Glen Canyon Dam

Green Eco-Zealots Sue To Remove Glen Canyon Dam On Colorado River

Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, originally started the policy of dam removal in America; he was a member of the Trilateral Commission, as was Bill Clinton and Al Gore. 

Dam removal was part of the Trilateral Commission’s plan to implement Technocracy in favor of Capitalism and Free Enterprise, because it would reduce the abundance of cheap hydro-electric energy, paving the way for more controllable ‘alternative energy’ like wind turbines, solar panel farms, etc. ⁃ TN Editor

 

Environmental groups that have long pushed to bring down a huge dam along the Colorado River are suing the federal government, alleging it ignored climate science when approving a 20-year operating plan for the dam near the Arizona-Utah border.

Glen Canyon Dam holds back Lake Powell, one of the largest man-made reservoirs in the United States. It and Lake Mead, which straddles the Arizona-Nevada line, are key to ensuring Colorado River water gets to the 40 million people and the more than 7,000 square miles of farmland that depend on it.

Drought and climate change already have reduced the river’s flow, forcing seven Western states to adopt a plan earlier this year to ensure the lake elevations don’t dip too low.

The environmental groups — Save the Colorado, the Center for Biological Diversity and Living Rivers — have said climate change will lead to such scarcity of river water that Glen Canyon could become inoperable.

They sued the Bureau of Reclamation in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. Aside from wanting the dam’s 2016 operating plan to be revised, they want to force a discussion on draining Lake Powell and removing the dam.

“We need something new. It’s not working,” John Weisheit, co-founder of Living Rivers, said Wednesday. “It’s not true river restoration. We’re not getting sustainability for people or agriculture. We need long-term, visionary thinking and discussion, and this lawsuit will help create that.”

Bureau of Reclamation spokesman Marlon Duke declined to comment on the lawsuit.

The agency has disputed that it ignored climate science and said using Lake Mead as the primary or only reservoir on the Colorado River fell outside the scope of its study on Glen Canyon’s operating plan.

The plan allows for experimental releases of water to maintain hydropower and to mimic the river’s natural flow. High-flow experiments are meant to build sandbars through the Grand Canyon to benefit native fish like the humpback chub, create beaches for river rafters and protect archaeological sites.

Glen Canyon Dam sits at the edge of Page, Arizona. Completed in 1964, it’s the second-tallest concrete-arch dam in the United States, behind Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. While Hoover Dam is anchored in solid volcano-baked basalt, Glen Canyon Dam spans a gorge lined with sandstone.

Anne Castle was assistant secretary for water and science at the U.S. Interior Department when work began to revise Glen Canyon Dam’s operating plan. She said the initial environmental review included a “fairly extensive” discussion of climate effects and questioned why environmentalists would want it revised under an administration often criticized for rolling back regulations.

Castle said it’s unlikely Glen Canyon Dam would be built today but decommissioning it would have “really significant, adverse consequences for big sectors of the economy, and I don’t think that would be undertaken lightly.”

Jack Schmidt, director of the Center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University, said the conversations that environmentalists are seeking already are happening about managing the entire Colorado River system.

The Glen Canyon Dam plan was an incremental decision about how best to operate the dam under existing and old paradigms, he said.

When negotiations start on what will guide the river beyond 2026 when current guidelines expire, he said “everything is back on the table.”

Read full story here…




Federal Privacy Board Eyes TSA Biometrics

Other than lull the public into thinking someone is ‘protecting’ them, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has done little, if anything, to stem the rise in facial recognition systems around the nation. ⁃ TN Editor
 

A government bipartisan privacy oversight board recently toured Transportation Security Administration’s facial recognition pilot program in Las Vegas’ McCarran International Airport as part of a comprehensive review of the Homeland Security Department’s expanding biometrics projects.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which grew out of a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, initiated a deep-dive project on facial recognition in aviation security earlier this year, when insiders recognized how TSA and Customs and Border Protection were ramping up the introduction of biometric and facial recognition technology at various points throughout passengers’ airport experiences. On top of the pilot at McCarran, the board is also looking into other facial recognition deployments across TSA and CBP, including the biometric entry and exit programs running at various airports for international departures.

Every project the agency is looking into is part of the Homeland Security Department’s effort to eventually use biometrics to verify nearly all departing commercial air travelers over the course of the next few years.

“Each deployment raises different issues, different operational considerations, different potential privacy concerns,” Adam Klein, the board’s chairman, told Nextgov. “It’s hard to tell at this point what is the most consequential aspect of this, because these technologies are so new and because the agencies are feeling their ways through this as well.”

The board’s ultimate mission is to help the government balance preventing terrorism with protecting public privacy. At its inception, it was set up to serve as a counterbalance to the other recommendations the 9/11 Commission suggested following the 2001 terrorist attacks, including creating the director of national intelligence, the national counterterrorism center, and increased information sharing among intelligence agencies and between intelligence and law enforcement.

“[They] thought that increased power calls for increased oversight,” Klein said.

In 2007, Congress reestablished the board as a bipartisan, statutory agency within the executive branch. To date, its five members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As the present board works to develop a detailed review over the course of the next year, Klein said it ultimately aims to assess how biometric technology is being leveraged across America to verify passengers’ identities through each phase of their air travel journeys.

“Facial recognition is popping up, so to speak, throughout the aviation process at different airports around the country, but there’s also increasing public awareness and a lot of momentum within [Homeland Security] to move in this direction,” Klein said. “And given the important questions surrounding it, and given also the importance of aviation security as a mission, we thought this would be an appropriate place for us to get involved and take a look at it.”

The entire report is set to be published in 2020. In it, Klein said the board will evaluate things like how each use of the technology compares, whether systems used and data stored are secure, what’s planned with each project and what unplanned uses may pop up, whether mitigation features are necessary to put in place. Officials also plan to determine the ultimate best-case and worst-case implications of the evolving technology. He said it’s critical to ensure that the implementations all fully accord with public expectations, relevant statutes and Homeland Security’s own statements about how it will leverage biometrics going forward and as technology evolves.

“As this develops, its nature will change—and that’s what we’ll want to be tracking,” Klein said.

The board will also engage with experts and stakeholders from nongovernmental organizations, academia, advocacy groups and the private sector that have also looked into these issues and either supported or raised concerns around the tech’s usage.

“So there’s a range of possibilities we try to think through before forming a judgment about things and before making recommendations,” he said.

The project that the board observed at McCarran Airport was conducted in the TSA PreCheck lane in Terminal 3. The pilot ran for about a month and concluded last week, shortly after the board’s trip. During the on-site visit to McCarran, PCLOB participated in a confidential briefing where TSA officials answered their direct questions about the specific pilot, observed how passengers were interacting with the technology and could also take part in the program itself. In this particular test, TSA did not store photos of passengers but instead compared their physical travel documents to a photo taken of travelers’ faces.

Klein went through the McCarran pilot process himself. He said he presented his license at a TSA checkpoint where he’d usually do so with a human officer, but instead, a machine scanned the ID, checked for the presence or absence of various features, then compared the image of his face on the ID to the image of his face that was photographed.

“So essentially, it is doing the exact same thing that the eyes and brain of a human TSA officer would do, but using a facial recognition algorithm instead of our innate human pattern recognition and comparison capabilities,” Klein said. “And it did successfully match my face to my ID, although that’s obviously a very low sample size—so we shouldn’t draw any conclusions from that.”

He was only at the airport for several hours, so he couldn’t offer much detail into the public’s overall reception. However, Klein did share TSA’s perception of people’s reactions.

“They said that there was a fair amount of enthusiasm but that many people are too busy and innately suspicious of anything that will distract them from their travel,” he said.

TSA Spokeswoman Lorie Dankers, who also saw the pilot in Vegas firsthand, told Nextgov Wednesday that it’s important to note that travelers had to opt-in to participate—as opposed to opting out, which is often the case.

“TSA had hoped to get 150 travelers per day to opt-in for purposes of data collection and that was usually achieved by late morning daily due to the curiosity and interest of the traveling public,” Dankers said.

Read full story here…




Vaccines

Warning: ‘DNA-Based’ Vaccines Are Straight Ahead

Big Pharma intends to create DNA-based vaccines that will literally change your body’s DNA. With mandatory vaccinations increasingly being legislated, this bodes a very dangerous health future.

Technocrats and Transhumans occupy the same philosophy that science will and can solve everything. Creating Humanity 2.0, or H+, has long had a bold goal to  to conquer death through immortality. Modifying human DNA is a prime element in that quest. ⁃ TN Editor

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot.

Over the years, I’ve written many articles refuting claims that vaccines are safe and effective, but we’ll put all that aside for the moment and follow the bouncing ball.

Massachusetts Senator and big spender, Ed Markey, has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project.

Here is a sentence from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:

“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…”

This is quite troubling, if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations.

Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthesized genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s gene therapy.

In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, added, no matter what the pros say, there are always “unintended consequences,” to use their polite phrase. The ripple effects scramble the genetic structure in numerous unknown ways.

Here is the inconvenient truth about DNA vaccines—

They will permanently alter your DNA.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was three years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline:

“The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, he will live with that change—and all the ripple effects in his genetic makeup—for the rest of his life.

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun. Anyone and everyone on Earth injected with a DNA vaccine will undergo permanent and unknown genetic changes…

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used as a cover for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans in far-reaching ways.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

It means the right to preserve your inherent DNA.

Read full story here…