Canada Free Press -- ARCHIVES

Because without America, there is no free world.

Return to Canada Free Press

International Report

Bomb found at Italian experimental institute


August 19, 2002 A large bomb was planted at a biotechnology research plant near the northern Italian city of Modena. An attempt to detonate the home-made device had failed, officials said.

The bomb is believed to have been planted by opponents of animal-to-human transplants, which are under research at the centre.

Italian Interior Minister Giovanni Alemanno described the bomb as a powerful device, and condemned the attack. "It is trying to demonize this technology without considering its diverse fields of application as well as its social and economic impact," he said.

The research unit, the Experimental Institute of Zootechnics, is exploring the possibility of organ transplants between species. A message condemning interspecies transplants was spray-painted onto a nearby wall.

The bomb, weighing 15 kilograms (33 pounds), had been planted in a bathroom at a part of the site still under construction in the town of Castelfranco Emilia, near Modena. It was found by an electrician working at the site.

The Institute’s director, Caesare Manfroni, said the bomb consisted of 15 litres (four gallons) of petrol, with a fuse, a gas cylinder, and a tube of explosive powder. The fuse had been lit, but had apparently gone out, he said.

No group claimed planting the bomb.

The Institute is run under the auspices of the Italian Agriculture Ministry.

The idea of using animal organs to transplant into humans is undergoing extensive research in a number of countries. Pigs are used because of their compatible genetic structure. The risk of animal viruses crossing into humans has yet to be overcome.

 

Battle of the bugs

Infected dead crows have turned up on the White House lawn and throughout Maryland, says Michelle Malkin of the Washington Times. In the Washington area, mosquitoes collected from 40 locations have tested positive for the potentially fatal West Nile virus.

"The first human case in the District this year was confirmed this past week.

"The rest of the country is battling the outbreak, too. Five Louisiana residents have died from the virus this summer. Dozens more in Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, and Illinois have been infected.

Malkin says she has no quibbles about applying a small amount of DEET-based insect repellent on her daughter’s arms and legs for an early evening walk by the neighbourhood lake.

"West Nile may be a remote concern for us–the elderly and those with compromised immune systems are most vulnerable–but we’re exercising our parental common sense. The benefits of insecticides and pesticides far outweigh their risks.

"This completely rational assessment, shared by a wide majority of Americans, is driving environmentalist chemophobes absolutely buggy. While most community leaders are clamouring for their local governments to step up mosquito eradication plans, the greenies have filed lawsuits left and right to stop aerial spraying. A group called the "No Spray Coalition" sued New York City, claiming that thousands of fish, lobsters, birds and beneficial insects like butterflies and bees were killed by the spraying.

"Never mind that when the virus first took hold in the Big Apple in 1999, seven people died and 62 people became seriously ill as a result of encephalitis, meningitis and other central nervous system diseases caused by West Nile infections.

"Never mind that as a result of aggressive spraying, New York City gained control of the problem–while other environmentalist-infected regions of the country can’t (or won’t) stop the spread.

"Some hysterical opponents of West Nile spraying are pushing "safe and affordable" alternatives to the chemicals being used to combat infected mosquitoes. But a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July concluded DEET-based insect repellents provided the best, longest-lasting protection against mosquito bites with the least amount of applications. And the aerial pesticides used to combat the West Nile virus are all federally approved chemicals that meet safety standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency–at levels up to 1,000 times safer than the level at which the EPA finds the pesticide has no adverse effect.

"Moreover, these chemicals are among the very alternatives advocated by environmentalists who succeeded in banning previous generations of insecticides, such as DDT. Now as the West Nile virus spreads across the country, threatening both people and wildlife, the anti-pesticide activists want to take away the few remaining weapons against mosquito-borne diseases. And many spineless government scientists still refuse to stand up to them.

"In Connecticut, for example, policy analyst Laurence Cohen notes, the state’s Agricultural Experiment Station "is very good at counting the mosquitoes, at monitoring the mosquitoes, at having seminars about the mosquitoes. But when it comes time to actually kill the mosquitoes, they are intimidated by the scare-mongering environmentalists who are willing to sacrifice a few humans for the sake of a make-believe threat from the new generation of relatively safe bug sprays.

"Meanwhile, it’s not just West Nile virus that is a mosquito-borne public health threat. Communities along the southeastern coast have witnessed an increase in the incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria, meningitis, and encephalitis. As Betty St. John, a fed-up mom in Baton Rouge, La., fumed: "Thanks to the efforts of environmentalists, whose goal seems to be to save us from ourselves, we’re now facing exposure to diseases usually reserved for documentaries on the Discovery Channel.’

"It’s time to tell the environmentalists to lock themselves indoors with their worthless citronella candles and peppermint oil perfume, and let the rest of us battle the bugs with 21st century tools."



Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement