Nanotechnology's Direct Threat To Individual Health
by Tom Atlee
Founder And Co-Director of the Co-Intelligence Institute
I have spoken with Senator Wyden's office. I was told that the Senate nanotechnology bill S.189 has not yet gotten out to a vote -- but will soon. I was told that Senator Wyden (it's chief sponsor) is trying to get language in the bill that advocates citizen deliberation about nanotechnology. The staffer said what they most need is not phone calls but letters they can show to the other Senators demanding citizen deliberation be in the bill. Due to security-based mail slow-downs in Washington DC, she said that emails would be most useful.
So I urge you to write to Oregon's Senator Ron Wyden and then send a copy to your own Representative and/or Senators, since they'll be involved in voting on the final legislation. I've enclosed my own letter below for your info. As I wrote in my last email on this subject, "Tell them you want strong language in that bill MANDATING frequent citizen panels and consensus conferences, in which randomly selected citizens learn about nanotechnology and interview experts, deliberate and then let businesses, government, media and the public know what research and development they think is safe, wise and desirable to pursue -- and what research and development they want to hold off on. Tell them that none of us want the fiascos of nuclear technology and biotechnology where development raced ahead of what was wise, so that now businesses, governments and citizens face some real messes. If they want to create sustainable jobs with nanotechnology, make sure those jobs are doing things that well-informed people want to have done. Senator Wyden has a good track record on listening to the people's voice. He needs to apply that to nanotechnology."
If you are an American citizen, you can email your representatives via www.congress.org. Just type in your zip code and the site will take you to a link to your representatives' email. Most members of Congress will only receive email correspondence submitted through a web form, rather than directly, and Congress.org delivers the forms you need. In your letter to your Senator, you may want to include more information on nanotechnology than I put in my letter to Wyden, since, as the originator of the nanotechnology bill, Senator George Allen (R-VA), said, "no more than 5% of senators or their staffs [even] know what nanotechnology is." http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2003/038.html
I had an interesting insight while thinking about my own letter: I realized that these issues become clearer when seen through the lens of cost/benefit dynamics.
As you'll see in my letter to Wyden, this lens also provides an interesting view of our corporate system.
So I invite you to join this effort by writing a letter or two. As a popular folk song goes, "Inch by inch, row by row, we're gonna make this garden grow."
Coheartedly,
Tom
My letter to Senator Wyden (sent also to my other Senator and Congressman)
**************************************
Dear Senator Wyden,
It is very important that the Senate nanotechnology bill S. 189 have strong language mandating -- or at the very least strongly endorsing -- official citizen deliberation (such as citizen panels and consensus conferences) to evaluate nanotechnology on a frequent basis. Given the speed of nanotechnology's development, it would be both wise and practical to hold official citizen deliberations at the national level every 6-12 months. Please ensure that language to this effect exists before the bill is brought to a vote.
You know the advantages of nanotech -- the medical miracles, the pollution solutions, the jobs. That's why you sponsored this bill. But nanotech has potential downsides, as well, ranging from increased respiratory disease to vast environmental destruction.* It would be imprudent, to say the least, to pursue the benefits without attending to the risks and costs.
In our political-economic system mass media, collective decision-making and jobs are all tied to the corporate bottom line. This system naturally produces more profits than prudence. Pursuit of profit causes advertising to trumpet the benefits of products while downplaying their costs and risks. And many industries are powerful enough to get government to help them "externalize" their costs and risks so that taxpayers, other countries, nature, or future generations pay the costs.
A free market can only remain free and safe if it is supervised. Without democratic oversight of corporate activity, we cannot safely pursue the benefits of technology development. Past failures of democratic oversight are already leading us into what has been rightly called an Age of Consequences.
You, as representative of the common interests, need to ensure that new developments in profitable technologies are monitored by comparably powerful democratic oversight. This includes review by Congress and independent experts. But most importantly it must includes review by randomly selected citizens who can be educated about the risks and possible benefits of a technology and then deliberate to render trustworthy public judgment.* This capacity of ordinary citizens has been proven by decades of experience with consensus councils and other citizen panels.*
Our nation didn't take this path when it launched the development of nuclear technology and biotechnology. The glowing promises of these technologies were foisted upon the American public without adequate public deliberation. Now we are faced in both industries with unprofitable messes, mired in public backlash, expensive subsidies and waste storage problems, and the threat of accidents and misuse by terrorists.. Nanotechnology will end up similarly problematic if it flashes ahead without due deliberation by a public more interested in prudence than profit.
You have a record of supporting the public good, a healthy environment, the welfare of future generations, and public participation. Please apply these criteria to this extremely delicate issue. Give We the People a chance to judge for ourselves and our society whether the benefits offered us by nanotechnology outweigh its risks and costs. Anything less is not truly democratic.
_______________ * REFERENCES:
Re nanotechnology see www.rachel.org
Re citizen deliberation see http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_publicjudgment.html
Re consensus councils and citizen panels see http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-CDCs.html
For further information on these and other issues related to enhancing our democracy see the Co-Intelligence Institute's websites: www.co-intelligence.org, and www.taoofdemocracy.org
Sincerely,
Tom Atlee
**************************************
And here's the Rachel's article
=======================Electronic Edition========================
. . ---July 24, 2003---
. . (Published September 4, 2003)
. . HEADLINES:
. . THE REVOLUTION, PT. 3: ULTRAFINES
. . ==========
. . Environmental Research Foundation
. . P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
. . Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org
. . ==========
. . All back issues are on the web at: www.rachel.org
. . in text and PDF formats. To subscribe (free), send E-mail
. . to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words
. . SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message.
. . The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish;
. . to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word
. . AYUDA in an E-mail message to info@rachel.org.
=================================================================
THE REVOLUTION, PT. 3: ULTRAFINES
A revolution is sweeping through science and technology, blending cognitive science (how the brain works), biotechnology (manipulation of genes), information technology, and nanotechnology, or nanotech for short. The engineers who are masterminding this revolution explain that it is "essential to the future of humanity"[1, pg. 22] because it holds the promise of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a higher level of compassion and accomplishment."[1, pg. 6] They say it may be "a watershed in history to rank with the invention of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution."[1, pg. 20] The ultimate aim of the revolution is not so new: the "conquest of nature." [1, pg. 80]
The revolution is driven by the convergence of four technologies (nano, bio, info, cogno), but here we focus again on only one of the four -- nanotech -- because it is becoming the foundation stone of bio and info sciences,[1, pg. 71] because it has been largely ignored by the media, and because it is galloping forward at breakneck speed. It is no exaggeration to say that the field of nanotech is gripped by a "gold rush" mentality. Any day of the week, take a look at http://nanotech-now.com/ to catch a glimpse of the gold rush in action.
Nanotech is named for the nanometer, a unit of measure, a billionth of a meter, one one-thousandth of a micrometer. The Oxford English Dictionary defines nanotechnology as "the branch of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less than 100 nanometres, esp. the manipulation of individual atoms and molecules."
In 2000, President Clinton created the National Nanotech Initiative, which is now funded at the level of $700 million per year -- the third largest public research program in the U.S., after the war on cancer and the star wars missile defense program. (See Rachel's #772 and #773.) In every state in the U.S., nanotech proponents are commandeering tax dollars to subsidize "the next big thing." Many states are hoping to establish their own "Nano Valley" as an entrepreneurial wild west modeled on Silicon Valley before the bubble burst.
In March of this year, Small Times magazine said the states with the greatest nanotech potential are California, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington state close behind.[2] The National Science Foundation predicts that nanotech will be a trillion-dollar industry by 2015, just 12 years from now.[2] Nanotech is advancing upon us at warp speed.
This week we will focus on only one aspect of nanotech: the environmental and human health effects of nano particles, which are particles 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or less in diameter. As we saw in Rachel's #772, the intentional manufacture of nano particles is already under way, and this new industry is gearing up worldwide. Nano particles go by different names, such as nanodots, nanotubes, buckyballs, and buckminsterfullerenes, among others.
According to the Etc Group, which follows nanotech developments carefully, an estimated 140 companies are now producing nano particles in powders, sprays, and coatings that are being used in a variety of products, including sunscreens, automobile parts, tennis rackets, scratch-proof eye glasses, stain-repellent fabrics, self-cleaning windows, and more.[3, pg. 2] Mitsubishi Chemical in Japan has reportedly begun construction of a plant to manufacture nanotubes at the rate of 120 tons per year, with plans to increase output to 1500 tons per year by 2007.[4] The U.S. government's space agency, NASA, plans to spend the next five years scaling up the production of nanotubes. [1, pg. 50]
One of the most important characteristics of nano particles is their huge surface-to-volume ratio. The smaller something is, the larger its surface area is, in comparison to its volume. Because nano particles are so small, they have an enormous surface area, relative to their volume. Drug companies are planning to take advantage of those large surfaces -- for example, covering nano particles with drugs for targeted delivery into the interiors of our cells. The smaller the size of the particle, the larger the load of drugs it can carry (larger, relative to the particle's volume).
Unfortunately, the large surface area of tiny particles also makes them dangerous for at least two reasons: first, the large surfaces alone promote the reaction of oxygen with human (or animal) tissue, creating free radicals.
"Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms with an odd (unpaired) number of electrons and can be formed when oxygen interacts with certain molecules. Once formed these highly reactive radicals can start a chain reaction, like dominoes. Their chief danger comes from the damage they can do when they react with important cellular components such as DNA, or the cell membrane [the cell's outer casing]. Cells may function poorly or die if this occurs," explains Dr. Mark Jenkins at Rice University.[5]
In sum, the large surface of nano particles offers an ideal place which oxygen reactions can occur in the airways and lungs, resulting in the formation of free radicals with subsequent cell damage or cell death, followed by inflammation.
The second danger from nano particles arises when they float freely in the air, where their large surface area provides a sticky place where metals and hydrocarbons attach themselves. The smaller the size of the particle, the larger the load of metals and hydrocarbons it can carry (larger, relative to the particle's volume).
What do we know about health effects of nano particles?
It turns out that we already have a fair amount of data on the dangers of airborne nano particles -- but researchers don't call them nano particles. They call them ultrafines. Nano particles and ultrafines are the same thing -- particles with an average diameter of 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or less.
Scientists have known for more than a decade that fine and ultrafine particles in the air create haze and kill large numbers of humans. Fines and ultrafines are produced by fossil-fuel power plants, incinerators, cement kilns, and diesel engines, among other sources. As early as 1991, Dr. Joel Schwartz of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (now at Harvard) estimated that fine particles were killing 60,000 people each year in the U.S. That shocking estimate has since been confirmed and reconfirmed and is now widely accepted.[6] Fine particles are defined as those with a diameter of 10,000 nanometers (10 micrometers) or less. Ultrafines are 100 times smaller than fines.[6]
Today, researchers are examining the properties of ultrafines and there seems to be little doubt that they are the major killers in haze. Studies in Los Angeles, California reveal that ultrafines are 10 to 50 times as damaging to lung tissue, compared to larger fine particles.[7]
Since 1991, scientists have been wondering whether fine and ultrafine particles cause harm because of their size alone, or because they carry metals and hydrocarbons deep into the lung. Researchers today believe that, in the case of ultrafines, the answer is both.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to fines as PM 10 (short for "particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter"). By 1996, EPA became convinced that PM 2.5 (particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers [2500 nanometers] or less) were far more dangerous than PM 10, and the agency proposed rules to control PM 2.5 air pollution. Corporations immediately sued in court to "get government off our backs" and to fulfill their fiduciary duty to shareholders by every legal means, even though that duty in this instance entails killing tens of thousands of anonymous citizens each year. In 2001, after a 5-year court battle, EPA won in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the agency, chastened by corporate encounters, has shelved its plan for controlling PM 2.5 air pollution.[8]
Meanwhile, new studies are piling up showing that nano particles (ultrafines, which in EPA terminology would be PM 0.1) are by far the most dangerous of all.
EPA does not collect data on nano particles in any systematic way, and has announced no plans to control them. Meanwhile the nano particle corporations and NASA are ramping up industrial operations to manufacture ultrafines in ton quantities. It appears that the stage is being set for major new trouble and an escalation of the killing.
The picture continues to develop, but current research shows that nano particles in the lung cause the formation of free radicals, which in turn, cause lung disease, and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, nano particles carry metals and carcinogenic hydrocarbons deep into the lung, where they exacerbate asthma and other serious breathing problems. In addition, nano particles combined with metals can pass directly into the brain where they promote the formation of waxy amyloid plaques, which are the signature feature of Alzheimer's disease.
In Fresno, Calif., Kent E. Pinkerton at Univ. of Calif. Davis found from autopsies that "outwardly robust people routinely harbor damage in their lungs' small airways, setting the stage for respiratory and cardiovascular disease." The bronchioles were scarred with fibrosis and an abnormal thickening, apparently caused by "the ravages of free radicals." [6,9]
Subsequent exposure of rats to ultrafine particles at levels found in Fresno on a bad day revealed many dead cells in the rats' lungs, large numbers of inflammatory cells (neutrophils), and destruction of macrophages -- which are cells that promote health by actively removing foreign material from the lungs.[10] In other words, ultrafines kill off the lung's natural defenses, then create their own unique form of damage, promoting free radicals, cell death, inflammation and eventually cardiovascular disease.
Pinkerton's findings were confirmed by a study of the lungs of non-smoking women in Mexico City and in Vancouver, British Columbia, which revealed extensive lung damage from exposure to dirty Mexico City air, but not clean Vancouver air. [4] The small airways of the Mexican women "were very abnormal," with fibrosis and thickening.
Researcher Ken Donaldson at the University of Edinborough in Scotland has studied particles of pure titanium dioxide and pure carbon. At 10 micrometers diameter, they cause no damage to rat lungs. But when they are crushed into ultrafines "they become highly inflammogenic to the lungs," he told Science News.[6, 12, 13] In other words, carbon nano particles, without any pollutants attached (no metals, no hydrocarbons), cause lung damage by themselves. Their size alone is harmful.
Donaldson conducted similar experiments on ultrafine particles of pure styrene, with similar results, showing that nano size alone is a danger. This clearly indicates that the manufacture of nano particles will be a threat to workers, and any particles released into outside air will be a public health menace. It is worth pointing out the obvious: The smaller particles become, the harder they are to control and contain.
Nano particles floating in the air will not remain pure for long. Metals and hydrocarbons (from combustion sources like incinerators, cement kilns, fossil-fuel power plants, and diesel engines) will quickly coat their large surfaces.
It is now known that the deadly effects of fine and ultrafine particles aren't restricted to the lung, but occur in the cardiovascular system and brain. Renaud Vincent and colleagues at Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. National Institutes of Health) clarified the mechanism of cardiovascular damage by exposing healthy volunteers to high levels of fine particles -- the levels you might find in a city with dirty air.[14, 15, 6]
Vincent found that exposure to ultrafine particles doubles the concentration of a small protein (called endothelin) in the blood stream. Endothelin increases blood pressure. The spike in endothelin levels can be tolerated by a healthy subject, but may kill a person who is already suffering from atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries).[6]
Importantly, the spike in endothelin concentration only occurs when subjects are exposed to fine and ultrafine particles that have metals or hydrocarbons attached to them. If the particles are purified before the humans are exposed to them, they have no effect on endothelin levels. Thus it seems to be the combination of ultrafine particles and metals and/or hydrocarbons that increases endothelin.
Other researchers have also been examining the effects of fine and ultrafine particles on cardiovascular health. Scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health exposed dogs to fine and ultrafine particles, then simulated heart attacks in the dogs by using a surgically-implanted balloon to temporarily shut off a coronary artery. Dogs that had been breathing ultrafines could not compensate for the blocked artery -- which may help explain why humans who have heart attacks on a bad-air day are more likely to die than people having heart attacks where the air is cleaner.[16]
Cardiovascular disease and heart attacks are not the only concern arising from exposure to fine and ultrafine particles in the air. A University of North Carolina research team working with dogs living in Mexico City has shown that exposure to ultrafine air pollution causes brain damage. Lilian Calderon-Garcideunas found that ultrafine particles carry metals such as vanadium and nickel into the dogs' brains through their noses. The fine particles break down the barriers that normally prevent contaminants passing into the brain.[6, 17]
Dogs are often used as models for the study of cognitive impairments that accompany old age in humans. Some dogs aged 10 and over develop the waxy plaques that are characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. Calderon-Garcideunas's study of 200 dogs in Mexico City reveals that the animals breathing ultrafine particles develop waxy beta-amyloid plaques in the brain before they are a year old.[6, 17]
Calderon-Garcideunas told science writer Janet Raloff that her findings are "definitely worrisome" because she has examined the noses of humans in Mexico City and found evidence of a breakdown of nasal tissue, similar to that found in dogs.[6]
U.S. EPA researchers and colleagues in Germany have found that metals attached to fine and ultrafine particles greatly exacerbate asthma. First they examined children in a German city where the air is contaminated with fine and ultrafine particles mixed with metals. Compared to children living in a rural German town where the air is relatively clean, the urban children showed strongly allergic reactions. The researchers then exposed mice to the two kinds of air that the children were breathing. They reported that mice exposed to metal-contaminated ultrafine particles developed strong allergic and asthmatic reactions in their airways.[18]
Using isolated lung cells, researchers found that ultrafine particles from Los Angeles air (a) carry far more toxic combustion byproducts per unit weight than do larger particles (no surprise because of surface-to-volume ratio); and (b) enter cells and settle in the mitochondria, which are the cells' source of power. Ultrafine particles turn the mitochondria into "functionless bags," researcher Andre Nel told Science News, killing the cells they were powering.[7, 6]
In sum the nanotech industry and the U.S. government are rapidly ramping up a new industrial capacity to manufacture ton quantities of ultrafine particles, very similar to particles already known to be killing tens of thousands of people in the U.S. each year. The complete catalog of harm from these particles remains to be written, but we already know that they cause or aggravate asthma and cardiovascular disease, damage the small airways of animals, adults, and children, carry metals and cancer-causing combustion byproducts deep into the lungs and even into the brain where they promote the growth of amyloid plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease.
We also know that the current regulatory system has proven to be incapable of bringing particulate pollution under control because of relentless opposition from corporations. As a matter of law, corporations are required to put profits before public health, so we can never expect them to do any better than they are doing today, until we change the law.[19]
Clearly, in the case of nano particles, we have reasonable suspicion of harm, and we have some remaining scientific uncertainty. Therefore we have an ethical duty to take preventive (precautionary) action. If there ever was a proper time to invoke the precautionary principle, this is it.[20]
=====
[1] Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, editors, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, June, 2002. Available at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=208 but the file is 3.7 megabytes.
[2] Anonymous, "Small Times Magazine Names Top 10 Small Tech Hot Spots," Small Times March 12, 2003. Available at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=298
[3] "The Little BANG Theory," ETC Group Communique #78 (March/April 2003). Available on the web at http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/comBANG2003.pdf .
[4] Jayne Fried, "Japan Sees Nanotech as Key to Rebuilding Its Economy," Small Times Jan. 7, 2002, pgs. unknown. Available at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=223 .
[5] Mark Jenkins, "Antioxidants and Free Radicals," 1996, available at http://www.rice.edu/--jenky/sports/antiox.html and at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=299.
[6] Janet Raloff, "Air Sickness," Science News Vol. 164, No. 5 (August 2, 2003). Available at: http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=280 .
[7] Ning Li and other, "Ultrafine Particulate Pollutants Induce Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Damage," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 4 (April 2003), pgs. 455-460. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=288 .
[8] Janet Raloff, "High court gives EPA a victory," Science News Vol. 159, No. 10 (March 10, 2001), pg. 159.
[9] Kent E. Pinkerton and others, "Distribution of Particulate Matter and Tissue Remodeling in the Human Lung," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 108, No. 11 (November, 2000), pgs. 1063-1069. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=281 .
[10] Kevin R. Smith, "Airborne Particles of the California Central Valley Alter the Lungs of Healthy Adult Rats," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 7 (June 2003), pgs. 902-908. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=282 .
[11] Andrew Churg and others, "Chronic Exposure to High Levels of Particulate Air Pollution and Small Airway Remodeling," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 5 (May 2003), pgs. 714-718. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=283 .
[12] L.C. Renwick and others, "Impairment of Alveolar Macrophage Phagocytosis by Ultrafine Particles," Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Vol. 172 (2001), pgs. 119-127. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=293 .
[13] D.M. Brown and others, "Size-Dependent Proinflammatory Effects of Ultrafine Polystyrene Particles: A Role for Surface Area and Oxidative Stress in the Enhanced Activity of the Ultrafines," Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Vol. 175 (2001), pgs. 191-199. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=291 .
[14] Robert D. Brook and others, "Inhalation of Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Ozone Causes Acute Arterial Vasoconstriction in Healthy Adults," Circulation Vol. 105 (2002), pgs. 1534-1536. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=290 .
[15] Leo Bouthillier and others, "Acute Effects of Inhaled Urban Particles and Ozone; Lung Morphology, Macrophage Activity, and Plasma Endothelin-1," American Journal of Pathology Vol. 153, No. 6 (Dec. 1998), pgs. 1873-1884. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=289 .
[16] Gregory A. Wellenius and others, "Inhalation of Concentrated Ambient Air Particles Exacerbates Myocardial Ischemia in Conscious Dogs," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 4 (April 2003), pgs. 402-408. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=284.
[17] Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas and others, "Air Pollution and Brain Damage," Toxicologic Pathology Vol. 30, No. 3 (2002), pgs. 373-389. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=292 .
[18] Stephen H. Gavett and others, "Metal Composition of Ambient PM 2.5 Influences Severity of Allergic Airways Disease in Mice," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 12 (September 2003), pgs. 1471-1477. Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=285 .
[19] Robert Hinkley, "Twenty Eight Words to Redefine Corporate Duties," Multinational Monitor Vol. 23, Nos. 7 and 8 (July/August 2002); available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=237 . And be sure to see The Model Uniform Code for Corporate Citizenship, available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=236 .
[20] On the precautionary principle, see http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=187 and http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=188 and and http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=227 .
Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute *
PO Box 493 * Eugene, OR 97440
http://www.co-intelligence.org * http://www.democracyinnovations.org Read THE TAO OF DEMOCRACY * www.taoofdemocracy.com - Please support our work. * Your donations are fully tax-deductible. **************************** FAIR USE NOTICE This message may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not specifically been authorized by the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this for research and educational purposes. For more information on fair use, please go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own which go beyond "fair use," we suggest that you obtain permission from the copyright owner.
RETURN TO OMPLACE HOME