:
In the 1998 survey, inflation-adjusted mean and median family incomes continued the upward trend between the 1992 and 1995 surveys; they also surpassed the levels observed in the 1989 survey toward the end of the previous expansion….
From 1995 to 1998, the proportion of families with incomes of $50,000 or more rose from one-fifth to 33.8%, while the proportion with incomes below $10,000 fell about one-sixth to 12.6%.
And from the 2001 survey:
Between 1998 and 2001, inflation-adjusted family incomes rose notably faster than they did in the 1995-98 period. The median rose 9.6% percent (2.5 percent during the 1995-98 period) and the mean rose 17.4% (12.2 during the 1995-98 period).
Compare this to the 2004 survey:
The survey shows that, over the 2001-04 period, the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes continued to trend up, rising 1.6%, whereas the mean value fell 2.3 percent….These results stand in contract ot the strong and broad gains seen for the period 1998 and 2001 surveys and to the smaller but similarly broad gains between the 1995 and 1998 surveys.
Under Clinton, the median family income increased from 27,900 in 1992 to 32.7 thousand in 1995, 33,400 in 1998 and 39,900 in 2001. Over the same period inflation increased 28%, making the total inflation adjusted gain 15%. Average income increased from $44,000 in 1992, to $47,500 in 1995, to $53,100 in 1998 to $68,000 in 2001 for an inflation adjusted increase of 23%.
Conclusion
The answer to the current situation of weak jobs and wage growth and runaway spending is straightforward.
1.) Balance the budget. This will require repealing some of the rich’s tax breaks. My heart bleeds.
2.) Target economic areas that will create jobs. I would personally target alternative energy, nano technology and stem cell research, although there are many others.
3.) Give the middle class — and only the middle class — a tax break.
If you ask a anyone which economy they prefer, they would say the Clinton economy. Good jobs were plentiful. Earnings were increasing and people felt confident about the future.
7 August 2007
>Open Letter to Laura Bush
For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at New York University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival’s White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War (”Mr. Feiffer Regrets,” November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year’s event consider following their example.–The Editors
Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it’s a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents–all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women’s prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students–long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit–and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person’s unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country–with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain–did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made “at the top” and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism–the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness–as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing–against this undeclared and devastating war.
But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting “extraordinary rendition”: flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS