Codex Alimentarius Loves Fluoride, Part 2

Codex Alimentarius Loves Fluoride, Part 2

 

Brandon Turbeville
Infowars.com
February 9, 2011

In the previous article I discussed the BfR Recommended Daily Intake levels of fluoride and limits placed on fluoride in food supplements. This is a very important distinction and there are some things that should be noted. First, the Maximum Permitted Level set for fluoride by BfR’s risk assessment deals only with the amount of fluoride to food supplements. It does not deal with the fluoridation of water supplies, the application of fluoride dental treatments, toothpaste, and the utterly ridiculous practice of giving fluoride tablets for “medicinal” purposes.

These guidelines would only apply to food supplements that contain fluoride which are unlikely to ever be marketed to anyone seriously knowledgeable and concerned about their health. Certainly, the natural health industry is not beset by requests for fluoride supplements. So it is important to understand what is happening here. There is regulation of fluoride in an area that, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist.

In the areas where fluoride dominates, such as the aforementioned “medicinal” purposes, drinking water, toothpaste, and other dental treatments, there is no regulation by Codex. In fact, not only is there no regulation, the toxin has now been considered a mineral and a nutrient complete with an RDA (recommended daily allowance) to encourage daily intake.

Second, through the flawed process of risk assessment and the Global Expectable Average Daily Diet, BfR is able to set the maximum permitted levels for true nutrients like Iron, Copper, and Manganese at 0 and the Recommended Daily Intake at very low levels for food supplements. BfR is able to do precisely the same thing with fluoride in an area where it has no impact to begin with – thereby lowering the amount of fluoride considered in the GEADD and still allowing fluoride to be considered a nutrient. This because fluoride is not as heavily consumed in food or as a food supplement as it is in its other forms. Therefore, it largely avoids the clutches of the GEADD.

Third, BfR is completely aware of at least some of the many adverse effects of fluoride, as well as the environment in which it is created. As quoted above, the BfR report clearly documents that the Institute knows of fluoride intoxication with serious and even fatal side effects. Hence, the creation of the Certainly Lethal Dose (CLD) of 5-10g. Yet, animal tests also revealed “a possible carcinogenic effect” [1] and “kidney damage.”[2] However, the claim is made that such a reaction does not occur in other species. BfR also claims that the most serious effects are limited to the skeleton and teeth.[3]

Although ignoring such conditions as liver and kidney damage, weakened immune system, cancer, symptoms akin to fibromyalgia, lower IQ’s, and Alzheimer’s disease, BfR is still forced to admit the existence of at least some adverse effects. [4] It is truly hard to believe that such extensive and widely-known research can simply fly under the radar of scientists like those conducting the risk assessment experiments. It is also interesting to note that BfR does not mention long-term studies for the adverse effects of fluoride. Rather, it mentions only that the consumption of the chemical at one time. Not only that, but the distinction is not made between calcium and sodium fluoride, once again blurring the lines between the two. Based on the rest of the risk assessment conducted by BfR, it is not hard to believe that only calcium fluoride might have been tested, yet sodium fluoride was still included in the results. While there is no direct evidence to prove that this is the case, there is without a doubt legitimate cause for speculation based on the results of the study BfR has presented.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether or not BfR combines calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride it is erased when BfR attempts to address the issue of skeletal fluorosis. Here the report states, “Crippling bone fluorosis is mainly observed in tropical areas with a high natural content of fluoride in drinking water or high fluoride exposure from industrial plants.”[5] This not only demonstrates the blurring of the lines between calcium and sodium fluoride, but also the prior knowledge by BfR and, subsequently, Codex that one form of fluoride is actually toxic waste. It is important to understand that Codex now recognizes industrial waste as a nutrient.

Lastly, besides the obvious lunacy of labeling a toxic substance as a nutrient, BfR admits that there is no known benefit to consumption of fluoride. This is yet another obvious reason that fluoride cannot be considered a nutrient, even in calcium fluoride form.

The study directly admits, “Since fluoride is not essential to man, requirements cannot be defined. A recommended intake can only be indicated with a view to its favorable impact on dental health. WHO notes that there are no proven clinical symptoms of fluoride deficiency in man and there are no diagnostic parameters which correlate with a fluoride deficiency.”[6]

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

Even BfR itself must concede that there is no nutritional benefit to consuming fluoride (even in its natural form) and there are no known problems associated with lack of fluoride in the diet.[7] Of course, the study refers to the dental health benefits provided by consumption of the chemical, but, as mentioned earlier, these so-called benefits are virtually non-existent. In the face of this, BfR and Codex still conduct science that is nothing more than poorly performed magic tricks, and they continue to ask the rest of us to engage in mental gymnastics, while believing that toxic waste is a nutrient.

Notes:

[1] Ibid. p. 232
[2]  Ibid p. 234
[3] Ibid.
[4] Fassa, Paul. “How To Detox Fluorides From Your Body,” Natural News, July 13, 2009. P.1  http://www.naturalnews.com/026605_fluoride_fluorides_detox.html
[5] Use of Vitamins in Foods: Toxicological and nutritional-physiological aspects,”Domke, A., Grosklaus R., Niemann B., Przyrembel H., Richter K., Schimdt E., WeiBenborn B., Worner B., Ziegenhagen R., Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, BfR, p. 230, 2005
[6] Ibid p.229
[7] Ibid. p. 229

This article first appeared on the Activist Post website.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom

“Inexcusable”: TSA STILL Refusing To Release Naked Scanner Safety Reports

“Inexcusable”: TSA STILL Refusing To Release Naked Scanner Safety Reports

 

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 9, 2011

- Senate amendment introduced to make misuse of images a federal crime punishable by prison
- Further amendment introduced to force all scanners to use “privacy enhancing” software
- TSA once again lies, tells media machines are not capable of storing images

The chairman of a House oversight committee on homeland defense has labeled “inexcusable” the TSA’s continued refusal to release it’s internal reports on the safety of radiation firing airport body scanners.

“The public has a right to know, and there isn’t something so sensitive that requires holding it back,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. tells USA Today.

The newspaper filed Freedom of information requests for the reports over two months ago, prompting members of congress to get involved, with a group led by Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass, demanding that the TSA release the documents.

Two months on, the TSA says it is still reviewing the documents to ensure they do not contain any sensitive information that could be a threat to national security.

TSA spokeswoman Giselle Barry told USA Today that the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general is investigating the adequacy of the TSA’s X-ray inspection program at the request of Markey, yet still refused to confirm when the safety reports would be made available.

The safety of new body scanners has been particularly questioned in light of an independent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) carried out in 2004, found that some baggage scanners, which emit the same type of X-rays, were in violation of federal radiation standards, and were emitting two or three times beyond the agreed safe limit.

A further 2008 CDC report noted that some X-ray machines were missing protective lead curtains or had had safety features disabled by TSA employees with duct tape, paper towels and other materials.

TSA employees themselves have also voiced concern over the safety of the scanners. Workers are reportedly unhappy with the fact that they are being kept in the dark by their employers, despite repeated requests for information.

“We don’t think the agency is sharing enough information,” said Milly Rodriguez, occupational health and safety specialist at the American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents TSA workers.

“Radiation just invokes a lot of fear.” she added.

According to the USA Today report, several TSA employees have expressed their concerns to the CDC:

…a TSA employee at an unidentified airport asked CDC in June to examine concerns about radiation exposures from standing near the new full-body X-ray scanners for hours a day. The CDC said it didn’t have authority to do a hazard assessment unless three or more current employees at one location made a joint request, according to a September letter from the CDC to the unnamed worker. The CDC provided the letter to USA TODAY.

The TSA is responsible for inspecting the scanners and producing safety reports itself, rather than the FDA, because they are not classed as medical devices.

“It should send some flashing red lights when they won’t allow the public to review that data,” Rep. Chaffetz has noted. Chaffetz oversaw the passage in the House last year of an amendment to ban “strip-search” imaging at airports altogether.

“You don’t have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane,” Chaffetz said at the time.

“You can actually see the sweat on somebody’s back. You can tell the difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can see things that quite frankly I don’t think they should be looking at in order to secure a plane,” Chaffetz told the House.

Considering scores of warnings from scientists, more TSA workers should be concerned over the levels of radiation they are being exposed to and are being asked to expose the public to.

Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at the Johns Hopkins school of medicine recently told AFP that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays”.

“…we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he added.

John Sedat, a University of California at San Francisco professor of biochemistry and biophysics and member of the National Academy of Sciences tells CNet that the machines have “mutagenic effects” and will increase the risk of cancer. Sedat previously sent a letter to the White House science Czar John P. Holdren, identifying the specific risk the machines pose to children and the elderly.

The letter stated:

“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist… There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”

The TSA has repeatedly stated that going through the machines is equal to the radiation encountered during just two minutes of a flight. However, this does not take into account that the scanning machines specifically target only the skin and the muscle tissue immediately beneath.

The scanners are similar to C-Scans and fire ionizing radiation at those inside which penetrates a few centimeters into the flesh and reflects off the skin to form a naked body image.

The firing of ionizing radiation at the body effectively “unzips” DNA, according to scientific research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, yet pregnant women and children will be subjected to the process as new guidelines including scanners are adopted.

The Inter-Agency Committee on Radiation Safety concluded in their report on the matter that governments must justify the use of the scanners and that a more accurate assessment of the health risks is needed.

Pregnant women and children should not be subject to scanning, according to the report, adding that governments should consider “other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation.”

“The Committee cited the IAEA’s 1996 Basic Safety Standards agreement, drafted over three decades, that protects people from radiation. Frequent exposure to low doses of radiation can lead to cancer and birth defects, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,”reported Bloomberg.

Scientists at Columbia University also entered the debate recently, warning that the dose emitted by the naked x-ray devices could be up to 20 times higher than originally estimated, likely contributing to an increase in a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma which affects the head and neck.

“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant,” said Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University’s centre for radiological research.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

Despite all these warnings, The Department of Homeland Security claims that the scanners are completely safe, pointing to “independent” verification from the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, both federal government bodies.

Meanwhile, the TSA has once again repeated the same lie that the machines cannot record the naked images that are produced as air travelers pass through them.

In response to the proposal of an amendment to make the misuse of scanner images a federal crime punishable by up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, a spokesman for the DHS told the AP that “the body scanners used by Transportation Security Administration workers at airports are not capable of storing, copying or transmitting images.”

“Each time a passenger is scanned, he said, the image of the previously scanned passenger is deleted.” said the DHS’ Nicholas Kimball.

Yet, as we have previously detailed, the images that show in detail the naked genitals of men, women and children that have passed through the scanners can indeed be transmitted and printed.

As reported by Declan McCullagh of CNET earlier this year, “The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse.”

The proof comes in the form of a letter (PDF), obtained by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that “approximately 35,314 images…have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine” used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

EPIC says it has also obtained more than 100 images of electronically stripped individuals from the scanning devices used at federal courthouses. The disclosures come as part of a settlement of an EPIC Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Marshals Service.

Brijot, the manufacturer of the body scanning equipment in question, also admits that its machine can store up to 40,000 images and records.

EPIC, has filed two further lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over the scanners, claiming that the DHS has refused to release at least 2,000 images it has stored from scanners currently in use in U.S. airports.

EPIC’s lawsuit argues that the body scanners violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches, as well as the Privacy Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, referencing religious laws about modesty.

The group points to a further document (PDF) it has obtained from DHS showing that the machines used by the department’s TSA are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so.

The TSA has admitted that this is the case, but claims that it is for training and testing purposes only, maintaining that the body scanners used at airports cannot “store, print or transmit images”.

This was confirmed in a letter sent to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security,  at approximately the same time the government initially claimed the machines are safe and cannot save images. In fact, this ability is a government requirement.

“TSA requires AIT machines to have the capability to retain and export imagines (sic) only for testing, training, and evaluation purposes,” states a Homeland Security letter dated February 24, 2010 and signed by Gale D. Rossides, Acting Administrator.

The machines indeed store and transmit images. According to Rossides, however, this ability is limited to engineers, training contractors, and “Z” level users. “Z” level users are described as select lab personnel from the TSA’s Office of Security Technology.

The images are apparently also sent to the TSA’s Threat Mitigation Lab.

“In complying with our Freedom of Information Act request, the Marshals Service has helped the public more fully understand the capabilities of these devices,” EPIC President Marc Rotenberg has said in a statement. “But the DHS continues to conceal the truth from American air travelers who could be subject to similar intrusive recorded searches in U.S. airports.”

As if it was needed, further evidence also points to the fact that the images are actively being transmitted and printed in airports.

Furthermore, if there is no capability for the devices to save, distribute and print images, then how on earth have news organizations obtained print outs of such images like the one above?

The TSA and the DHS have repeatedly told the media and the public the same lie, that the scanners cannot store images. If they are willing to promulgate outright lies regarding the performance of the machines in this respect why should anyone take their word for it when they say the machines are 100% safe?

Another Senate Amendment has been introduced this week by Senator Udall (D-NM) that would require the TSA to install “Automatic Target Recognition” software, in all body scanners by January 1, 2012.

The software ensures that the images produced by the machines are generic human outlines, rather than graphic naked images.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

However, as we have previously highlighted, according to documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the software merely place a mask over the naked image, which the machine is still capable of storing.

“…keep in mind that filters can be enabled and disabled by the operator.” Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC has noted.

—

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

Patriot Act Extension Fails

Patriot Act Extension Fails

 

Lisa Mascaro
The Los Angeles Times
February 9, 2011

The Republican-led House on Tuesday failed to pass a short-term extension of the USA Patriot Act favored by GOP leaders, an unexpected political setback that shows the difficulty the party faces in keeping control of their new majority, with its legion of tea party-inspired members.

Key provisions of the terrorist surveillance law expire at the end of the month, and a coalition of veteran Republican lawmakers and conservative new members blocked passage of a measure that many tea party activists see as federal government over-reach into private affairs.

The unexpected turn of events will require the White House, which is seeking to extend the Sept. 11-era bill through 2013, to work with congressional leaders to devise a new strategy for passage.

Read entire article

How to Communicate if the Government Shut Down the Internet

How to Communicate if the Government Shut Down the Internet

 

Liberty News Online
February 8, 2011

Scenario: Your government is displeased with the communication going on in your location and pulls the plug on your internet access, most likely by telling the major ISPs to turn off service.

This is what happened in Egypt Jan. 25 prompted by citizen protests, with sources estimating that the Egyptian government cut off approximately 88 percent of the country’s internet access. What do you do without internet? Step 1: Stop crying in the corner. Then start taking steps to reconnect with your network. Here’s a list of things you can do to keep the communication flowing.

NOTE: If you have advice to add, please log in and Aadd your comments.

———————

PREVENTIVE MEASURES:

MAKE YOUR NETWORK TANGIBLE

Print out your contact list, so your phone numbers aren’t stuck in the cloud. Some mail services like Gmail allow you to export your online contact list in formats that are more conducive to paper, such as CSV or Vcard, and offer step-by-step guides on how to do this.

BROADCAST ON THE RADIO:

CB Radio: Short for “Citizens Band” radio, these two-way radios allow communication over short distances on 40 channels. You can pick one up for about $20 to $50 at Radio Shack, and no license is required to operate it.

Ham radio: To converse over these radios, also known as “amateur radios,” you have to obtain an operator’s license from the FCC. Luckily, other Wired How-To contributors have already explained exactly what you need to do to get one and use it like a pro. However, if the President declares a State of Emergency, use of the radio could be extremely restricted or prohibited.

GMRS: The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) is a licensed land-mobile FM UHF radio service in the United States available for short-distance two-way communication. It is intended for use by an adult individual who possesses a valid GMRS license, as well as his or her immediate family members… They are more expensive than the walkie talkies typically found in discount electronics stores, but are higher quality.

Family Radio Service: The Family Radio Service (FRS) is an improved walkie talkie radio system authorized in the United States since 1996. This personal radio service uses channelized frequencies in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band. It does not suffer the interference effects found on citizens’ band (CB) at 27 MHz, or the 49 MHz band also used by cordless phones, toys, and baby monitors.

Microbroadcasting: Microbroadcasting is the process of broadcasting a message to a relatively small audience. This is not to be confused with low-power broadcasting. In radio terms, it is the use of low-power transmitters to broadcast a radio signal over the space of a neighborhood or small town. Similarly to pirate radio, microbroadcasters generally operate without a license from the local regulation body, but sacrifice range in favor of using legal power limits.

Packet Radio Back to the ’90s: There do exist shortwave packet-radio modems. These are also excruciatingly slow, but may get your e-mail out. Like ham radio above it requires a ham radio license because they operate on ham radio frequencies.

TELEPHONE:

Set up a phone tree: According to the American Association of University Women, a phone tree is “a prearranged, pyramid-shaped system for activating a group of people by telephone” that can “spread a brief message quickly and efficiently to a large number of people.” Dig out that contact list you printed out to spread the message down your pyramid of contacts.

Enable Twitter via SMS: Though the thought of unleashing the Twitter fire hose in your text message inbox may seem horrifying, it would be better than not being able to connect to the outside world at all. The Twitter website has full instructions on how to redirect tweets to your phone.

Call to Tweet: A small team of engineers from Twitter, Google and SayNow, a company Google acquired recently, made this idea a reality. It’s already live and anyone can tweet by simply leaving a voicemail on one of these international phone numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) and the service will instantly tweet the message using the hashtag #egypt. No Internet connection is required. People can listen to the messages by dialing the same phone numbers or going to the Twitter account, speak2tweet.

Alex Jones and infowars.com have a telephone number for people to listen to his radio show by phone, in case the internet goes down, or if you don’t have internet. The phone in listen line is 512-646-5000.

FAX:

If you need to quickly send and receive documents with lengthy or complex instructions, phone conversations may result in misunderstandings, and delivering the doc by foot would take forever. Brush the dust off that bulky old machine, establish a connection by phone first with the recipient to make sure his machine is hooked up, then fax away.

You may not need a fax machine to send or receive faxes if your computer has a dial-up fax application.

NON-VIRTUAL BULLETIN BOARD

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the virtual world that we forget about resources available in the real world. Physical bulletin boards have been used for centuries to disseminate information and don’t require electricity to function. If you are fortunate enough to be getting information from some other source why not share it with your friends and neighbors with your own bulletin board? Cork, magnetic and marker bulletin boards are as close as your nearest dime store and can be mounted just about anywhere. And if push comes to shove you can easily make your own with scrap wood lying around the house.

Getting back onlineWhile it might be relatively easy for a government to cut connections by leveraging the major ISPs, there are some places they wouldn’t get to so readily, like privately-owned networks and independent ISPs.

FIND THE PRIVATELY RUN ISPs

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 
  
  

In densely populated areas, especially in central business districts and city suburbs there are multiple home WiFi networks overlapping each other, some secure, some not. If there is no internet, open up your WiFi by removing password protection: If enough people do this it’s feasible to create a totally private WiFi service outside government control covering the CBD, and you can use applications that run Bonjour (iChat on Mac for example) to communicate with others on the open network and send and receive documents. **needs more clarification

If you are a private ISP, it’s your time to shine. Consider allowing open access to your Wi-Fi routers to facilitate communication of people around you until the grid is back online.

RETURN TO DIAL-UP

According to an article in the BBC about old tech’s role in the Egyptian protests, “Dial-up modems are one of the most popular routes for Egyptians to get back online. Long lists of international numbers that connect to dial-up modems are circulating in Egypt thanks to net activists We Re-Build, Telecomix and others.”

Dial-up can be slow. Often, there is a lightweight mobile version of a site that you can load from your desktop browser quickly despite the limitations of dial-up. Examples: mobile.twitter.com, m.facebook.com, m.gmail.com.

AD-HOC NETWORKING

Most wireless routers, PCs, laptops, and even some ultramobile devices like cellphones have the ability to become part of an “ad hoc” network, where different “nodes” (all of the devices on the network) share the responsibility of transmitting data with one another. These networks can become quite large, and are often very easy to set up. If used properly by a tech-savvy person, such networks can be used to host temporary websites and chat rooms. There are many internet tutorials on the internet for ad hoc networking, so feel free to google some.

Apple computers tend to have very accessible ad hoc functionality built in, including a pre-installed chat client (iChat) that will automatically set up an ad hoc “Rendezvous” chatroom among anybody on the network, without the need for an external service like AIM or Skype. Ad hoc network-hosting functionality is built in to the Wi-Fi menu.

Windows computers have several third-party ad hoc chat applications available (such as Trillian) and setting up an ad hoc Wi-Fi network is almost as simple as on a Mac.

Linux operating systems, of course, have plenty of third-party apps available, and most distros have ad hoc network-creation support built in.

BUILD LARGE BRIDGED WIRELESS NETWORK

Using popular wireless access point devices like a Linksys WRT54G, you can create a huge wireless bridged network — effectively creating a Local Area Network (LAN), or a private Internet that can be utilized by all users within range using a Wi-Fi enabled device.

You can also link multiple devices together wirelessly, extending the range of your network. Most access points will cover a 100 meter area and if your wireless device is built to support the 802.11n wireless standard, you will get almost a 500 meter coverage area for each access point.

To build a wireless bridge, check out the dd-wrt wiki, and learn how to configure Linksys WRT54G as a wireless client using this Anandtech thread.

NINTENDO DS

A used DS family device can be purchased inexpensively. In addition to wi-fi, the DS supports its own wireless protocols. Using Pictochat, it is possible to chat with nearby DS users without having any DS games. Unfortunately, the range is quite short.

Some games, such as the fourth generation Pokemon games, support mail items. Thus you can send your message under the guise of just playing a game. Mail items can be sent through the Internet if you can get on the net and you and your partner(s) have each other’s friend codes.

The original DS and the DS Lite do support the Opera web browser, but finding the game card and memory pack may be very difficult. Starting with the DSi, Opera is downloadable.

INTRANET

Your computer has the ability to set up your own INTRANET. This was done BEFORE the internet was popularized in two ways: Your computer dialed up other computers and sent them the contents of a message board, or local people people dialed into your computer. A nationwide system can be set up this way with a central location sending to many cities then each city sending out the info locally.

BECOME UNTRACEABLE

If you’re going to post government secrets on your work-around site, you may want to set up an untraceable account. Really, you only need a mail drop, an assumed name, a prepaid credit card you can get at many stores to set up service.

GET SATELLITE ACCESS

You can have very, very slow internet if you have something similiar to an Iridium phone, which would allow you to do dial up at 2400 baud, which at least gives you e-mail. This will also work when your government has shut down GSM and telephone access, and will work pretty much anywhere on the planet. If you’re in the right place, get yourself KA-SAT access which is satellite broadband and will not be routed through any internet exchange that certain local governments may monitor or block (unless that government is part of EU or er … Uncle Sam.

Stock up with Fresh Food that lasts with eFoodsDirect (Ad)

BACK TO BASICS

Make some noise: Have an air horn or other loud instrument handy. It may just come down to being able to alert people in your local geographic area, who would otherwise be unaware of an emergency. You may also want to learn a bit about Morse code and have a cheat sheet available.