Bis das Öl uns scheidet
Die USA errichten permanente Militärbasen im Irak.
http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22465/1.html
http://www.telepolis.de/tp/r4/artikel/22/22465/1.html
rudkla - 16. Apr, 22:06
Sonntag, 16. April 2006
Barrister to rule on legal poser of phone mast in park
13 April 2006
EDITORIAL - herts.advertiser@archant.co.uk
A BARRISTER is needed to help sort out a tangle over a phone mast proposed for Clarence Park, St Albans.
The district council's cabinet has backed a decision taken 18 months ago to allow mobile phone operator Orange to put the mast on a new floodlighting tower for St Albans City Football Club in Clarence Park.
In October 2004 the cabinet, acting as trustees for Clarence Park, agreed that Orange should be given a licence for the scheme.
But their own officers then decided not to go ahead with the plan following legal advice and their decision was confirmed by sports and leisure portfolio holder, Cllr Sheila Burton, and resources portfolio holder Cllr Chris Oxley.
Last week the cabinet took a fresh look at the plan following pressure from residents of the Marshalswick area.
They were concerned at reports that Orange would need 10 separate masts close to their homes if they did not get the one in Clarence Park.
The council's head of legal services, Mike Lovelady, warned cabinet members they had to view the application as trustees for the park and could not consider the fact that Orange might need to put up additional masts in other areas if it did not get the go-ahead for its scheme.
Valuer and estates surveyor Andrew Wearmouth said the latest advice from the Charity Commission was that the council could only give permission for the scheme if it benefited the park.
He added: "In all honesty that is something I could not justify."
Council leader Robert Donald felt that the council should call in a barrister to advise on the conflicting views which were being given about the legal position.
EDITORIAL - herts.advertiser@archant.co.uk
A BARRISTER is needed to help sort out a tangle over a phone mast proposed for Clarence Park, St Albans.
The district council's cabinet has backed a decision taken 18 months ago to allow mobile phone operator Orange to put the mast on a new floodlighting tower for St Albans City Football Club in Clarence Park.
In October 2004 the cabinet, acting as trustees for Clarence Park, agreed that Orange should be given a licence for the scheme.
But their own officers then decided not to go ahead with the plan following legal advice and their decision was confirmed by sports and leisure portfolio holder, Cllr Sheila Burton, and resources portfolio holder Cllr Chris Oxley.
Last week the cabinet took a fresh look at the plan following pressure from residents of the Marshalswick area.
They were concerned at reports that Orange would need 10 separate masts close to their homes if they did not get the one in Clarence Park.
The council's head of legal services, Mike Lovelady, warned cabinet members they had to view the application as trustees for the park and could not consider the fact that Orange might need to put up additional masts in other areas if it did not get the go-ahead for its scheme.
Valuer and estates surveyor Andrew Wearmouth said the latest advice from the Charity Commission was that the council could only give permission for the scheme if it benefited the park.
He added: "In all honesty that is something I could not justify."
Council leader Robert Donald felt that the council should call in a barrister to advise on the conflicting views which were being given about the legal position.
rudkla - 16. Apr, 17:45
La situation sanitaire de nombreuses personnes dans le monde qui sont directement irradiées dans les faisceaux des antennes relais est dramatique
Suite à ton message, il faut savoir que la situation sanitaire de nombreuses personnes dans le monde qui sont directement irradiées dans les faisceaux des antennes relais est dramatique. Nous recevons tous les jours nous aussi des messages de détresses de gens qui appellent au secours et qui n'ont que d'autres solutions que le suicide.
Cordialement
Marie Pierre
Un exemple, nous avons envoyé un de nos correspondant sur place afin d'aider des personnes malades voici son e-mail en réponse :
----- Original Message -----
From: Olivier
o: NEXT-UP-ORGANISATION
Infos Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: HLM BREST
Bonjour Marie Pierre,
J'ai eu au téléphone la personne. A la suite de ce qu'elle m'a dit, je lui ai demandé de quitter son appartement en demandant aux propriétaire communal de la reloger. Saignements de nez, maux de tête, ne dort plus, ne rit plus, en dépression, pleure tout le temps ... problèmes aux yeux, son mari également. Tout s'arrête quand elle part quelques jours de chez elle. Le schéma habituel. Elle a 58 ans, son mari 53. Dans la tour ( immeuble ) en face une femme s'est suicidée en se jetant du 11 ème étage après 2 ans d'antennes au dessus de son appartement.
J'ai une haine face à l'impuissance de mes moyens pour aider ces gens ...
Je n'arriverai jamais à tout faire tout seul...je suis désespéré ... dans un autre mail, je vais te dire ce que j'ai vu hier à la ville de Saint Pol de Léon. Je n'en peux plus de voir tous ces malades autour d'antennes.
Entre deux visites dans les maisons j'éclatais en sanglots ... c'est trop dur.
Olivier
Cordialement
Marie Pierre
Un exemple, nous avons envoyé un de nos correspondant sur place afin d'aider des personnes malades voici son e-mail en réponse :
----- Original Message -----
From: Olivier
o: NEXT-UP-ORGANISATION
Infos Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2006 12:28 PM
Subject: HLM BREST
Bonjour Marie Pierre,
J'ai eu au téléphone la personne. A la suite de ce qu'elle m'a dit, je lui ai demandé de quitter son appartement en demandant aux propriétaire communal de la reloger. Saignements de nez, maux de tête, ne dort plus, ne rit plus, en dépression, pleure tout le temps ... problèmes aux yeux, son mari également. Tout s'arrête quand elle part quelques jours de chez elle. Le schéma habituel. Elle a 58 ans, son mari 53. Dans la tour ( immeuble ) en face une femme s'est suicidée en se jetant du 11 ème étage après 2 ans d'antennes au dessus de son appartement.
J'ai une haine face à l'impuissance de mes moyens pour aider ces gens ...
Je n'arriverai jamais à tout faire tout seul...je suis désespéré ... dans un autre mail, je vais te dire ce que j'ai vu hier à la ville de Saint Pol de Léon. Je n'en peux plus de voir tous ces malades autour d'antennes.
Entre deux visites dans les maisons j'éclatais en sanglots ... c'est trop dur.
Olivier
rudkla - 16. Apr, 17:15
Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals?
Comment to 'Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals?'
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7546/0-d#132556
The article 'Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals?' by Rubin c.s. was published recently in British Medical Journal (15 April 2006 in BMJ 2006;332:886-891, doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55) (to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886
Frans van Velden MSc
Rubin et al. define electromagnetic sensitivity as a condition in which symptoms are reported AFTER perceived exposure. This is not the definition of electromagnetic (hyper)sensitivity (EHS). EHS is a condition in which symptoms are reported as related to and attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields (WHO factsheet 296, to be found here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/index.html ). The afflicted persons perceive symptoms and not exposure. The latter is impossible, since EHS and non-EHS individuals cannot detect exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms might arise from environmental factors unrelated to electromagnetic fields. There are some indications that symptoms may be due to worries about health effects of electromagnetic fields, rather than the exposure itself. Some studies suggest that reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system in EHS afflicted tend to be outside the normal range (WHO factsheet 296). The suggestion of Rubin, that perceived exposure is the cause of symptoms, is contradictionary to 'Whatever its cause ...' (WHO factsheet 296).
Usually EHS is assumed on the basis of single-blind experiences, exposure is confirmed afterwards by environmental data or measurements. According to WHO factsheet 296 no scientific basis currently (i.e. December 2005) exists for a connection between EHS and electromagnetic fields. This is under discussion. High frequency electromagnetic fields have proven effects on biological systems. They intensify the neuronal activity, influence the cerebral bloodflow and brain activity, damage DNA and indications that they cause headaches are concrete (Report for T-Mobile, Jülich Institute, 9 May 2005, to be found here: http://www.emf-risiko.de/projekte/ergeb_bewlit.html ).
Rubin et al. write 'Participants were exposed to .. a sham exposure with no signal present' (Abstract, Intervention). This is contradictionary to their clarification 'For the sham exposure, a continuous wave signal was generated .. only a minimal leakage of this signal occurred (SAR 0,002 W/kg)' (Methods, Exposures). It means Rubin et al. answered the research question beforehand. They assumed people are not sensitive to a signal when the SAR is less than 0,002 W/kg. David Bücher from Darmstadt already made clear that 2 mW/kg is even above the SAR during the exposure phase of the study by Zwamborn et al. in 2003 (rapid response to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7546/886#129848 ).
Figure 2 of Rubin et al. (to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886/FIG2 , the time scale is not constant) shows results of the provocation. It does not give all the information about the different densities and structures of the electromagnetic fields, but the growth and decline of the headache severities are consistent. After 50 minutes the results are the same for self-declared sensitive people and self-declared non-sensitive people. The severities however are different. Without any knowledge of the densities and structures of the electromagnetic fields this is exactly what would be expected with an open mind.
Rubin et al. confirm that the symptoms were not trivial. They are puzzled by the results. Did some inadequacy exist in the methods? The sensitivity of the visual analogue scales and the statistical techniques did not have any short-comings. However, they overlook one simple, uncomplicated explanation: the SAR is not an indicator of how worse the scenario. A 'sham' signal with 0,002 W/kg triggered about the same headache severity as a GSM-signal with 1,4 W/kg. This corresponds with people reporting being sensitive to mobile phones at distances of one metre or more. Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former head of the WHO, reported headaches by stand-by mobile phones closer than four metres, abating until half an hour after the phones were turned off (Aud Dalsegg, Dagbladet Norge, 9 March 2002).
Instead Rubin et al. choose a vague and complicated explanation, the nocebo ('I will harm') effect. Again, they answer the research question beforehand, by the assumption that all exposures do not cause symptoms. However, the nocebo effect can not fully explain the results. The headaches of the self-declared non-sensitive people can not be attributed to a nocebo effect, since these people do not believe a mobile phone can do harm. The growth and decline of the headache severities of the non-sensitive people are not random, they show the same pattern as of the sensitive people, the only difference is less severity.
A nocebo effect would imply a difference between the two groups. Rubin et al. did not find any difference from the questionnaires or demographic data. There is no indication of different behaviour, lifestyle, personality. No indication of a different attitude to modern electromagnetic equipment. Many self-declared sensitive people have a positive attitude to mobile communication and were early adaptors. According to Rubin et al. it is interesting that symptom severity increased during exposition. A nocebo effect indeed would produce a different picture. Nocebo effects are usually vague. Figure 2 is not vague at all.
In medicine, a nocebo effect means people re-label existing ailments as side effects of their medication (Arthur Barsky). This means people who have headaches, whatever the cause, start to attribute them to mobile phone use. So, the self-declared sensitive people should report headaches before and in between of mobile phone use too. The headaches should stay away when using a mobile phone and being told there is no field (placebo effect). Nocebo is a learning process. The attribution of a headache to a mobile phone call is rather unlikely, since it is a positive experience to be able to communicate with other people freely.
Instead of accepting the simple and straightforward explanation (electromagnetic fields cause headaches) Rubin et al. walk into the swamp of nocebo and placebo effects. Why? Rubin: "Right. There was no difference in symptom severity between our sham condition and the active conditions which were approximately 700 times stronger. I think that's quite good evidence that it wasn't the RF (radio frequency) that was causing the symptoms." Simplified, Rubin says a train driving 4.5 km/hour can not hurt anybody, because it has 700 times less energy than a train driving 110 km/hour. The effect of the first train is nocebo, so the effect of the second train is also nocebo. If people who do not think a train can hurt are hit, they also suffer from nocebo effects.
The interaction of electromagnetic fields and biological systems is not like that. There is an abundance of sources, producing together the environmental factor electromagnetic fields, with local density and structure (frequencies, modulations) variable in time. There are many people with different sensitivities to different effects, therefore suffering from different consequences. Rubin et al. have been found coherent results by provocation. They found evidence that the concrete indications that electromagnetic fields cause headaches are true. People who ignore this, are suffering from a nolebo ('I don't want to') effect.
Correspondence to fransp@dds.nl
Hi Frans
Thank you for the detailed reply that you wrote about 'Rubin et al, mobile phone signals'. I knew that the results were not correct but I was not sure why. Your letter helped me to understand the reasons much better.
I was thinking from a slightly different angle. The test were undertaken in a central London hospital. We already know that London is a very highly polluted environment with cell phones, cell phone towers and all kinds of other wireless devices. We also know that the electrical equipment used in hospitals, causes extreme problems with dirty electricity in which the electrical wiring causes radiation exposure. Also, wiring throughout the hospital produces its own electromagnetic and electrical fields.
Unless the tests took place in an area that was completely clear of any other EMF exposure and RF exposure, the results would be useless. The research document mentions a 'dedicated suite of offices' at Kings College London. This does not sound like an environment completely clear of EMF and RF pollution, and it does not mention any special scientific facilities.
It seems that the researchers have failed in their research and that testing needs to be undertaken in a completely clean environment and a part of the test needs to occur with absolutely no signal or background interference.
Best regards
Martin Weatherall
Ontario, Canada.
--------
Electromagnetic fields and public health
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1804962/
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7546/0-d#132556
The article 'Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals?' by Rubin c.s. was published recently in British Medical Journal (15 April 2006 in BMJ 2006;332:886-891, doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55) (to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886
Frans van Velden MSc
Rubin et al. define electromagnetic sensitivity as a condition in which symptoms are reported AFTER perceived exposure. This is not the definition of electromagnetic (hyper)sensitivity (EHS). EHS is a condition in which symptoms are reported as related to and attributed to exposure to electromagnetic fields (WHO factsheet 296, to be found here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs299/en/index.html ). The afflicted persons perceive symptoms and not exposure. The latter is impossible, since EHS and non-EHS individuals cannot detect exposure.
It has been suggested that symptoms might arise from environmental factors unrelated to electromagnetic fields. There are some indications that symptoms may be due to worries about health effects of electromagnetic fields, rather than the exposure itself. Some studies suggest that reactivity in the central nervous system and imbalance in the autonomic nervous system in EHS afflicted tend to be outside the normal range (WHO factsheet 296). The suggestion of Rubin, that perceived exposure is the cause of symptoms, is contradictionary to 'Whatever its cause ...' (WHO factsheet 296).
Usually EHS is assumed on the basis of single-blind experiences, exposure is confirmed afterwards by environmental data or measurements. According to WHO factsheet 296 no scientific basis currently (i.e. December 2005) exists for a connection between EHS and electromagnetic fields. This is under discussion. High frequency electromagnetic fields have proven effects on biological systems. They intensify the neuronal activity, influence the cerebral bloodflow and brain activity, damage DNA and indications that they cause headaches are concrete (Report for T-Mobile, Jülich Institute, 9 May 2005, to be found here: http://www.emf-risiko.de/projekte/ergeb_bewlit.html ).
Rubin et al. write 'Participants were exposed to .. a sham exposure with no signal present' (Abstract, Intervention). This is contradictionary to their clarification 'For the sham exposure, a continuous wave signal was generated .. only a minimal leakage of this signal occurred (SAR 0,002 W/kg)' (Methods, Exposures). It means Rubin et al. answered the research question beforehand. They assumed people are not sensitive to a signal when the SAR is less than 0,002 W/kg. David Bücher from Darmstadt already made clear that 2 mW/kg is even above the SAR during the exposure phase of the study by Zwamborn et al. in 2003 (rapid response to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/332/7546/886#129848 ).
Figure 2 of Rubin et al. (to be found here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7546/886/FIG2 , the time scale is not constant) shows results of the provocation. It does not give all the information about the different densities and structures of the electromagnetic fields, but the growth and decline of the headache severities are consistent. After 50 minutes the results are the same for self-declared sensitive people and self-declared non-sensitive people. The severities however are different. Without any knowledge of the densities and structures of the electromagnetic fields this is exactly what would be expected with an open mind.
Rubin et al. confirm that the symptoms were not trivial. They are puzzled by the results. Did some inadequacy exist in the methods? The sensitivity of the visual analogue scales and the statistical techniques did not have any short-comings. However, they overlook one simple, uncomplicated explanation: the SAR is not an indicator of how worse the scenario. A 'sham' signal with 0,002 W/kg triggered about the same headache severity as a GSM-signal with 1,4 W/kg. This corresponds with people reporting being sensitive to mobile phones at distances of one metre or more. Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, former head of the WHO, reported headaches by stand-by mobile phones closer than four metres, abating until half an hour after the phones were turned off (Aud Dalsegg, Dagbladet Norge, 9 March 2002).
Instead Rubin et al. choose a vague and complicated explanation, the nocebo ('I will harm') effect. Again, they answer the research question beforehand, by the assumption that all exposures do not cause symptoms. However, the nocebo effect can not fully explain the results. The headaches of the self-declared non-sensitive people can not be attributed to a nocebo effect, since these people do not believe a mobile phone can do harm. The growth and decline of the headache severities of the non-sensitive people are not random, they show the same pattern as of the sensitive people, the only difference is less severity.
A nocebo effect would imply a difference between the two groups. Rubin et al. did not find any difference from the questionnaires or demographic data. There is no indication of different behaviour, lifestyle, personality. No indication of a different attitude to modern electromagnetic equipment. Many self-declared sensitive people have a positive attitude to mobile communication and were early adaptors. According to Rubin et al. it is interesting that symptom severity increased during exposition. A nocebo effect indeed would produce a different picture. Nocebo effects are usually vague. Figure 2 is not vague at all.
In medicine, a nocebo effect means people re-label existing ailments as side effects of their medication (Arthur Barsky). This means people who have headaches, whatever the cause, start to attribute them to mobile phone use. So, the self-declared sensitive people should report headaches before and in between of mobile phone use too. The headaches should stay away when using a mobile phone and being told there is no field (placebo effect). Nocebo is a learning process. The attribution of a headache to a mobile phone call is rather unlikely, since it is a positive experience to be able to communicate with other people freely.
Instead of accepting the simple and straightforward explanation (electromagnetic fields cause headaches) Rubin et al. walk into the swamp of nocebo and placebo effects. Why? Rubin: "Right. There was no difference in symptom severity between our sham condition and the active conditions which were approximately 700 times stronger. I think that's quite good evidence that it wasn't the RF (radio frequency) that was causing the symptoms." Simplified, Rubin says a train driving 4.5 km/hour can not hurt anybody, because it has 700 times less energy than a train driving 110 km/hour. The effect of the first train is nocebo, so the effect of the second train is also nocebo. If people who do not think a train can hurt are hit, they also suffer from nocebo effects.
The interaction of electromagnetic fields and biological systems is not like that. There is an abundance of sources, producing together the environmental factor electromagnetic fields, with local density and structure (frequencies, modulations) variable in time. There are many people with different sensitivities to different effects, therefore suffering from different consequences. Rubin et al. have been found coherent results by provocation. They found evidence that the concrete indications that electromagnetic fields cause headaches are true. People who ignore this, are suffering from a nolebo ('I don't want to') effect.
Correspondence to fransp@dds.nl
Hi Frans
Thank you for the detailed reply that you wrote about 'Rubin et al, mobile phone signals'. I knew that the results were not correct but I was not sure why. Your letter helped me to understand the reasons much better.
I was thinking from a slightly different angle. The test were undertaken in a central London hospital. We already know that London is a very highly polluted environment with cell phones, cell phone towers and all kinds of other wireless devices. We also know that the electrical equipment used in hospitals, causes extreme problems with dirty electricity in which the electrical wiring causes radiation exposure. Also, wiring throughout the hospital produces its own electromagnetic and electrical fields.
Unless the tests took place in an area that was completely clear of any other EMF exposure and RF exposure, the results would be useless. The research document mentions a 'dedicated suite of offices' at Kings College London. This does not sound like an environment completely clear of EMF and RF pollution, and it does not mention any special scientific facilities.
It seems that the researchers have failed in their research and that testing needs to be undertaken in a completely clean environment and a part of the test needs to occur with absolutely no signal or background interference.
Best regards
Martin Weatherall
Ontario, Canada.
--------
Electromagnetic fields and public health
http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/1804962/
rudkla - 16. Apr, 17:05
Diane Feinstein: Stop Threatening Iran
Diane Feinstein ponders whether the Bush administration has learned from its mistakes in Iraq, or if they will set our nation on a road that leads to military confrontation with Iran?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041606Z.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041606Z.shtml
rudkla - 16. Apr, 16:52
Chief scientist warns temperature will put 400 million at risk
The world's temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain's chief scientist has warned.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article357783.ece
From Information Clearing House
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article357783.ece
From Information Clearing House
rudkla - 16. Apr, 09:03
Die Sünden der christlichen Politiker gegen die Hühner
10.04.2006
Die gnadenlosen Christen haben wieder einmal zugeschlagen: Der christdemokratisch regierte Bundesrat hat einen tierfreundlichen Beschluss von rot-grün gekippt. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4974
Die gnadenlosen Christen haben wieder einmal zugeschlagen: Der christdemokratisch regierte Bundesrat hat einen tierfreundlichen Beschluss von rot-grün gekippt. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4974
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:43
Die nächste Flut kommt bestimmt
12.04.2006
Nun kommen die Jahrhundert-Fluten schon nahezu jedes Jahr: 2002, 2005 und 2006 war Deutschland betroffen und jedesmal heißt es Jahrhundertflut. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4992
Nun kommen die Jahrhundert-Fluten schon nahezu jedes Jahr: 2002, 2005 und 2006 war Deutschland betroffen und jedesmal heißt es Jahrhundertflut. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n4992
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:41
Der Sojaanbau frisst den Amazonasurwald auf
Wir essen Amazonien auf
16.04.2006
Jährlich verarbeitet McDonald's Deutschland etwa 24.000 Tonnen Hühner- und 36.000 Tonnen Rindfleisch. Die Mastbetriebe wiederum leben von Soja. Und der Sojaanbau frisst buchstäblich den Amazonasurwald auf. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n5041
16.04.2006
Jährlich verarbeitet McDonald's Deutschland etwa 24.000 Tonnen Hühner- und 36.000 Tonnen Rindfleisch. Die Mastbetriebe wiederum leben von Soja. Und der Sojaanbau frisst buchstäblich den Amazonasurwald auf. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=6&news:oid=n5041
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:39
IRAN: Nicht-Atomwaffenstaaten können US-Angriffe verhindern - Entwaffnet die westlichen Atommächte
Gastkommentar von Hermann Scheer, MdB - erschienen in der "taz". Er war von 1990-1993 Vorsitzender des Unterausschusses Abrüstung und Rüstungskontrolle. http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=18&article:oid=a5011
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:37
Atomenergie kann das Weltklima nicht retten
GLOBAL 2000 weist nach: Atomkraft kann nur Bruchteil des weltweiten Energiebedarfs decken – echter Klimaschutz nur durch Energiesparen und Erneuerbare Energien möglich. Die Umweltorganisation GLOBAL 2000 warnt davor, Atomkraft als Mittel gegen den Klimawandel zu sehen. „Die fossile Energietechnik durch die enorm risikoreiche Atomkraft zu ersetzen, ist etwa so wie den Teufel mit dem Beelzebub austreiben zu wollen“, krisitiert Silva Herrmann, Anti-Atomsprecherin von GLOBAL 2000.
http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=18&article:oid=a4901
http://www.sonnenseite.com/index.php?pageID=18&article:oid=a4901
rudkla - 16. Apr, 08:35
