I have noticed for some time that China has been doing quite a lot of business with developing countries. I remember the Nepalese saying that the quality of Chinese engineering projects in the 1980s was far superior to the other aid they received from elsewhere. Any surprise, then, about a rise of “Maoist” revolutionaries starting in the early 1990s?

In fact, I suspect that if the US really wanted to stem the nuclear reactor development in Iran and North Korea they would need to have stronger diplomatic relations with China. That probably feels like eating crow to President Bush who undoubtedly thought he could just swagger his way through international politics in the same way he took over the US presidency. Alas, even Hizbullah actions that destabilize the Mid-East, at the end of the day, seem to be related to a form of Chinese foreign policy as China supplies Iran and Syria. Do they also call some shots, or keep plausable deniability? Hopefully the US Whitehouse is starting to realize that their brash and confrontational style of diplomacy, coupled with overextending the military into conflicts they can not win, is undermining their own country’s security.

Getting the French to stop selling arms and sit at the table for stabilizing the region is one thing, but hardly impressive for the US. The only reason it could seem impressive today is because of the rediculous antics by US leaders who tried to make France look like an enemy for the past few years. The fact is China and Russia are the real powers who the US needs to come to terms with. If the US continues to let itself be bogged down by the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to figure out how to align itself with it allies, then China will be (intentionally or otherwise) surpassing its biggest competitor by quietly but quickly expanding its economic and military influence over developing markets.

Here is a typical example from 2000 of how people regard Chinese assistance:

China is considered by African countries as a good example in the development of national economy and has good experience and technology that are practical and useful for African countries, said Angolan Industrial Minister Albina Assis at the ceremony.

Someone posted a comment on Schneier’s blog about the supposed risk of in-breeding. I might be biased, after reading some of the research on this topic, but it seems to me that in the big scheme of risks to life there are more important things for people to object to on moral or even scientific grounds (e.g. poverty or pollutants found to cause death and mutations) than who you *want* to marry.

For example, we have hard evidence that forms of the herbicide 2,4-D cause harm to humans. Agent Orange, which some might try to argue is not the same as the 2,4-D variant sold and used today in America, continues to be a nightmare for tens of thousands of veterans and their families. I am not a chemist, but here is some compelling information that suggests it is really the same thing:

As a result of the veterans exposure to 2,4-D in Vietnam, veterans are being diagnosed 20 years later with rare cancers, sarcomas, immune deficiencies and Central Nervous System disorders. Children of exposed veterans are born with Learning Disabilities, Birth Defects and deficiencies.

Today, herbicide 2,4-D is being used for weed control across the United States; at National Cemeteries, school yards, golf courses and hospitals. It’s used by utility companies, the Department of Transportation and railroads. Additionally, 2,4-D is being used by farmers which in turn is contaminating food crops, cattle, pigs, chickens etc. In addition to 2,4-D being used to eliminate the growth of plant life in our lakes thereby contaminating our freshwater and saltwater fish.

Aside from that contoversy, the NSF quite simply says that any form of 2,4-D has to be below 0.07 mg/L to prevent “Liver and kidney damage”. Seems pretty clear, no? Don’t drink the water if it has more than 0.07 mg/L…

Apparently this does not wash with the 24d.org site, which proudly says the US is practically covered in the stuff and we, as consumers, should be greatful:

After 60 years of use, 2,4-D is still the third most widely used herbicide in the United States and Canada, and the most widely used worldwide. Its major uses in agriculture are on wheat and small grains, sorghum, corn, rice, sugar cane, low-till soybeans, rangeland, and pasture. It is also used on rights-of-way, roadsides, non-crop areas, forestry, lawn and turf care, and on aquatic weeds. A 1996 U.S. Department of Agriculture study concluded that, should 2,4-D no longer be available, the cost to growers and other users, in terms of higher weed control expenses, and to consumers, in the form of higher food and fiber prices, would total $1,683 million annually in the U.S. alone.

Yes, that is right, the US is risking liver and kidney damage of perhaps tens of millions of Americans in order to avoid less than $2 billion in higher food prices. Hmmm, what’s the annual cost of liver and kidney treatment? Have to look that one up. Oh, and just for good measure, since obviously there is no reason to be worried, the 24d.org site happens to reassure us that there is no reason to be worried:

The study also reviewed the 2,4-D epidemiology and toxicology data packages and concluded (page 2) that after several decades of extensive use, “The phenoxy herbicides are low in toxicity to humans and animals (1,9). No scientifically documented health risks, either acute or chronic, exist from the approved uses of the phenoxy herbicides.”?

Oh, um, could someone perhaps clarify what “the approved uses” are? Sneaky, eh? Are you worried now? I see this all the time in information security. People say they were approved to do one thing with their code, and then suddenly you find the stuff all over the place. Even if it is only allowed for a very specific need, bug-riddled code can sometimes spread like wild-fire.

The obvious question, thus, is what percentage of use today of 2,4-D would be included by 24d.org in the approved category. Does it include things that end up in drinking water? The next question is what is done to detect unapproved use and prevent harm to people? The comparison with infosec gets even closer when the 24d.org appears to say “business is good, we can make it sound like bad things are really good, so please don’t force us to innovate”. Here’s a classic quote from the same page:

2,4-D has for the past sixty years, been a major tool in the continuing fight to reduce world hunger.

Don’t know about you but that kind of reasoning gives me the creeps. Could they really be saying that they are reducing world hunger by killing people who are hungry? Probably wasn’t meant to come out that way, but the language is vague. Major tool? Are they trying to suggest that toxic chemicals are a good way to reduce world hunger, as if there is no safer and more effective/beneficial alternative that would provide a better balance/trade-off?

This reminds me of a discussion where a large company had a theory about getting successful login attempt numbers up by making passwords a little less secure. “I can get you to 100% login success by removing passwords altogether” I told them, “but alas we must ensure that the login is by the right person.” In other words, failure rates could in fact be a good thing since it shows attackers are being repelled (a vulnerability is closed). Of course attackers (the threat) should be reduced as well, if possible, but opening up vulnerabilities is not usually a good way to change the measurement of attacks. Sometimes people fixate on one and only one metric/value and ignore or forget the big picture and the greater consequences…forest, trees, etc.

So, anyway, I’m just saying if you want to find ways to help reduce deformity and death in the world, in-breeding probably isn’t the top of the list, if it’s on the list at all. There is some evidence that people are starting to understand this.

ABC has a rather unsettling story about a drastic reduction in funds for treatment of soldier closed-head injuries, also known as traumatic brain injury (TBI):

George Zitnay, a Charlottesville brain injury expert who is a co-founder of the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, told ABC News earlier this year that traumatic brain injury is the “signature injury of the war on terrorism.”

That’s because of the proliferation of roadside bombs in Iraq and improved body armor that shields troops from lethal wounds but can do nothing about the violent jolts to even helmeted heads that can damage the brain as it bounces off the inside of the skull.

As a result, more troops are surviving injuries suffered in Iraq than in previous wars, but more troops are surviving with permanent injuries. According to Pentagon data reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, only about 10 percent of wounds in Iraq are lethal — less than half the rate in the first Persian Gulf War, Vietnam and Korea each, and a full one-third of the rate in World War II.

By one estimate, as many as 10 percent of all troops in Iraq and up to 20 percent of front-line infantry suffer concussions during combat tours.

The shift in injury is tragic, but one would think that this would lead to increases in funding for research and treatment for brain injuries. Further complicating the risk is the fact that soldiers may already suffer from concussions without realizing it and therefore significantly increase their chance of brain damage by exposing themselves to additional blasts.

U.S. troops in Iraq are exposed to hundreds of bombings each month. “We’ve seen patients who have had three deployments and have had some (head) injury on every single one,” [neuropsychologist] Drake says.

The damage from multiple concussions can be irreversible. “Repeated concussions can be quite serious and even lethal,” says Air Force Maj. Gerald Grant, a neurosurgeon who treated troops in Iraq.

Thus, it is hard to understand why funds are being drastically reduced so much at a time of so much need. Spending restraints on treating the injuries of soldiers? Is this a result of Bush administration tax cuts?

A professor of emergency medicine, Stuart Hoffman, calls on Americans to help reverse this decision:

At least 18,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan to date. Some reports suggest that up to 60 percent of those casualties (as many as 10,000) involve some degree of brain injury. These figures do not include civilian contractors or members of the news media who have suffered brain injuries.

There are signs our government is heading down the same road it followed during the Vietnam War — denying the magnitude of the brain injury problem and thereby depriving soldiers the treatment they need.

[…]

To deal with the influx of brain-injured soldiers returning from combat, these centers requested that their 2007 fiscal year budget be increased from $14 million to $19 million, a paltry sum compared to the billions a month we are spending on the wars. Instead of granting the requested increase, the budget proposed by President Bush and rubber-stamped by both houses of congress eliminates the program.

Citizens of this country should demand answers to these questions:

• Why does the White House want to kill this program, and why is Congress going along?

• Are Bush administration officials embarrassed by the numbers of brain-injured soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan?

• Do they believe that if data collection is stopped, the problem will vanish?

• What will happen to brain-injured troops when they no longer have access to these services?

Military discipline prohibits our troops from speaking for themselves. We must speak for them.

Call, write or e-mail your U.S. senators and representatives. Tell them you are outraged by the decision to eliminate the Defense and Veteran Brain Injury Centers from the 2007 fiscal year budget. Those who repeatedly admonish us to “support our troops” should be willing to do so themselves.