Futurist-Thomas-Frey-at-US-Dept-of-Energy-Event-with-Matt-Wald1Photoof me demonstrating an unusual thermoelectric generator
with NY Times Correspondent Matthew Wald.

On Wednesday I was invited to speak on a panel at the 2012 National Electricity Forum, an event sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, in Washington DC.

In the audience were a thousand power industry executives, regulators, and key industry service providers.

The event was kicked off by U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winning physicist and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Our panel took the stage immediately afterward.

Other panelists included Marina Gorbis, Executive Director of the Institute for the Future, John Petersen, President of the Arlington Institute, and our Moderator Matthew Wald, Senior Washington Bureau Correspondent for the NY Times.

As the kickoff speaker on the panel, my message to them noted that the power industry is an industry that is under attack. An attack not being carried out by terrorists or invading armies, rather it is being attacked by emerging new technologies that have been advancing quickly and are currently beginning to boil around the edges.

My advice was that they begin to make transition plans for dismantling the industry, plans that will include dismantling our national grid and replace it with a series of micro grids. But it included much more than that.

Understanding the National Power Grid

During the early years of distributing electricity, Edison’s direct current (DC) was the standard for the United States and Edison focused heavily on retaining his patent royalties. DC worked well with incandescent bulbs and motors, which the principal load of that era. DC systems could be directly tied to storage batteries, providing the all-important load-leveling and backup power during interruptions of the generator.

At the time, there were no practical AC motors available. Edison invented the first electric meter to bill customers for the power they used, but this meter only worked with DC. All of these technical issues gave DC a huge advantage. However, progress stalled out because they were not able to transmit DC beyond the 1-2 miles range of the generator.

George Westinghouse

Counter to what most have been led to believe, alternating current (AC) had its origins in Europe before the time of Tesla, but didn’t progress very far until it caught the attention of George Westinghouse. Westinghouse put together a team run by William Stanley to explore ways to use AC current. In 1888 Tesla partnered with Westinghouse Electric to commercialize his own particular version of AC, which caught on in a big way.

Creating the 110-Volt Standard

Edison’s DC distribution network consisted of lots of generators and lots of wires. There were no transformers to vary the voltage. Instead, the system operated at the same voltage level throughout the network. As an example, a 100-volt light in a home or office was connected to a generator producing 110 volts, with the line lost accounting for the drop in voltage.

The 110-volt standard was adopted because it was convenient for light bulb manufacturers to work with. They could produce a high-resistance carbon filament bulb that could withstand 100 volts, and still yield enough illumination to be economically competitive with gas lighting. At the time it was felt that 100 volts was not likely to present a severe hazard of fatal electric shock.

Edison, the Elephant Slayer

The world’s first AC hydroelectric plant began operations in 1889 at the Williamette Falls Station in Oregon City, Oregon, and the same company began work on an even bigger plant at Niagara Falls.

When Edison got wind of this, he set out on a national campaign to warn the world of the dangers of AC power. Through a series of town hall meetings he demonstrated how terrible AC current was by rounding up stray cats and dogs and electrocuting them on stage.

He also tried to popularize the term for being electrocuted as being “Westinghoused”.

Years after DC had lost the “war of the currents,” in 1903, Edison’s film crew made a movie of the electrocution of Topsy, a Coney Island circus elephant which had recently killed three men. A 23 second video of the “Electrocution of Topsy” can be seen here on YouTube.

The Birth of a National Power Grid

With Edison’s failure to find a long-range transmission system for DC power, a national AC grid was born.


Even though the “current wars” official ending can be traced to the 1891 International Electro-Technical Exhibition in Frankfurt Germany, some cities continued to use DC well into the 20th century. For example, central Helsinki had a DC network operating until the late 1940s, and Stockholm lost its last remaining DC system in the 1970s.

Since power generation through hydroelectric plants such as the one at Niagara Falls were far away from the population it served, and later coal-fired and oil-fired plants were dirty and noisy, power generation was out-of-sight and out-of-mind for the average consumer. They didn’t care where the power came from as long as long as they had power.

For the past century, nations all over the world have invested heavily in building national and international grids, based upon the assumption that local power generation was not possible. This, however, is about to change.

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu

Introducing the Game-Changers

At Wednesday’s 2012 National Electricity Forum, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu commented, “If someone invents a cheap, efficient form of storage, it will be a game changer.”

Secretary Chu also suggested another game-changer would be, “Breaking down the barriers between utilities so that the variability of generation can be leveled out over a larger area.”

Both of these game-changers already exist.

One technology I demonstrated at the Forum, (shown at top) was a demo version of a thermoelectric generator being developed by Phil Watts in Longmont, Colorado. This local power generator works on the temperature differential of water, with a very clever system for routing geothermally cooled water on one side of the chip and solar heated water on the other. His secret ingredient is an unusual nano-fluid that causes the system to operate with great efficiencies when there is only a minor temperature differential, even at night.

Phil’s technology is just one of many I’ve seen that solves the game-changing issue of local generation. You can see his patent application here.

The second company that I talked about at the Forum is the first I’ve seen that efficiently solves both game-changer problems – local generation and storage.

Since I am under an NDA and not able to discuss this technology in great detail, I will refer all specific questions to the company’s attorney, Karl Dakin – (Feel free to arrange a demonstration for yourself).

What I can tell you is this. The company is a startup in south Denver founded by a physicist with a strong entrepreneurial background. He’s assembling a formidable team to move the technology forward.

The technology will reside in a box that sits adjacent to every home. A series of boxes can also replace a local substation. Power can be generated for less than 2 cents per kwh. Each unit can produce three times the power needed for the average home, and whatever power is unused can be efficiently stored from one day to the next.

I’ve looked at hundreds of energy related inventions over the years and none I’ve seen have the potential of this one. The technology operates silently inside a container without the need for any external power, water, or other inputs. There is no pollution. And the best part is that it serves as a mass energy storage system, efficiently storing power from one day to the next.

I can also point out what this technology is NOT. It is not a Tesla device. It is not a solar, nuclear, geothermal, or fuel cell device. Also, it does not involve zero point energy or any other mystery science.

What’s Next?

If we work under the assumption that both game-changing issues have been solved with this technology, the next discussion will center around commercialization, adoption rates, and rethinking the industry.

Even with a near-perfect solution for local power generation and storage, any new entrant will be faced with huge amounts of resistance. Resistance to change is a built-in byproduct of human nature. But couple that with legacy infrastructure, a century worth of reinforcing public policy, and the seemingly infinite resources of public utilities.  Calling them a formidable opponent is indeed an understatement.

But the game quickly shifts once a large player forms some sort of alliance with the startup and takes them under their wing. Watch carefully to see who decides to cut this kind of deal.

The Adoption Curve

Assuming that a large player aligns with the startup in the near future, how will the adoption of this technology unfold?

Over time, the national electric grid will be converted to a series of micro grids. Grids could be eliminated completely, but there are advantages to being on some sort of a grid as I will explain later.

Since the power industry in unlikely to be an early adopter, look for local utilities and cities to step up to the plate. Industry standards and long-term visioning will lag several years behind the early adopters.

Transition planning will be difficult with the first few installations. Considering all parts of the equation, at what point will one power source be turned off and the new one be turned on?

Businesses, states, and even countries will vie for manufacturing, distribution, and installation rights. There may even be a series of auctions used to decide the winners. Product manufacturing, even with multiple players working with highly automated plants will take years to make a large dent in the current market.

As a best-case scenario, with optimal adoption rates, it is unlikely that more than 10% of the market can be converted over in less than a decade. However, the 2nd decade will see almost universal adoption.

Working from a Mindset of Scarcity

As a society, we have been conditioned to think that electric power is a scarce commodity. Twenty years ago we also thought information storage was a scarce commodity. Now we don’t even bat an eye when we store large photos or videos on our computers.

Over time, the price of power will begin to drop. As we’ve shown with progressively cheaper storage, usage will dramatically increase.

Rather than setting the thermostat to 62 degrees and freezing during the winter, what if we could set the temperature at a truly comfortable degree and not stress about going broke from it or overconsuming?

Being cost conscious of every kwh we use, we have gone through a period of sealing our houses to the point where they can no longer breath. A tightly sealed house creates a very polluted environment with the natural outgassing and chemical emissions of carpet, furniture, paint, and cooking products getting embedded in every wall. With this in mind, a draftier house can actually be a healthier house, and lower cost energy will radically realign our thinking in this area.

Power Laws of Networks

Information networks are a different breed of animal than power networks …or are they?

Over the years we have developed a number of “laws” to describe the value of having networks of people connected people. Here are three prominent laws used to describe the change in value as networks went from one-way broadcasts to two-way communication networks.



  • Sarnoff’s Law – The value of a broadcast network is directly proportional to the number of viewers.


  • Metcalfe’s Law – The value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users connected to the system


(images – credit UbberNoggin)

  • Reed’s Law – The value of large networks, particularly social networks, will scale exponentially with the size of the network.

When it comes to a networked power grid, we currently have a poor understanding of the value that can be derived from it. It is fairly clear that the value increases dramatically if users are both sending and receiving power. It’s also clear that if power is somehow coupled with information it becomes exponentially more valuable.

Final Thoughts

Reinventing the power grid is long overdue. Over the past decade the number inventions has escalated, and caliber of the technology has greatly improved. If the two technologies I’ve mentioned fail, there are thousands of others quickly lining up to take their place.

Over the next couple decades we will witness the dismantling of the national power grid, both in the U.S. and every other nation on earth. If the U.S. fails to act quickly, several other countries will take the lead and the competitive pressure of other nations cannot be silenced by reinforcing policy decisions or failure to act.

This will be a very difficult transition because most wealthy investors have at least some of their portfolio invested in energy-related securities. This will result in many losers along the way.

Current public policy-driven efforts to deal with climate change issues will disappear, as technology will provide a much better solution.

Transformation of national grids will lead to transformation of the global economy, but it won’t solve all the problems. In fact it will create a whole set of new problems, but hopefully a better grade of problems.

By Futurist Thomas Frey

Author of “Communicating with the Future” – the book that changes everything


17 Responses to “Dismantling of our Power Industry Infrastructure”

Comments List

  1. Jay Jones

    Very interesting and exciting thoughts, if this could happen quickly it could end the pollution of our country by ending our reliance on fossil fuels, and just in the nick of time! The need for more coal and oil development would basically dry up and all the wars fought over the black gold would end . Its hard to imagine the implications in so many areas of life that would be affected. Money talks , I would hope that big corporations could be prevented from buying off such an amazing potentially good thing....but it wouldn't be the first time it happened. I would love it if the Keystone project never made it to my doorstep because they found a better way. Anyway to help it along?
  2. Spikosauropod

    To Thomas: If this new power source has the properties you describe, it should be portable. Could it provide direct power to a car, train, ship, airplane, or D-dalus flying contraption? Are we talking about the possibility of mobile entities that run and never stop? Could you put one into a drone that never lands? Could you build a flying platform (perhaps a whole city) that hangs in the air and never needs refueling? Could you power a submarine that never needs to surface? What about heat? Does this thing generate heat? Does it absorb heat? If it absorbs heat, and we built a lot of them, could it reverse global warming? I think you can see where I am going with this. The real implications are staggering.
    • admin

      Scott, I believe the technology has to be stationary to work correctly, but some additional research may open up ways to allow it to be mobile. Still too early to know. You bring up some great ideas though. Thomas Frey
  3. Eric

    This is amazing. Can't wait to see how things change. I saw another technology called LENR working its way towards production. A prime example of a radical breakthrough that has emerged this year is Andrea Rossi's E-Cat (Energy Catalyzer) technology. The characteristics of the technology are so phenomenal they could be considered almost too good to be true by some people who are not familiar with all the evidence in support of it. In short, by exposing nickel powder to pressurized hydrogen gas, along with a proprietary catalyst, cold fusion nuclear processes are induced, and a huge output of energy is released in the form of heat. Unlike conventional nuclear power, no radioactive materials are used, and no radioactive waste is produced in the process. The heat can then be used directly, or converted into electricity via a number of different methods. To expand on the benefits of the E-Cat technology a bit further, it also emits no pollution into the environment, consumes only tiny amounts of cheap fuel (nickel powder and hydrogen gas), and has a huge power density. For example, in one test a reactor core with a volume of one liter produced a constant 130 kilowatts for a period of time. Andrea Rossi has also stated on his blog (The Journal of Nuclear Physics) that one previous model of E-Cat could produce a safe maximum output of 10 kilowatts from a reactor core only fifty centimeters in volume. In reality, the only limit to the output of the E-Cat is the melting temperature of the nickel powder (which is around 1600C). If the nickel starts to melt, the reaction sites where the energy producing processes take place are destroyed, and the nuclear reactions cease. Even only a few minutes later, an individual could open the reactor and detect no radioactivity. Actually, this aspect of the technology serves as a fundamental safety mechanism, because it prevents any type of conventional nuclear run away effect from taking place. Simply put, the technology cannot be weaponized to make nuclear bombs. http://pesn.com/2011/12/30/9601995_One_Full_Year_of_Andrea_Rossis_E-Cat/ ------------- REACTOR CORE -- The reactor core of the home E-Cat unit is about the size of a cigarette box, and is capable of producing ten kilowatts of power. The size of the entire unit will be about the same as a home computer (which I think indicates it is the size of a desktop.) This is a significant reduction in size from previous figures provided. This makes a home E-Cat unit very small and compact. He also claims that the weight has been reduced as well. It was also clarified that each individual home E-Cat system will utilize one reactor core. This is different than what was stated only a couple months ago, which indicates just how rapidly progress is being made. If the reactor core is the size of a single pack of cigarettes (about 85 cubic centimeters) and can produce 10 kilowatts of power, this makes the power density 117 watts per cubic centimeter -- a super high value! SIMPLE REFUELING -- It was revealed home E-Cat units would be capable of being re-fueled by individuals, and not by technicians. He claimed it would be like changing the ink in a pen. After using a cartridge for 180 service days (when the system is actively in use), the system will indicate it needs to be replaced. Once a new cartridge is obtained from his company or a member of their network, the old one will be removed, and the new one popped in. The old cartridge will then be sent to Leonardo Corporation to be recycled. Interestingly, he seemed to indicate that much of the remaining nickel could be salvaged, and it would only need to be re-processed. Each cartridge will cost only about ten dollars, although at first the price could be slightly higher. Once again, he asserted that such small amounts of nickel are used, that there is zero possibility of a shortage due to the proliferation of the E-Cat technology. If the entire world converted all their power producing systems to run off nickel, only 1% of the annual production would be consumed. Though the E-Cat is likely to propagate extensively, we envision many other free energy technologies also emerging, and some of those modalities don't consume any fuel whatsoever, and may be likely to obsolete many of the potential long-term applications of the E-Cat. As cheap and abundant as Nickel is, it isn't infinite, like some other energy sources such as Zero Point Energy. NO HYDROGEN CANISTER -- Unlike previous E-Cat systems which required the use of a hydrogen canister, the new home E-Cat utilizes a material inside of the reactor core which can release and absorb hydrogen. Due to this, no hydrogen canister is needed. I am assuming that the hydrogen release and absorption is controlled via the temperatures produced in the reactor core. Probably when the heat is high the hydrogen is released, and when the temperature goes down the hydrogen is absorbed. Although about ten grams of hydrogen will be placed in the core, only picograms will actually be consumed in the nuclear reactions. The removal of the hydrogen canister will make the certification process simpler, because it had previously been a significant hoop to jump through. Also, I think the lack of hydrogen canister greatly contributes to the size reduction of the system. This is a major breakthrough, and is really, really big news! DIRT CHEAP ENERGY -- The cost of a home E-Cat unit was stated to be between $400 and $500 dollars. This will be accomplished through the best engineering possible of the production line, automization of all aspects of the factory, and the use of robotics. The goal is to make this technology so affordable that everyone will be able to purchase a system, and competitors will not be able to under sell him. Although his technology will obviously be reverse-engineered when the units start to sell, it does not matter because he will have a major head start. SELF SUSTAIN -- The home E-Cat units will be made to self sustain. For the first hour after being turned on, a unit will draw approximately 2.7 to 2.9 kilowatts of power to heat up the reactor core. After that time, the system will self sustain, in that the only power consumed will be used to power the electronics and control systems. The ability of the system to self sustain will not be controlled by the user, but will be totally automated by the control electronics. He compared it to a hybrid electric car in which the computer decides whether the engine runs or if the vehicle runs off the battery, or if the brakes are applied or if the regenerative system is used to slow the vehicle. NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND STABILITY -- National Instruments (NI) is working with Rossi to design new control systems for the one megawatt and home E-Cat. With these new control systems, the stability of E-Cat units has been improved. The key issue needed to be resolved by the control systems is the ability to keep the reactor stable when steam temperatures above 120C are being produced. During the interview he stated that great progress is being made. On his blog he has indicated that they have been able to achieve stable steam production of 400C. This will be important for the efficient production of electricity. He went on to say that in a meeting with NI's engineers and scientists, they explained to him that they did not want to just design a control system for him, but wanted to teach him how to design one. Their philosophy is not just to give a man a fish, but to teach the man to fish. http://pesn.com/2012/01/14/9602012_Momentous_Breakthroughs_Announced_During_Anniversary_E-Cat_Interview/
  4. Doug

    Please refer to the PDF file at: http://repositories1.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-08-4131/LOZANO-THESIS.pdf?sequence=1. A thorough analysis of Phil Watts "novel" thermoelectric generator was done by an independent analyst. 1. It is a self contained "system" that consists of a solar collector array to supply the "hot" side of the energy equation and a in-the-ground thermal sink for the "cold" side. 2. The thermoelectric "unit" itself is based on known thermodynamic principles and no "secret" nano-fluid is ever discussed. 3. The overall system is less than 1% efficient. 4. It requires very significant capital investment. 5. The resulting energy output is $8.40 per kWh which is 70 TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CURRENT ELECTRIC UTILITY PRICES. Basically it involves investing large amounts of fossil fuel energy and artifacts derived by the application of fossil fuel energy to manufacture and install this novel thermoelectric generator. Sorry. There is no free lunch, at least not yet. Within the last several years the world has reach peak oil and peak natural gas output. We are on the downside slope of our fossil fuel energy output curve. It will be a rough ride.
  5. Phillip Watts

    To Doug: In regard to your input, Thermoelectric materials when purchased to scale can drastically reduce cost of goods. The thesis to which you refer is work performed on a generator that was hand machined and not of mass scale molding. During the thesis writing a discovery was made in the nanofluid field that enabled the same generator to produce the same amount of electricity at a 57% lower temerature differential. This implies that a "water storage battery" of extremely low cost solves the energy storage and retreval problem.
  6. Doug

    To Phil: Thanks for the clarification. I would be interested in seeing the paper that I read re-written which includes the use of the new discovery so that we all have updated numbers on overall efficiency while still respecting the confidentiality of your discovery. I am still very concerned about the embodied energy required to reach the end state of any installed green energy system. Without oil and natural gas as feed stocks for cheap energy or for oil and natural gas based products, e.g. plastics and fertilizer the outlook is still rather dim. I hope that I am wrong. To Spikosauropod: Please read "The Long Emergency" by James Kunstler. It is a very eye opening experience. I thought we had 40 or 50 years to solve the problem of oil and natural gas field depletion but that doesn't appear to be the case. While I certainly hope that there will be one or more green energy devices that will allow humanity to live extremely energy wasteful lives I'm not convinced that we can count on it just yet with all due respect to Mr. Frey. Then again he is privy to information that I am not. I am 59 and have heard such talk of cheap clean energy my whole life. So please understand if I am doubtful. So right now I don't personally know of any "solution" to the peak oil problem other than to recognize it for what it is and deal with it. My suggestion is a radical redesign of our life support systems particularly transportation, shelter and food production. We all need to eat, move about and stay warm and preferably cool. Due to limited space I would refer you to the work of Buckminster Fuller and project his work where he left off 30 years ago into present time. A great deal can be done on the other side of the equation which is to dramatically reduce the need for energy while still maintaining high, if not very high living standards. It is now obvious to me that I need to publish my own work so that it can be properly vetted.
  7. Spikosauropod

    Michael McGinn tried to do all those things here in Seattle. The ensuing battle of referendums and false starts has cost us so much money that we may never pay off the bills. Thank God for the Boeing Dreamliner. I recommend that you google: Michael McGinn Wikipedia. You are skeptical about new energy sources, but I am equally skeptical about wide scale social reform. It may be that the only way to get people to stop using so much oil is for the price to go up. When that happens, alternate energy sources and conservation will occur naturally. I live on an island that is only accessible by ferry, so I am well out of the city. I figure we could do enough farming on the island to survive any social upheaval. However, it would be conceited of me to suggest that everyone try to live this way. Our island amounts to a giant gated community surrounded by a three mile moat. All utopian plans to revise social structure are likely to take that form. Your ordinary Joe on the block can't just move where he wants to live. He has to find a house or apartment where he can afford the rent. Regardless of what we do, or try to do, or what happens to us naturally, there is one thing of which I am certain. All qualitative predictions about the future will be significantly off the mark and the real problems we will face have not been imagined yet. The only predictions about the future that are likely to come true are purely quantitative predictions. Population growth along certain curves is a certainty (up to a point, since new technology may reduce the appeal of reproduction). Peak oil is a certainty. However, the notion that it will cause wide spread social upheaval is qualitative not quantitative. We have no idea where we will be technologically when the supply of fossil oil becomes depleted. Maybe we will learn how to trick plants into producing it. Vernor Vinge's Technological Singularity, as outlined by Ray Kurzweil, is a certainty. That last prediction tends to invalidate all the others if the concept is properly understood.
  8. <a href='http://teslafreeenergynow.com' rel='external nofollow' class='url'>Chad</a>

    The search for a reliable method of producing energy from renewable resources is more urgent today than ever before. Did Nikola Tesla truly invent a "free energy device"?
  9. Paul

    Experience has shown that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Experience has also shown that inventors with sound technology patent and publish details of their technology. For these reasons both the mystery technology in the article and the discredited E-cat mentioned above are very unlikely to ever amount to anything.
  10. <a href='http://tribalstylemarketing.com/blog' rel='external nofollow' class='url'>Dan</a>

    I'm all for cheap energy, but why not a Tesla device? He was pulling wireless power from the Earth's magnetic field as far as I understand. Seems like we're just making things hard on ourselves to suit certain people.
  11. <a href='http://TheUniversityCompany.com' rel='external nofollow' class='url'>Matt</a>

    The key to a quality future is a more developed population. We can have all the "advances" discussed here, but still be a third world world.
  12. john

    ah.people....many items tried to be published but were either bought and shelved, or the inventors made to stop, or killed. The world is run by money and money is controled by the banking system. no not Wells Fargo banks...try about 16 individual famlies. Trillion dollar industry? you bet. You mess with them and they will take you down. BUT now when it's becoming so widespread there is little they can do about it. HOWEVER you cannot take down the petrochemical industry in 1 yr. that would be devastating to the worlds economy - i mean we have to be real about this too. However a slow transition over 10-20 yrs would work out fine. Hydrogen on demand systems would work fine and yes they need some power to start up however nothing one of those "shake it" flashlights can't produce. and yes it uses H2o - but geee...pee in your fuel cell not in the toilet. There you go. Power for 1 week at no cost. We have that technology now. It's been on the shelf and sooner or later as the Admin says...some larger corp will take them under their wing and it will begin. Until then its underground. and yes johnny Tesla did invent free power generation. and yes he did have a car that ran on nothing. no battery storage. yes someone has developed that again but geeee do you think he's safe in the open? he is underground i am told and no one can get to him - but he can't release his BOX either.
  13. john

    we are safe from the powers that be and their MIB (Men in Black) as long as we don;t go over 30% energy savings...the magic number as of today. If you try to patent anything that will give you 2x out what you put in your patent will be denied and or held because it will fall under and be deemed a Homeland security threat. yes that's right. Guess who is running the patent office now? find out and you may be surprised what he used to do before. Suppression is the key word. Information and voice is the only answer. Japan/Panasonic (I think) is manufacturing and selling Hydrogen home plants now to europe...but only at 30% savings to the consumer so they are allowed. Do your homework - the worlds library is at your fingertips. and yes there is allot of crap out there but also truth and then there are the folks who try to plant false information - want to see something truthfull? about curing cancer or at least some cancers? www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_defeatcancer29.htm or just google Rick Simpson and watch RUN FROM THE CURE - and no its not about getting high on pot. watch the video. learn what your dollars are buying you. This world is all about greed - dontchaknow?
  14. john

    after you watch that video you tell me if your mom or wife or son/daughter was sick and you could cure them with this...what would you do? I'll tell you what I would do in a heartbeat. Reefer Madness has little place in our informed communities now. I propose that native indians do this business, on native land, and do not charge for the service, so they won't be charged with trafficking. HOWEVER they will charge for Parking. $50. Just an idea of how to put this into action. Nothing like a fight (read press) between the Native indians trying to help the white man rid himself of cancer and the "establishment" to get a cover on TIME and Reuters to pay attention.

Leave a Reply