Posts Tagged ‘ecofren’

100% Proof Paul McCartney Was Replaced

In ecofren, PaulMcCartney, TheBeatles, Uncategorized, Youtube on September 24, 2016 at 1:13 am


100% Proof Paul McCartney Was Replaced


Paul McCartney’s son says Paul died in 1966

Paul Is Not Dead! – John Lennon Interview About Paul Is Dead


Prince RIP

In music, prince, Uncategorized on April 27, 2016 at 2:27 am


Funny attitude,Lady at the petrol station

In Uncategorized, Youtube on April 27, 2016 at 2:17 am

4 wise monkeys

In 4 wise monkey, Hear no evil, Mizaru ,Hear no evil ,Kikazaru,Say no evil, Iwazaru, monkey, See no evil, Uncategorized on January 21, 2016 at 2:48 am


The Original, three wise monkeys can be traced back into 17th century carvings found in Japan.  They represent – See no evil (Mizaru), Hear no evil (Kikazaru) and Say no evil (Iwazaru). Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of Indian Independence movement, also had a small statue of these three monkeys and now we find its use in many places across the world.

In my view, the “evil” word must have been explicitly added later on, as the original Japanese version – “Mizaru, Kikazaru & Iwazaru”, literally means – Don’t See, Don’t Hear & Don’t Speak. See, Hear and Say are the three ways we interface with our outside world. They are also the sources for our Paradigms. As a child, we are always told – “Look at that”, “Look at him”, “Listen to me”, “Speak properly”. And we are forced to live outside-in. By the time we grow up, we have already been programed to take in everything that we see on the TV, that what we hear on the Radio and then we go and talk about it to everyone that we know. As these become our predominant thoughts, we get similar experiences in our life.

The significance of the 3 monkeys is basically  to convey the message – “Do not live outside-in”. The 5 physical senses – see, smell, hear, taste and touch are basically to give us (the spiritual beings) the physical experience and not the other way round.

Similar to the three monkeys, that represent – see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil; the fourth monkey represents – Think no evil.

Thinking is a function of mind. And Mind is merely a tool that we (the spiritual beings) should use only when required. Unfortunately, our mind is working all the time, even without we knowing about it. It is generating thoughts based on what we see or hear and it makes us speak on the same topics. All these 4 monkeys that live within each one of us, just compel us to believe in the outside world more than the inner power that we posses.

Realise that we are spiritual beings and we have a body and we have a mind. We are here to experience the physical world and our mind is a tool that we can use to generate the experience we want. On such realisation, all the monkeys will remove their hands and see the beauty, hear the music and sing songs – and life would be wonderful as it should be.

The Four Wise Monkeys

The four monkeys of right behaviour are depicted here in this traditional mantle piece. The monkeys depict from left to right;

  • Right Action
  • Right Sight
  • Right Hearing
  • Right Speech

The 3 monkeys to the right together embody the proverbial principle to;

“see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”

When we look at the origins of the 4 wise monkeys, they originate from 17th century Japan. Each of the monkeys have names. They are (from left to right);

  • Shizaru
  • Mizaru
  • Kikazaru
  • Iwazaru


Girl Almost Beheaded

In Uncategorized on February 3, 2015 at 1:55 am

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2014

In Uncategorized on October 12, 2014 at 1:43 am

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2014

John O'Keefe

John O’Keefe

Prize share: 1/2

May-Britt Moser

May-Britt Moser

Prize share: 1/4

Edvard I. Moser

Edvard I. Moser

Prize share: 1/4

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2014 was divided, one half awarded to John O’Keefe, the other half jointly to May-Britt Moser and Edvard I. Moser “for their discoveries of cells that constitute a positioning system in the brain”.

Tread Carefully When You Help to Die

In Uncategorized on August 22, 2014 at 1:34 am

Tread Carefully When You Help to Die

Assisted Suicide Laws Around the World

Updated 01 March 2005

Compiled by Derek Humphry, former editor of World Right-to-Die Newsletter

Assisted suicide laws around the world are clear in some nations but unclear – if they exist at all – in others. Just because a country has not defined its criminal code on this specific action does not mean all assisters will go free. It is a complicated state of affairs. A great many people instinctively feel that suicide and assisted suicide are such individual acts of freedom and free will that they assume there are no legal prohibitions. This fallacy has brought many people into trouble with the law. While suicide is no longer a crime – and where it is because of a failure to update the law it is not enforced – assistance remains a crime almost everywhere by some statute or other. I’ll try to explain the hodge-podge.

For example, it is correct that Sweden has no law specifically proscribing assisted suicide. Instead the prosecutors might charge an assister with manslaughter – and do. In 1979 the Swedish right-to-die leader Berit Hedeby went to prison for a year for helping a man with MS to die. Neighbouring Norway has criminal sanctions against assisted suicide by using the charge “accessory to murder”. In cases where consent was given and the reasons compassionate, the courts pass lighter sentences. A recent law commission voted down de-criminalizing assisted suicide by a 5-2 vote.

A retired Norwegian physician, Christian Sandsdalen, was found guilty of wilful murder in 2000. He admitted giving an overdose of morphine to a woman chronically ill after 20 years with MS who begged for his help. It cost him his medical license but he was not sent to prison. He appealed the case right up to the Supreme Court and lost every time. Dr. Sandsdalen died at 82 and his funeral was packed with Norway’s dignitaries, which is consistent with the support always given by intellectuals to euthanasia.

Finland has nothing in its criminal code about assisted suicide. Sometimes an assister will inform the law enforcement authorities of him or her of having aided someone in dying, and provided the action was justified, nothing more happens. Mostly it takes place among friends, who act discreetly. If Finnish doctors were known to practice assisted suicide or euthanasia, the situation might change, although there have been no known cases.

Germany has had no penalty for either suicide or assisted suicide since 1751, although it rarely happens there due to the hangover taboo caused by Nazi mass murders, plus powerful, contemporary, church influences. Direct killing by euthanasia is a crime. In 2000 a German appeal court cleared a Swiss clergyman of assisted suicide because there was no such offence, but convicted him of bringing the drugs into the country. There was no imprisonment.

France does not have a specific law banning assisted suicide, but such a case could be prosecuted under 223-6 of the Penal Code for failure to assist a person in danger. Convictions are rare and punishments minor. France bans all publications that advise on suicide – Final Exit has been banned since l991 but few nowadays take any notice of the order. Since l995 there has been a fierce debate on the subject, which may end in law reform eventually. Denmark has no specific law banning assisted suicide. In Italy the action is legally forbidden, although pro-euthanasia activists in Turin and Rome are pressing hard for law reform. Luxembourg does not forbid assistance in suicide because suicide itself is not a crime. Nevertheless, under 410-1 of its Penal Code a person could be penalized for failing to assist a person in danger. In March 2003 legislation to permit euthanasia was lost in the Luxembourg Parliament by a single vote.

Tolerance for euthanasia appears in the strangest of places. For instance, in Uruguay it seems a person must appear in court, yet Article 27 of the Penal Code (effective 1934) says: “The judges are authorized to forego punishment of a person whose previous life has been honorable where he commits a homicide motivated by compassion, induced by repeated requests of the victim.” So far as I can tell, there have been no judicial sentences for mercy killing in Uruguay.

In England and Wales there is a possibility of up to 14 years imprisonment for anybody assisting a suicide. Oddly, suicide itself is not a crime, having been decriminalized in 1961. Thus it is a crime to assist in a non-crime. In Britain, no case may be brought without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions in London, which rules out hasty, local police prosecutions. It has been a long, uphill fight for the British – there have been eight Bills or Amendments introduced into Parliament between 1936-2003, all trying to modify the law to allow careful, hastened death. None has succeeded, but the Joffe Bill currently before Parliament is getting more serious consideration than any similar measure. As in France, there are laws banning a publication if it leads to a suicide or assisted suicide. But Final Exit can be seen in bookstores in both countries.

The law in Canada is almost the same as in England; indeed, a prosecution has recently (2002) been brought in B.C. against a grandmother, Evelyn Martens, for counselling and assisting the suicide of two dying people. Mrs. Marten was acquitted on all counts in 2004. One significant difference between English and Canadian law is that no case may be pursued by the police without the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions in London. This clause keeps a brake on hasty police actions.

Assisted suicide is a crime in the Republic of Ireland. In 2003 police in Dublin began proceedings against an American Unitarian minister, George D Exoo, for allegedly assisting in the suicide of a woman who had mental health problems. He responded that he had only been present to comfort the woman, and read a few prayers. This threatened and much publicized case had disappeared by 2005.


Suicide has never been illegal under Scotland’s laws. There is no Scots authority of whether it is criminal to help another to commit suicide, and this has never been tested in court. The killing of another at his own request is murder, as the consent of the victim is irrelevant in such a case. A person who assists another to take their own life, whether by giving advice or by the provision of the means of committing suicide, might be criminally liable on a number of other grounds such as: recklessly endangering human life, culpable homicide (recklessly giving advice or providing the means, followed by the death of the victim), or wicked recklessness.

Hungary has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, caused mainly by the difficulties the peasant population has had with adapting to city life. Assistance in suicide or attempted suicide is punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Euthanasia practiced by physicians was ruled as illegal by Hungary’s Constitutional Court (April 2003), eliciting this stinging comment from the journal Magyar Hirlap: “Has this theoretically hugely respectable body failed even to recognize that we should make legal what has become practice in everyday life.” The journal predicted that the ruling would put doctors under commercial pressure to keep patients alive artificially.

Russia, too, has no tolerance of any form of assisted suicide, nor did it during the 60-year Soviet rule. The Russian legal system does not recognize the notion of ‘mercy-killing’. Moreover, the 1993 law ‘On Health Care of Russian Citizens’ strictly prohibits the practice of euthanasia. A ray of commonsense can be seen in Estonia (after getting its freedom from the Soviet bloc) where lawmakers say that as suicide is not punishable the assistance in suicide is also not punishable.

The only four places that today openly and legally, authorize active assistance in dying of patients, are:

  1. Oregon (since l997, physician-assisted suicide only);
  2. Switzerland (1941, physician and non-physician assisted suicide only);
  3. Belgium (2002, permits ‘euthanasia’ but does not define the method;
  4. Netherlands (voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide lawful since April 2002 but permitted by the courts since l984).

Two doctors must be involved in Oregon, Belgium, and the Netherlands, plus a psychologist if there are doubts about the patient’s competency. But that is not stipulated in Switzerland, although at least one doctor usually is because the right-to-die societies insist on medical certification of a hopeless or terminal condition before handing out the lethal drugs.

The Netherlands permits voluntary euthanasia as well as physician-assisted suicide, while both Oregon and Switzerland bar death by injection.

Dutch law enforcement will crack down on any non-physician assisted suicide they find, recently sentencing an old man to six months imprisonment for helping a sick, old woman to die.

Switzerland alone does not bar foreigners, but careful watch is kept that the reasons for assisting are altruistic, as the law requires. In fact, only one of the four groups in that country, DIGNITAS, chooses to assist foreigners. When this willingness was published in newspapers worldwide, sick people from all over Europe, and occasionally America, started trekking to Switzerland to get a hastened death. In 2001 the Swiss National Council confirmed the assisted suicide law but kept the prohibition of voluntary euthanasia.

Belgian law speaks only of ‘euthanasia’ being available under certain conditions. ‘Assisted suicide’ appears to be a term that Belgians are not familiar with. It is left to negotiation between the doctor and patient as to whether death is by lethal injection or by prescribed overdose. The patient must be a resident of Belgium (pop.: 10 million), though not necessarily a citizen. In its first full year of implementation, 203 people received euthanasia from a doctor.

All three right-to-die organizations in Switzerland help terminally ill people to die by providing counselling and lethal drugs. Police are always informed. As we have said, only one group, DIGNITAS in Zurich, will accept foreigners who must be either terminal, or severely mentally ill, or clinically depressed beyond treatment. (Note: Dutch euthanasia law has caveats permitting assisted suicide for the mentally ill in rare and incurable cases, provided the person is competent.)

The Oregon Death With Dignity Act came under heavy pressure from the US Federal government in 2001 when Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a directive essentially and immediately gutting the law. This brought on a public outcry that the Federal government was nullifying a law twice voted on by Oregon citizens. A disqualification of democracy! An interference with states’ rights! Immediately the state of Oregon went to court (2002) to nullify the directive, won at the first stage, but the appeals are likely to continue until 2004. Since l980, right-to-die groups have tried to change the laws in Washington State, California, Michigan, Maine, Hawaii, and Vermont, so far without success. Thus in the USA, Oregon stands alone and under great pressure.

In 2005 the US Supreme Court agreed to the federal government’s request for it to decide whether Oregon’s law was constitutional. The case concerned not so much the ethical correctness of physician-assisted suicide but turned legally on whether it was the federal government or the states which controlled dangerous drugs, as used by doctors in Oregon. The court’s decision, expected in early 2006, will affect pain control throughout America.

New Zealand forbids assistance under 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act, l961, but cases were rare and the penalties lenient. Then, out-of-the-blue in New Zealand in 2003 a writer, Lesley Martin, was charged with the assisted suicide of her mother that she had described in a book. Ms. Martin was convicted of manslaughter by using excessive morphine and served half of a fifteen-month prison sentence. She remained unrepentent. That same year the country’s parliament voted 60-57 not to legalize a form of euthanasia similar to the Dutch model.

Similarly, Colombia’s Constitutional Court in 1997 approved medical voluntary euthanasia but its parliament has never ratified it. So the ruling stays in limbo until a doctor challenges it. Assisted suicide remains a crime.


Japan has medical voluntary euthanasia approved by a high court in l962 in the Yamagouchi case, but instances are extremely rare, seemingly because of complicated taboos on suicide, dying and death in that country, and a reluctance to accept the same individualism that Americans and Europeans enjoy. The Japan Society for Dying with Dignity is the largest right-to-die group in the world with more than 100,000 paid up members. Currently, the Society feels it wise to campaign only for passive euthanasia – good advance directives about terminal care, and no futile treatment. Voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide are rarely talked about, which seems strange to Westerners who have heard so much about the culture of ritual suicide, hari kari, in Japanese history. This is because, one Society official explained: “In Japan, everything is hierarchical, including academics, and government organization, and this makes it difficult for the medical staff and those who offer psychiatric care to join forces to treat the dying.”

Another factor in Japan’s backwardness on euthanasia is that some 80 percent of their people die in hospitals, compared to about 35 percent in the Netherlands, 35 percent in America, with as low as 25 percent in Oregon which has a physician-assisted suicide law. Euthanasia is essential an in-home action.

The right-to-die movement has been strong in Australia since the early l970s, spurred by the vast distances in the outback country between patients and doctors. Families were obliged to care for their dying, experienced the many harrowing difficulties, and many became interested in euthanasia. The Northern Territory of Australia actually had legal voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide for seven months until the Federal Parliament stepped in and repealed the law in l997. Only four people were able to use it, all helped to die by the undaunted Dr. Philip Nitschke, who now runs the progressive organization, Exit International (formerly ‘Final Exit Australia’). Other states have since attempted to change the law, most persistently South Australia, but so far unsuccessfully.

In a rare show of mercy and understanding, a judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, in July 2003 sentenced a man to 18 months jail – but totally suspended the custody. Alex Maxwell had pleaded guilty to ‘aiding and abetting’ the suicide of his terminally ill wife, actions that the judge said were motivated by compassion, love, and humanity and thus did not deserve imprisonment. This was a trend in the right direction.


The strongest indication that the Western world is moving gradually to allow assisted suicide for the dying and the incurable rather than to permitting voluntary euthanasia comes from a huge survey that the Council of Europe did in 2002. It received answers from 34 Central Asian and European states, plus the USA and Russia. Not a few replied that such terms were nowhere to be seen in their laws so had difficulty answering.

Asked if legislation or rules made euthanasia possible, only one country (Netherlands) answered in the affirmative (Belgium had not yet passed its similar law) and 25 nations said definitely not. Asked if they had any professional codes of practice on assisted suicide, eight countries said that they did, while 21 said no.

Some of the other questions had revealing answers:

  • Is the term ‘assisted suicide’ used in your country: Yes 18; No 5.
  • Do criminal sanctions against assisted suicide exist: Yes 23; No 4.
  • If so, have they ever been applied: Yes 6; No 6.

The Council of Europe, representing 45 nations, did not let the matter rest there. Its Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee approved a report which called on European states to consider decriminalizing euthanasia. This was a massive step forward for the previously ignored right-to-die movement.

The commonsense of the Committee’s approach is shown in the draft report by Swiss Rapporteur Dick Marty:

  1. Nobody has the right to impose on the terminally-ill and the dying the obligation to live out their life in unbearable suffering and anguish where they themselves have persistently expressed the wish to end it.
  2. There is no implied obligation on any health worker to take part in an act of euthanasia, nor can such an act be interpreted as the expression of lesser consideration for human life.
  3. Governments of Council of Europe member states are asked to collect and analyse empirical evidence about end-of-life decisions; to promote public discussion of such evidence; to promote comparative analysis of such evidence in the framework of the Council of Europe; and, in the light of such evidence and public discussion, to consider whether enabling legislation authorising euthanasia should be envisaged.


‘Fukushima 50’ risk lives to prevent meltdown

In Uncategorized on July 31, 2014 at 1:53 am

‘Fukushima 50’ risk lives to prevent meltdown

Joe O’Connor · Mar. 16, 2011 | Last Updated: Mar. 17, 2011 6:49 AM ET

We do not know their names, their faces, their families or their personal stories. Nobody really does. They are strangers, in a faraway land, doing the unthinkable.

In Japan they have a name: The Fukushima 50. A coterie of nuclear plant employees — some reports indicate 50, others suggest four working rotations of 50 — who stayed behind while 700 of their co-workers were evacuated from the stricken Fukushima-Daiichi facility on the Japanese coast.

Five have been killed. Two are missing. Twenty-one have been injured in a struggle where, in the words of Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan, “retreat is unthinkable.”

The men understand the stakes. They know there is no turning back. One worker told a departing colleague he was prepared to die — that it was his job. Another informed his wife he wouldn’t be coming home anytime soon.

And so they battle on, a weary bunch of managers, operators, technicians, soldiers, firemen, amid rumours, worst-case scenarios and startling television footage.

They are mid- and low-level employees. They are men with no names, cast into extraordinary circumstances, battling fires, explosions, the threat of explosion and the invisible menace: dangerously high levels of radiation no protective suit can deflect, and one that threatens to seep into the atmosphere if they fail.

David Richardson, a professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina, regards the Fukushima 50 as heroes. And he is right. He has studied the long-term risks for nuclear plant workers in the United States. He knows the facts, and he speaks in the language of millisieverts (mSv), the unit of measure for radiation dose rates.

The typical American worker at the Department of Energy complex is exposed to 50 to 100 mSv over the course of their entire working career. Dosage rates at Fukushima have been measured at tens to several hundred mSv per hour.

Japanese officials were reporting radiation levels at the plant entrance ranging from 400 to 1,500 mSv per hour on Wednesday.

“They are in places where the men’s radiation exposure can exceed what a typical worker at a nuclear facility would accrue over their entire career in the span of 20 or 30 minutes,” Prof. Richardson says.

They are canaries in a nuclear cage-match, and only one winner will emerge. It is man against man’s most deadly creation in a contest Mother Nature — at her worst — kicked off.

Fragile, human and impossibly brave, the Fukushima 50 could be foredoomed to die for their noble cause. If not on the front lines then years from now, in a hospital bed, with bodies racked by pain and wrecked by cancer.

It is a fate Andriy Chudinov understands. The 64-year-old has his own nuclear horror story to tell, involving the nightmare at Chernobyl. A senior reactor operator, Mr. Chudinov was among the first on the scene after a series of explosions rocked the infamous atomic facility on Ukraine’s northern border with Belarus, blowing off the roof and releasing a great plume of radioactivity into the atmosphere.

Thirty-one died from the explosions. Thousands more have died since from cancers associated with the disaster. They were soldiers, carpenters — ordinary people — who galloped into the breach back in April 1986 unafraid, and ill-equipped, and often unaware of the terrible physical reckoning to come.

“The [Fukushima 50] are good guys,” says Mr. Chudinov, who suffers from a blood disorder he blames on radiation exposure.

“They have had it even worse than we did. They had a tsunami first, and now there are several reactors with problems. That’s a nightmare for any atomic worker.”

Protective measures are better now than they were for the emergency workers in Chernobyl. Fukushima’s skeleton crew is highly monitored. Their exposure time in the most radioactive areas is limited and they have retreated, for a spell, when the reactor got too hot.

Protective suits are designed to ward off radioactive dust. They are also impossibly uncomfortable. Imagine running a marathon — in a raincoat, with limited visibility and compromised manual dexterity. Workers wear pajamas and full coveralls beneath the protective garb. They breathe through a respirator, and work with three layers of gloves on their hands.

But the real danger, beyond the fires and the explosions, is a high dose of gamma radiation. And the suits do not stop gamma rays, radioactive waves — imagine an X-ray — that ripple through the body, breaking apart molecules, damaging DNA and conceivably triggering a domino effect that could lead to a terminal diagnosis five years down the line.

A potential widow’s wait can be brief. Five men have died already. Or else loss is something that can unfold slowly, and be filled by doctor’s appointments, chemotherapy sessions and alternative treatments.

It is an awful fate for a hero. It is an awful thing marching off to war, knowing there is no retreat.

“It was a question of duty,” Andriy Chudinov, the Chernobyl veteran says. “We didn’t even think of not going.

“I don’t know why I survived. Radiation reacts differently on different people.”

BIGGEST dogs of the world

In Uncategorized on July 10, 2014 at 3:03 am

unique dog breeds of the world

news-graphics-2007-_640082abiggest-dog-breed_1404099609d112431b22d69a7fa47e7e468113d5e14bbfc6eb66fc81e52409680aa557d76cTop-10-Biggest-Dog-Breeds-In-The-WorldBiggest Saint Bernard pup19_1_1358871066imageshealthch_bmd_gal

Egypt Has a Sexual Violence Problem

In Uncategorized on June 28, 2014 at 2:52 am

Egypt Has a Sexual Violence Problem