UC Berkeley NOT Testing
Dear Group:
It is obvious that U.C. Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Department is not testing our drinking water, milk, locally grown produce, soils, sludges, sewer pipes, or anything else with the intention of public release of realistic results. There is no possible way that what has happened in Fukushima would not have worsening cumulative effects on our local environment, particularly considering the rains and winds for the first full two weeks following the Japanese cataclysm in March. Remember that U.C. Berkeley is not a non-biased testing institution, it is beyond ridiculous to think it would be, as it receives sustaining fiscal support and is otherwise inextricably enmeshed with various U.S. covert organizations, such as the Department of Energy and Department of Defense, as well as with, to the tune of multi-billions (to more tha $100B over a 10-year period) of dollars to companies, such as British Petroleum. I'm sure if some not very deep digging were to take place, we would quickly deduce that there are quite close connections to the nuclear power industry suppliers of the U.S. involved and culpable in the Fuskushima incident at minimum, specifically, through General Electric, as well many others via their endowment and research funding portfolios. Believe NOTHING you see at this site at face value. Frank Snapp. www.enenews.com (for updates) and otherwise research PRIMARY SOURCES on your own. Thank you.
Shame only UCB is testing.
Shame only UCB is testing. France found much higher levels of iodine!
Milgram’s Experiment on
Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to Authority - http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm
Masks: Exploring Identity in Virtual Spaces - http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/masks/2011/02/06/research-update-on-po...
How fear burns memories into our brain- http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-06-15/science-of-spirit...
http://newscenter.berkeley.ed
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2010/11/16/globalwarming_messaging/
WTF? How does any of this
WTF? How does any of this affect my parties?
I think the poster is trying
I think the poster is trying to show you some tricks for controlling the way you think.
You know what is odd with
You know what is odd with UC? Here, we have a bunch of students and a professor voluntarily testing, and not a peep of praise from the heads of UC. They should be lecturing the media how great a service BRAWM is and even give them money and ancillary support. By this deafening silence, the administrators are the ones that cannot be trusted; add to this their ideological platform that twists anything that goes counter political correctness, and you have a corrupt system. To BRAWM, we have to give the benefit of doubt and be grateful for their service--they might even be on the receiving end of some "looks" from other faculty.
By now anyone who is anyone
By now anyone who is anyone knows it is over. The planet is trashed and our system of affairs is going down with it.
Dance while you still can.
Fukushima is the icing on
Fukushima is the icing on the poisoned cake, is it? There comes a point where we no longer care about the Earth, the environment, anything natural, and instead take delight in fishing off what the industrial age already, inadverently or not, already spoiled beyond repair? A sort of anarchy of the environment? Pouring arsenic on the plants just because we can? Laughing about it all, having plenty of sex, dancing it all away? Life goes on.
FINISHING off!
FINISHING off!
earth haters are the norm.
earth haters are the norm. good for the economy or something.
BBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
R. Cromack and others a
R. Cromack and others a like...
seem to defend BRAWM as if they are incapable of being corrupted. Think about it this way. BRAWM is the only institution in the ENTIRE West Coast that is monitoring the radiation.
BRAWM members are also the same ones that have said to MOTHERS, "I have done nothing in regards to the fall-out and continue to let my children drink milk/eat local vegetables/ etc.
This is a response from ANOTHER "academic" or "scholar", people blindly trust... (no names are given though to ensure confidentiality):
I am sorry, I was about to leave for extended travel when I got your email
and did not really have time to answer. You might try to consult the web
pages of the National Atmospheric Release Center (NARAC) at LLNL if you
are still interested. It's their job to study this stuff.
I think some of what you call dis/misinformation may be due in part to some
confusion about what was actually going on there since it was not easy for
workers to get in. Most of the news reports were completely correct but did
not really say it very well -- there is no significant danger from the incident
there. It takes a LOT of radiation exposure at close proximity at one time
to get sick immediately. There is a chance you can get sick from constant
exposure over time but it is a very small relative risk.
The internal/external radiation you were worried about is not really that
important. Again, the size of the dose is more important. Also, please think
about one thing: radionucleides that are orally ingested are used in medicine
all the time to detect and treat disease. The dosages for these applications
are higher than you would get from your milk and they cause no harm.
I didn't do anything to prepare for fall out -- I was not concerned about it.
I am sending my daughter to Japan this summer with no worries. As long as she
stays more than a few miles from the plant, she will get no significant
exposure. In any case, just like electromagnetic radiation (or radio waves),
the intensity is strongest close to the source and dies away quickly with time.
best regards,
Same s---. I've gotten the same response from four professors already.
~Anon Rocks
One cannot but be concerned
One cannot but be concerned for that academic's daughter, he seems to know little about radioactive contamination and yet he is 'sending' her there. Doesn't he care about her at all? Does he not for example care if she decides to smoke, knowing that it elevates the risk of her dying in agony from lung cancer? According to Japan's MEXT and the US DOE report if she is 20 miles from the Fukushima plant she could still be standing in a radiation field from a deposition of up to 30 MILLION Bq/m2 from the Cesium alone, never mind the Strontium-90 in the groundwater. That sounds like 'significant exposure' to me, maybe this particular academic hasn't quite got around to reading the MEXT / DOE contamination report yet?
So, you disagree with them. And?
I fail to see how, just because you disagree with their statements, it justifies suggesting they are corrupt. What evidence do you have that shows they don't actually believe what they said? If you are getting the same view from 5 professionals (including BRAWM), mabye they actually are giving their honest opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean all 5 are right. But, last I checked, being wrong about a subject doesn't automatically mean they are corrupt.
If you don't like the answers you are getting, what answers do you want? And what would you do after getting the answer you are looking for. Also, if you already know the answer, why bother to continue asking?
Because the lives of how
Because the lives of how many are at stake?
I do not understand why you question my search for truth?
The answer I want is the truth. The truth I HOPE for is what BRAWM has been saying (i.e: levels are too low, no reason to worry/make any lifestyle changes)
The confusion is because I'm hearing BRAWM say how it's okay to continue drinking milk with NO worries or even need to worry (mainstream/general consensus/view) and people like Arnold Gunderson and Lauren Moret (others like Daniel Hirsch on not Fukushima but nuclear power in general) are saying things that the mainstream aren't.
UCB is the ONLY academic institution monitoring radiation in our food and water. Never put eggs in one basket? How many peoples lives are we talking about depend on data that comes out of UCB?
EPA has gone back to normal operations/routines while there is no end in sight over in Japan? I'm not trying to say just because EPA is corrupt, UCB is also. I'm just pointing out that these are ALL institutions that work for & within our current social structure and therefore will have similar tendencies in how operations are run.
I'm not saying everyone is deliberately corrupt but I am saying these are people we put our trust in when it comes to knowledge & information.
Even Michio Kaku said he doesn't recommend anyone going to Japan unless they had no other choice. And these professors are sending their children/family there? BRAWM has stated that they have not made any lifestyle changes and I"m sure a lot of people are going to follow because none of us have resources to monitor radiation ourselves. I can't even buy a god damn geiger counter.
I continue asking because the moment we stop asking questions is the moment we've gave up.
Are you suggesting complacency instead?
No. I'm not suggesting complacency
I understand your frustration. There are some very conflicting views and it's difficult to wade through all the information. And it's easy to become distrustful of many people and institutions.
But, I'm simply suggesting that it's a very large leap to make comments like "I'm not trying to say just because EPA is corrupt, UCB is also". You have no evidence (that I'm aware of) that EPA, UCB or the others have said anything other than what they actually believe. No matter how ridiculous some of those comments may seem to you, there's a real possiblity that they are speaking their actual view.
How do we know those that are saying to avoid milk (or everything), that there's great danger, and go as far as saying millions will get cancer or other illnesses are not corrupt? Some could simply want to drive a specific political agenda or are acting out of greed to promote books, get ad money for their web sites or get deals as a paid consultant. And unless there is real evidence that at least suggests that they are acting dishonestly, we can't say that they aren't actually stating what they believe either.
So, there's corruption and there's conflicting info. We need to be very careful about accusing people of corruption. And all we can do is apply whatever analysis and logic we have to their statements in an attempt to find the truth. And, in the absence of analysis, all that's left is to go with the numbers. Right now, the numbers are with the EPA, UCB and the professors you spoke with. Whether that's the correct view or not, time will tell. But, that's what we've got.
I understand where you are
I understand where you are coming from and I believe that there is miscommunication going on.
Evidence about EPA being corrupt? They have been trying to raise acceptable levels of radiation exposure for years. They were one of the FIRST to stop monitoring radioactive fallout here in the states when the situation in Japan is on-going and is actually MUCH worse than most of us thought.
There is a fine line between what some may call "fear-mongering" and simply just learning from experience.
We KNOW our entire global socio-economic monetary paradigm is corrupt. Let me say that again. We KNOW this system is corrupt and breeds corruption.
Therefore, I am only saying that data from UCB "may be corrupted" to people like Rick Cromack (and others alike) who faithfully defend UCB as if it were a religion. I am NOT, however, saying that UCB "is" corrupt.
But honestly, this is the options I'm weighing. Either:
1. Trust UCB, and return to normal routines/diets/lifestyles and if it turns out they are right, then I would have only spent a few months of my life taking precautions such as staying away from milk, certain vegetables, and outside exposure (rain especially).
But what if they are wrong?
2. Question UCB, and continue with my lifestyle changes and if I'm right, perhaps I could have prevented some unnecessary cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc amongst my loved ones, close friends, and fellow humans. If I'm wrong then so be it! Let everyone call me crazy for the rest of their lives, that's fine.
But I am preparing for the worst and hoping for the best.
I really wish I was wrong about radioactive fall-out here in the states. I really miss being in nature and outdoors, enjoying life for what it's worth.
We need to keep questioning those we place in authority. I'm sure there are many people here reading this right now that have no background foundation in science, myself included, trying to make sense of this crazy world when the only data coming out telling us about our well-being is from:
UC Berkeley, Nuclear Engineering Department.
There is something obviously wrong when only one academic/scientific institution is monitoring something as deadly and toxic as radiation.
Time will tell, in the mean time, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
These are people's lives we are talking about. If I can prevent even one unnecessary death by being so precautious, then so be it.
It'll be a life worth saved.
~Anon Rocks
Trust but verify
Ah!!! Saying that someone or some group is corrupt is VERY different than saying there is a potential of corruption. I agree with keeping in mind that there is a *potential* for corruption in any information source. Any time there's money or power involved, there is a potential for corruption. And keeping a healthy skepticism is a good thing. Taking the information offered by whoever and doing your best to verify it is a wise thing to do. Otherwise you could be led down the wrong road.
In defense of the BRAWM team (not that they need anyone to defend them), they have consistently invited questions. And have been, in my opinion, very professional in their responses. They also freely admit that they are still learning and refining their processes. And they have NEVER given health advice. At least not that I've seen. They've only stated that they are not changing their life style in any significant way. I still would like to know what insignificant ways they've changed :-) In any case, questioning is fair and prudent.
As for the EPA stopping their testing, I've got mixed feelings about that. While I'd like to see continued testing, I must admit that the EPA acted in a way that is consistent with what they've been saying all along. They didn't expect harmful levels (define harmful) of radiation to reach the US, they measured and reported it, they showed it was dramatically declining and then declared the event over. The state of Calif hasn't detected anything in the air for 2 months (last report actually on 5/27). Other states have stopped testing. So, whatever is continuing to go on in Japan, it doesn't appear to be reaching the US in any measureable amounts. This is supported by BRAWM's reports that show most has gone away. And whatever is detected is at the lowest levels detected. So, other than making us feel good, I'm not sure what continued EPA testing would accomplish. They apparently don't see any value in it.
Lastly, I agree that it's a sad situation when we don't have additional universities covering this as UCB is. One thing I have been wondering for a while now is what kind of collaboration is going on between UCB, other universities (in the US and other countries) and any government agencies.
Yes, we agree for the most
Yes, we agree for the most part.
Can you explain this phenomenon though of how no one is detecting any amts while Japan's situation is progressively getting worse?
I always thought that in science, to make an extraordinary claim, you must have extraordinary evidence. Therefore, the EPA, UCB, MSM, all claim levels are too low to worry about and that we are not detecting measurable amts while there is no end in sight for those reactors. What, did they suddenly get a lead shielding around the whole plant?
To make a claim like that, I would assume that all the institutions and org's would continue testing to have concrete evidence that the U.S really doesn't have anything to worry about! Unfortunately, that is not the case. Besides independent geiger counters and radiationnetwork.com, UCB is the only institution (I'm aware of) that is monitoring our food and water.
With that said, notice how Canada has not done ANY testing at all!
All I'm saying is that I do not want to make a grave mistake in trusting UCB's data when we've learned so well in history that this is not the case.
The odds are against them. You notice how they can just suddenly reverse their data about the cesium spike? Out of no where, they go "oh, we made a mistake so ya there actually wasn't any spike" and changed their data accordingly.
I didn't know in science you can change your data AFTER the fact...
And though they haven't made any health recommendations, what do you think readers on this forum are looking for? They are looking for advice on their well-being and for UCB to say things like "we haven't changed any lifestyle habits and continue drinking milk" .. there's clearly something wrong because they know VERY well that by saying that, the readers will take it as a sign of relief.
My bulls--- meter is just off the charts. Look at the Japanese, how many lives were put in risk just because they trusted the Gov't in the beginning.
Are you going to make the same mistake?
"Can you explain this
"Can you explain this phenomenon though of how no one is detecting any amts while Japan's situation is progressively getting worse?"
I live in Tokyo and I haven't seen any indication of the situation getting worse. Tests are being done and contaminants are being detected, but the source is probably the major releases from the end of March.
Amazing how delusional are
Amazing how delusional are the Tokyo residents! They see their industrial city standing as ever before, lights flashing, people smiling, biz churning, and they think all is fine and well!
That's because the
That's because the radionuclides are going out to sea, away from Tokyo.
.............................
.............................................
The issue is that we need
The issue is that we need multiple independent organizations doing testing in order to corroborate the findings of, for instance, BRAWM. This is especially true as France has been finding significantly higher radioidoine levels even though, logically speaking, this just doesn't make any sense.
this.
this.
BUMP this.
BUMP this.
What's your point Friend-o?
What's your point Friend-o?
Who is behind enenews.com,
Who is behind enenews.com, the site known as Energy News, which, for the time being, has been focusing solely on the fallout of the Japanese nuclear disaster?
The short answer is, we don’t know.
A domain registration lookup shows its private registration with the mysteriously named DomainSecrecy.net.
A ping of the domain shows the address of 98.158.182.89, which traces back to the internet domain host provider UK2 Group, which is located in Providence, Utah.
It is a mysterious site, indeed, with no About page, no mention of its authors, contact info, or its sources of funding, despite 144 posts since its inception on March 18, 2011.
With less than one full month online, the site already has a one-month Alexa rating of 129,331th place among over 20 million ranked sites on the Web.
What we do see, however, are scary headlines citing mass media sources, with added editorial.
For instance, the March 29 headline, Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania rainwater sample is 3300% above federal drinking water standard.
3300% higher is 33 times higher, but 3300% sounds a lot scarier. The headline also draws a word association between rainwater and drinking water, despite going on to mention the mass media source that says a 3300% higher amount of radioactive iodine in rainwater samples is still 25 times less than would be of concern. Also, nowhere does the article mention that the half-life of radioactive iodine is eight days.
The article, however, adds emphasis in bold to the amount of radiation found in the rainwater samples and to the maximum EPA levels for drinking water, further making an association.
In the meantime, while many Americans are being focused on a very serious crisis for the Japanese, their focus is consequently shifted away from the more directly relevant unlawful presidential war decree on Libya, and the zero prosecutions for fraud against those who knowingly marketed subprime securities as AAA, unlike the more than a thousand convictions of the criminals involved in the far smaller savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.
http://fauxcapitalist.cohttp:
http://fauxcapitalist.cohttp://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/04/03/who-is-behi...
Sock puppet theater!
Sock puppet theater!
I think it is in bad taste,
I think it is in bad taste, to come to the site here, and call out the folks from UCB. They are doing what they do, have always done, and will continue to do. That's their part in all of this.
It's clear that they are intimately connected with the nuclear industry, and most of their grants (individual and group) and such most likely come from government sources. That might be true of many research institutions, or certain departments within these institutions. This is true in many departments in benign ways too.
A really is an old file it seems:
Responses to Questions on the Future of University Nuclear Science and Engineering Programs
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pl1iBo4mASUJ:rael.b...
This job announcement makes it clear that they share close alliances with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
http://chronicle.com/jobs/0000664781-01
I'm sure if you looked at all of the funding for various faculty and for units within the department, you would see quite a bit of government support that will be used in nuclear plants and to further the propagation of nuclear power plants. That's what these guys do.....
Pg 4 describes some of the DOE support for nuclear engineering:
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/upload/Nuclear-Readiness-...
College of Engineering has 43% of its contracts from Gov't contracts and grants (pg 6, don't know about the nuclear dept though)
http://www.n.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gcoe/jpn/research/workshop/docs/goneri_symp...
These guys are part of the nuclear industry, it's what they do.
Does that mean it's cool to come into "their house" and disrespect what they do? Not in my opinion. Some of these students that they are churning out, I hope, will be the next Arnie Gundersen.
All part of the same network
All part of the same network coordinating in the guise of good for the destruction of life on earth. Our planet is very very sore and abused and weeping from the last 100 years of this. It can't take another 100 more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3cdf51zbLU&feature=player_embedded#at=4277
All I needed to hear was this from Berkeley's own Dr. Morse.
AND?
So I watched the panel discussion.
AND?
They recommended UCS, NYTimes, NRC ...
As sources ...
So, what about the video 'steams' you?
"I haven't seen any evidence
"I haven't seen any evidence that anyone in this industry is not 100% diligent." Berkeley's Edward Morse at 1:11:17.
Negligent Homicide
.
The case for negligent homicide and engineering malpractice appears prima facie .. to me. By my lights, most of the 'Fukushima 50' are dead men walking.
I personally consider that Jack Welch, former chairman of the General Electric Corporation, is criminally negligent. Others may disagree. However, so far, no one in Japan or the USA has issued an indictment or initiated any enforcement actions against him or GE.
If the Fukushima designs, equipment, system realizations, operational procedures and emergency procedures represent 100% diligence on the part of the nuclear industry ... then I would be likely to move from tepid support of the nuclear industry, to a decidedly less friendly position.
In capitalism you sell the
In capitalism you sell the cheapest rubbish you can. As a result, we have nuclear reactors all over the world that in addition to being old and poorly maintained never were designed or built to be top-notch expressions of human ingenuity.
The people get what they deserve, unfortunately. The goal of modern life is to be happy and to life to the fullest... except that this comes at the cost of ignoring everything ugly and leaving it for the next generation to ignore as well.
Distance & Time
.
Perhaps Mr. Snapp, (if indeed he is the OP), has published some radioactive measurement data to back up this assertion.
We would normally expect radiation measurements to decline with distance and elapsed time.
Fairly easy, and inexpensive, to take a few samples and send 'double-blind' to independent laboratories.
Unfounded accusations are even cheaper. Inaccurately attributed posts are cheapest of all.
And you trust
And you trust Enenews?
http://fauxcapitalist.com/2011/04/03/who-is-behind-enenews-com/
Also I would love to see your proof that the DOD is funding the nuclear department. You claim that UC Berkeley is a bias institution because it receives funding from the government and private industries. Well please find me a place that provides scientific analysis that is not funded by the government or private industries.
Wow you really don't like
Wow you really don't like Enenews huh? You know all their stories are just clips of mainstream news (with links to the entire articles). Those headlines throw you off that bad? Poor you 8(
Hey Frank Snapp- You have
Hey Frank Snapp-
You have some nerve to come here and disrespect these guys after you have many times posted their measurements (while always making the worst of them and using sensationalist headlines). Yeah, I get it, their results are not jibing with your worldview and therefore must be wrong.
Whatever man.
Oh, Snapp...
...I'm afraid you just allowed your slip to show, and revealed yourself and your agenda for all to see.
In clumsily and facilely attempting to discredit BRAWM, you've only exposed yourself. When you dance with the bull, my friend, sometimes you get the horns.
I will continue to frequent EneNews -- you are on occasion a reliably efficient Fukushima news aggregator -- but your presumed "objectivity" just went into the shutter. Along with your assumed good judgement.
Way to bite one of the few hands that's been feeding you. I wish you all the best in your continued efforts to aggravate a genuine disaster, tragedy and threat to world health & welfare into a full-blown Apocalypse. Some people can't see a building on fire without running into it, screaming to draw attention, and pulling the walls down on top of themselves.
Jackass.
Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
Seriously guys, why would
Seriously guys, why would someone affiliated with Enenews post this here? They have their own page to post whatever they want then they get the page views or whatever.
The OP here is a shill and this is a pretty common practice, and he is playing you like a fiddle. Peace out sheople.
Odd
It seems rather ODD that EENews would have no similar, collaborating statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eed/
http://www.eenews.net/special_reports/nuclear_crisis
It is perhaps time for a standard trick of the Agents Provacateurs.
That's what this thread is
That's what this thread is all about, industry shill falsely attacks BRAWM to hype people up against Enenews. Simple shill SOP
I concur
.
Well put. (MIC) Shill attempts to arrange 'Circular Firing Squad', an apt phrase borrowed from Rick Cromack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
President Dwight David Eisenhower - Fairwell Address
Delivered 17 January 1961
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
“Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Bill you are a promoter of
Bill you are a promoter of insanity and fear.
Yay, insanity! I doubt your
Yay, insanity!
I doubt your sanity.
Eisenhower Advice Continued
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Ethics
:)
Among oathtakers, there are oathkeepers and oathbreakers.
American Nuclear Society
http://www.new.ans.org/about/coe/
Practices of Professional Conduct
1.We hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and fellow workers, work to protect the environment, and strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development in the performance of our professional duties.
2.We will formally advise our employers, clients, or any appropriate authority and, if warranted, consider further disclosure, if and when we perceive that pursuit of our professional duties might have adverse consequences for the present or future public and fellow worker health and safety or the environment.
3.We act in accordance with all applicable laws and these Practices, lend support to others who strive to do likewise, and report violations to appropriate authorities.
4.We perform only those services that we are qualified by training or experience to perform, and provide full disclosure of our qualifications.
5.We present all data and claims, with their bases, truthfully, and are honest and truthful in all aspects of our professional activities. We issue public statements and make presentations on professional matters in an objective and truthful manner.
6.We continue our professional development and maintain an ethical commitment throughout our careers, encourage similar actions by our colleagues, and provide opportunities for the professional and ethical training of those persons under our supervision.
7.We act in a professional and ethical manner towards each employer or client and act as faithful agents or trustees, disclosing nothing of a proprietary nature concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without specific consent, unless necessary to abide by other provisions of this Code or applicable laws.
8.We disclose to affected parties, known or potential conflicts of interest or other circumstances, which might influence, or appear to influence, our judgment or impair the fairness or quality of our performance.
9.We treat all persons fairly.
10.We build our professional reputation on the merit of our services, do not compete unfairly with others, and avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment.
11.We reject bribery and coercion in all their forms.
12.We accept responsibility for our actions; are open to and acknowledge criticism of our work; offer honest criticism of the work of others; properly credit the contributions of others; and do not accept credit for work not our own.