+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 41
Latest: GWarnock
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 8946
Total Topics: 232
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Message icon:

Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 04, 2018, 11:50:15 pm »

They're Talking About "Winnable" Nuclear War Again

Saturday, February 03, 2018

By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed


Not even Trump's ongoing middle school shoving match with North Korea's Kim Jong-un and his growing nuclear toybox appears to have ruffled a great many feathers around here. Perhaps it's the surreal nature of this president and his administration that explains our national shrug at this incredibly dangerous, feckless faceoff. It's a strange plot twist in a weird animation starring two cartoon characters ordering bombs from the Acme catalog. Who could take these guys seriously?

Enter Robert R. Monroe, Vice Admiral, US Navy (Ret.) 🦖 and his recent article in The Hill titled, "Only Trump Can Restore America's Ability to Win a Nuclear War." Vice Admiral Monroe, former director of the Defense Nuclear Agency, is the kind of man Curtis LeMay would have recognized as a brother on sight. "When the Cold War ended in 1991," laments Monroe in his opening line, "America made an unwise decision."

An arsenal of smaller bombs is key to Admiral Monroe's fever dream of a winnable nuclear war. It is a dream Trump 🦀 appears to share.

It goes downhill from there  .

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 29, 2017, 02:47:33 pm »

We've Forgotten How To Fear

By Will Leitch

December 28, 2017


Here are four undeniable facts from this specific moment in history:

The President of the United States, a man whose father suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and whose public speaking ability has degraded so dramatically over the last 20 years that watching him say stupid things in 1999 actually makes you nostalgic for that guy, told his top security officials that he wanted “tens of thousands of new nuclear weapons,”which inspired his Chief of Staff to call him a “moron.”

The President of the United States has more power at this moment than at essentially any other time in American history and, if he wanted, could launch a nuclear attack entirely on his own and no one could stop him. “If President Trump were to decide that it’s time to put Kim Jong Un in his place once and for all, he would choose a plan that already exists,” a “former nuclear missile launch officer” told USA Today. “And it would be almost impossible in my view to override a decision to implement that option.”

Fellow lawmakers and high-level cabinet members are so concerned about Trump’s instability they have been actively trying to come up with some sort of Fail/Safe backup plan to Trump launching nuclear weapons, and their attempts have been thwarted at every turn. A sitting United States Senator actually said, on record, “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic that he might order a nuclear weapons strike.” (This insane, flabbergasting statement was made just more than a month ago, so you’ve surely forgotten about it.)

North Korea, the foreign government most likely to pique the President’s nuclear launch trigger finger, successfully pulled off a test less than a month ago that showed they could hit a U.S. mainline target with little difficulty. Secretary of Defense James Mattis responded to the news warning that North Korea could now strike anywhere in the world. The President responded by calling the leader of North Korea short and fat.

During the Cold War, leaders of wealthy, stable, established nations were hinting at nuclear standoffs, and talking about missile defense systems, and testing thermonuclear weapons, and it led to three decades of apocalyptic popular fiction, fallout shelters being installed all across the country and schoolchildren being taught how to shield themselves from debris and radiation in case of a nuclear attack. It was the central organizing principle of most of the second half of the 20th century. It, singularly, affected every aspect of American life.

And there were so many more protections then than there are now. Now there are non-state actors who would give any amount of money or human capital to get a hold of a nuclear weapon, of which, from the old Soviet Union, there are thousands of unaccounted for. There is an escalating threat from a desperate nation led by a madman whose only reference point for American life is Dennis Rodman. And there is the doddering cable news addict in the Oval Office who only seems to understand what Brian Kilmeade  tells him.


I was eight years old when Testament hit cinemas, just a little bit older than Lukas Haas in the film. I didn’t see it in the theater: It wasn’t until a decade later, on Roger Ebert’s recommendation, that I finally watched it. I wouldn’t have been able to understand it when I was eight. I would just been upset E.T wasn’t in it. But I wonder if my parents watched it.

Until I watched it last week, for the first time in many years, I couldn’t have fathomed how my parents — who had an eight-year-old son and a three-year-old daughter, two people whom they loved very much and wanted to see grow up and become adult humans with lives and children of their own — could have handled it. These children they loved so much, they ones they protected with an almost feral passion, how could they not think about them when they watched the Wetherly family wilt away and die? When my mother watched Carol’s increased panic when she looked for that bear, did she look at me, still with my favorite blanket, and wonder if she’d someday have to bury it with me? How did my dad feel when he went away on work trips, after watching this movie when one day, randomly, out of nowhere, the world exploded and he wasn’t there with his family? To live in that time and feel like it all going away was a real, vivid possibility ... how did they bear it?

I’m legitimately asking. Because unlike every other time I had watched Testament, I am a father now, of two beautiful little boys who are obnoxious and gassy and loud and just about the most incredible things I’ve ever seen in my life. Every day my wife and I look at them and see the boys they are becoming, the men they will someday be, and we are thrilled, we are elated, we are driven near to tears to see them growing up, to learn more every day what they have to offer this planet. I find myself envious of everyone who hasn’t met them yet. You are going to love them, world. I think of what they might be, what they might do, the mistakes they are going to make, the times they get their hearts broken, the hearts they break, the goodness that radiates off them, and I think that maybe they might be the only worthwhile thing I’ve done with my whole stupid life. I can’t wait to see who they become.

But Testament warns: Don’t assume the future. It can all be taken away, forever, from everybody. Just because it hasn’t happened before doesn’t mean it can’t happen now. That it hasn’t happened before actually makes it more likely it will happen now. It is a threat, to you, to me, to everybody you love, to everybody I love. There are so many threats, so much danger in the world. But this is the biggest one. It makes you want to run through the streets screaming. It makes you wonder why not everyone is.

Toward the end of Testament, the school puts on the Pied Piper play. The bombs have fallen. People have already started dying. There is no word from the outside. There are no longer any illusions as to what is happening. But the play goes on anyway. What else can you do? The youngest son comes out, as the Pied Piper, and gives his closing speech as the Piper. “Your children are not gone,” he says. “They are just waiting for a world that deserves them.” Every parent in the audience sobs. They know what world they’ve given their children, and what it means for all of them. The question is: Do we?

Agelbert Full disclosure: I saw this movie more than once.

As an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the Air National Guard during the cold war years, I can tell you that movie was too kind. For example, in the movie, Canada was discussed as a refuge. That is a cruel joke. Air patterns over the northern hemisphere quickly make Canada a DEAD ZONE, even if not a single nuke goes off there. The only (temporary) refuge areas would be in the southern hemisphere near Antarctica. But even those areas go down within a decade too.

The threat of planetary devastation was, and is, much, much worse. I haven't forgotten the danger. Also, I firmly believe that "we" (i.e. 99% of humanity) DO know what kind of a world we want for our children, but we-the-people DO NOT have a say in that outcome.

The goal of the 1% bastards in charge is a Mount Olympus type existence with a sprinkling of we-the-people here and there to use as playthings and objects of perverse sport. This precludes nuclear war.   

WHY? The 1% elite bastards are all insane with hubris and illusions of grandeur, but they are not stupid.

The 1% (more or less) are the "WE" that have not unleashed nuclear mayhem in this planet simply because of their own "enlightened" (SEE: 'greed is good') self interest. They KNOW that radionuclide contamination is FOREVER, for all practical purposes. They don't like "forever" (i.e. 25,000 plus years of dna 24/7 destruction all the way to the microbial level).

   like the engineered "boom and bust" cycles of Capitalism where a bunch of "useless eaters" routinely get offed by war, plague, tsunami, global warming or whatevah, just as long as these periods are

A) Brief

B) Profitable for the 1% and

C) Don't damage the biosphere beyond some elite scam that can be run to make we-the-people pay to keep the elite portion of it reasonably healthy.


But to their folly, they do not now, or ever did, give a rat's ass about the human gene pool. They are NOT impressed by scientists who warn these 'greed is good' psychopaths that the human dna diversity produced by a large population is sine qua non to Homo sap genetic health.

The bottom line big plan for these elite bastards is to gradually get rid of most of us "useless eaters" in a way that can be plausibly denied by the media these elite bastards control.

It is working. Life expectancy and sperm count is dropping EVERYWHERE on the planet. Robots with AI will soon be able to do absolutely any physical or intellectual labor humans now do. The world where the average person lives is turning into one big Reservation and the 99% are getting the same treatment that whitey has given the Native Americans in the USA.

It's a gradual thing where you destroy the moral fiber of a people by denying them decent health care, work, dignity, etc. while, at the same time, you claim you are "helping them with charity". 

Yeah, their Mens Rea Modus Operandi is ultimately suicidally stupid, but their lack of empathy limits their ability to see how their greed is destroying their chances to pass a viable biosphere to their children.

Unless and until God directly intervenes, the ultimate plan by the 1% is for most of us to die quietly in poverty in a gradual 90% reduction of the human population. Our cold comfort is that, only when most of us are gone, will the 1% realize that they killed themselves.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: November 04, 2017, 07:00:13 pm »

Address on Nuclear War to Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

David Swanson

Published on Aug 15, 2017

David Swanson speaking by video to the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 21, 2017, 01:51:57 pm »


John Oliver Explains America's Terrifying Nuclear Waste Problem
August 21, 2017

By Stefanie Spear

"One out of three Americans lives within 50 miles of high-level nuclear waste, some of which, like Plutonium, is lethally dangerous and will be around for an incredible longtime," John Oliver explained last night on Last Week Tonight.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, there is more than 71,000 tons of nuclear waste stranded at 104 reactors. "It was a problem we should have solved in the 1980s," Oliver said, "much like a Rubik's Cube."

Despite years of using nuclear energy, the country still doesn't have a permanent facility for its storage, the comedian said. Oliver proposed what the U.S. really needs is some kind of "nuclear toilet."


Watch above.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 26, 2017, 03:27:50 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Unsaid in this video is WHY Saturn's moons that might harbor life must be protected from the Cassini probe.

I'm glad you asked.  ;D  You see, Cassini has PLUTONIUM fuel. So Saturn is going to get smacked with an element that did not exist before human nuclear physics experiments formed it. 

Saturn is a big gas giant so it probably will not be a problem. But if Cassini had fallen on a moon, it would definitely be a problem for humans if we ever wanted to visit there, never mind any life there now.

Had Cassini failed to make orbit back in 1997, and distributed it's plutonium fuel all over our atmosphere the cancer rates (all cancers, not just lung cancers), which have QUADRUPLED since the 1950's  :P, would be even higher than they are now.   

You see, you only need a teeny, tiny microscopic amount of plutonium in your lungs to give you cancer. So, a few pounds of the stuff dissipated throughout the atmpsphere can threaten the health of millions of people and animals, plus cause deleterious mutations throughout the biosphere.

If you think this is hyperbole, please research the SNAP orbital failure and compare the cancer rates all over the Southern hemisphere AFTER that acccident dosed it with some plutonium (over the years) with those before.

This is a snippet of the sanitized version of that accident:
SNAP-10A, also called SNAPSHOT is an experimental nuclear powered satellite launched into space in 1965. It is the only fission power system launched into space by the United States. The reactor stopped working after just 43 days due to a (non-nuclear) electrical component failure.

They leave a lot of facts about plutonium contamination out, just as the video (delivered with the required fawningly religious tone  ::)) below doesn't even directly address the plutonium hazard for life in the Cassini probe.   

Cassini to be directed to disintegrate in Saturn's atmosphere in September of 2017.

Learn more about the Plutonium RISK below:

The Risk of Cassini Probe Plutonium
Previous space accidents plus toxicity of fuel equal serious concern
By Karl Grossman OCTOBER 10, 1997


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 08, 2017, 07:20:41 pm »

[embed=320,206]<iframe width="640" height="412" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZcDwtO4RWmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>[/embed]

I rarely take the time to watch most of the videos posted here because they are so long, and life is short. But I watched this one. It was really good and explained the impact of Arctic navigation well. Great find.

This would be a good time to start equipping your Bugout Machine and picking Bugout Locations. 


Thank you Surly and RE for your thoughtful comments. 

It was interesting to note how the USA bent the Canadians out of shape in 1985 (Reagan and Bush must have enjoyed that. )  when that U.S. Ice Breaker transited the 'Northwest Passage' without checking in with Canada.

Here's another video that everybody in the USA should pay very close attention to. It is a keeper because it accurately describes the mindset of the M.I.C. (i.e. THEY plan to survive ANY Doomsday Scenario, whether we-the-people survive or not!  :(). Here's what you need to know about Continuity of the Government M.I.C.   

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: May 09, 2017, 10:19:13 pm »

Emergency Declared at Nuclear Waste Site in Washington State   

May 9, 2017

By Stefanie Spear

The Department of Energy declared an emergency Tuesday at a plutonium-handling facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state after a tunnel partly collapsed. Federal officials said, there was "no indication of a release of contamination at this point."

Hundreds of Workers were told to evacuate or take cover as officials responded to reports of "a cave-in of a 20 foot section of a tunnel that is hundreds of feet long that is used to store contaminated materials," according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

"The tunnel itself was breached. There was a 20-foot wide hole," a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy said by telephone from the Hanford Joint Information Center.

The tunnel, located next to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility, also known as PUREX, is in the center of Hanford in an area known as the 200 East Area.

"The PUREX facility is one of Hanford's most contaminated areas," Dan Serres, conservation director at Columbia Riverkeeper, told EcoWatch. "It was the source for the majority of Hanford's weapons plutonium, and Hanford itself produced more than two-thirds of the plutonium in the U.S."

"The tunnel collapse is a disturbing event, and we hope for the safety of all the workers in the area," Serres continued. "Their work is critical to protecting our region and the Columbia River. Looking forward, we will be watching closely to see how the U.S. Department of Energy continues the cleanup effort in this area and throughout the Hanford site."

The Energy Department said via Twitter that Sec. Perry "has been briefed on the incident." The most recent update from the DOE, said crews were continuing to monitor the air as employees were being released early as a precaution.

"This is a potentially serious event,"
Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said. "I can see why the site ordered emergency measures. Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release."

The Hanford site, in southeastern Washington about 170 miles east of Seattle, is known for being the most contaminated nuclear site in the country. The facility made more than 20 million pieces of uranium metal fuel for nine nuclear reactors along the Columbia River. The reactors produced plutonium for America's defense program. Production ended at the facility in the late 1980s, and cleanup began in 1989, after a landmark agreement between the DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Washington state.

According to a report late last year from the Oregon Public Broadcasting:

"Hanford is the nation's largest nuclear cleanup site, with 56 million gallons of radioactive waste sitting in old, leaky underground tanks just a few hours upriver from Portland. After more than 20 years and $19 billion[,] not a drop of waste has been treated.

"Hanford sits next to the Columbia River. It was one of the original Manhattan Project sites. Its nine nuclear reactors irradiated uranium fuel rods. That created plutonium, which was extracted with chemicals, processed and shipped to weapons factories. Each step produced radioactive waste. ...

"The stored waste has to be treated in special rooms called black cells, which are too radioactive for humans to enter. The machinery in these black cells is supposed to operate for 40 years with no direct human intervention.

If something goes wrong, the cells could be damaged."

Watch here to learn more about the Hanford site:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 15, 2017, 08:04:06 pm »

Did you know the Radioactive Cesium standards for food in Japan are FAR more stringent than in the USA and Canada?   

SEE BELOW for that and a "Present" in our WATER RADIONUCLIDE STANDARDS that we-the-people were given on behalf of the Nuclear Polluters, BY Obama. the day before Trump was Inaugurated: 
Thom talks with Kevin Kamps (Radioactive Waste Watchdog - Beyond Nuclear) about the drastic effects of radioactivity still seeping out of the nuclear plant at Fukushima, and reaching our shores and our stores.




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 12, 2017, 01:55:24 pm »

Osnabrücker Zeitung

Who wants to live on a nuclear toilet:P

The new procedure laid out in the reform bill to search for a final nuclear waste repository is a step in the right direction, but involving the public will not prevent protests, writes Uwe Westdörp in an opinion piece in Osnabrücker Zeitung. “In the end, it will again be a political decision – and there will be many people who will see themselves as the losers, because their home is turned into a nuclear toilet,” writes Westdörp.

Read the opinion piece in German here.

For background read the CLEW dossier The challenges of Germany’s nuclear phase-out and the CLEW factsheet What to do with the nuclear waste – the storage question
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 11, 2017, 06:28:05 pm »

New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse: CO2 Smokescreen w/ Arnie Gundersen

Published on Oct 19, 2016

What you’re about to see is a profound presentation that’s taken Fairewinds almost a year to develop. The topic today is the CO2 smokescreen.
I was in the nuclear industry and built nuclear power plants in the 70’s and the 80’s, and I can assure you that when those plants were built, they had absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide and global warming.
The bottom line here is that 35 years in the future, that this nuclear plants that are proposed are only going to mitigate carbon dioxide by about 6 percent. And what I’d like you to do today – I’m going to ignore for the purposes of this presentation the desecration of native lands from mining, the desecration of Fukushima Prefecture and other areas that might be destroyed from nuclear disasters; and also, of course, the long-term storage for a million years of the nuclear waste. So let’s just set all of those liabilities aside and talk about money.
And what I’d like to do for the first half of this presentation is focus on the impact that the nukes that are running right now are having on the environment.
438 plants that the nuclear industry will tell you are critically needed, and if we shut them down, we’re going to melt the arctic ice – are only contributing 3 percent.
So each power plant reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 7/1000’s of 1 percent. (...)
FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-ene...

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse uncovers the ludicrously small impact that nuclear power has on saving the Earth from CO2 emissions in contrast to the promises of the atomic power industry. Well received by fellow experts in the field and filmed by award winning photographer Martin Duckworth, the CO2 Smoke Screen is the culmination of one year’s worth of research and hard work by the Fairewinds Crew, Fairewinds science advisors, and a group of amazing interns from the University of Vermont (UVM).

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse had its debut presentation at the 2016 World Social Forum at the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM). Invited to present both a keynote speech and during workshops, Fairewinds’ Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen and Program Administrator Caroline Aronson attended the Montreal Forum and made presentations at UQAM and McGill University, where Mr. Gundersen shared a condensed version of the “CO2 Smoke Screen” keynote and addressed the issue of radiation releases from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean.

A groundbreaking presentation like the CO2 Smoke Screen takes time, hard work, and funding for the Fairewinds Energy Education Crew to conduct the necessary research and create the videos, podcasts, and newsletters we share with you.

Your donations to Fairewinds Energy Education non-profit provide the funding necessary to produce work of this quality, and it also feeds the fire to push forward, to do more for you, our viewers and listeners. The information we provide on www.fairewinds.org is free for all to read and share, but it takes money to produce. That’s where you can step in and help support Fairewinds. http://tinyurl.com/gp7yrwy

Keep Fairewinds’ work accessible to all; please donate today! http://www.fairewinds.org/donate

CO2 Smoke Screen: New Nukes Make Global Warming Worse Presentation http://tinyurl.com/zm72d2r

FULL TRANSCRIPT HERE: http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-ene...

or listen here https://soundcloud.com/fairewinds-energy

BONUS LINK: Donald Trump Addresses this topic in the following campaign speech last week: https://youtu.be/PJAjoQ4J5pk?t=56m10s called Donald Trump Disassembles Teleprompter In The Middle Of Campaign Rally In North Carolina! at 56:10 into the video.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 11, 2017, 06:21:28 pm »

A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall
Posted on February 1, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock

Extreme rains will breach to unseen levels, says new science led by Dr. David Neelin from University of California. Our cities and farms are not ready. Arnie Gundersen on his trip to Fukushima Japan, and the risks of Trump with the nuclear codes.


Agelbert NOTE: Don't miss the second half of this audio podcast. Nuclear Engineer describes, including all the trouble he and his wife have endured for telling the truth (isince 1990!), how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOES NOT now enforce the regulations on the books, never mind what Trump wants to do to help the nuke polluters even more.

And ALL the nuke assemblies and parts for nuclear power plants, new or used in the USA, are NOW manufactured in CHINA, so there is NO WAY that building nukes is really going to help Trump bring jobs here anyway.

He also recounts the inhuman behavior of the Japanese government NOW. They will NOT reimburse a doctor that treats a person for radiation sickness (hair falling out, vomiting, bleeding gums)  UNLESS the doctor states the reason for the symptoms is "stress". 



Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 23, 2016, 08:54:07 pm »

December 23, 2016
How Will Trump Wield Obama's Modernized Nukes?   

The President-elect's off-the-cuff, ignorant and inconsistent remarks suggests he's either a cynical war profiteer or a true believer in the American myth that more militarism leads to fewer wars, says Noble Prize nominee David Swanson

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: December 22, 2016, 04:35:31 pm »

(German) Federal Ministry for the Environment / Süddeutsche Zeitung

"Target mark 2031"

Germany’s federal cabinet has agreed on a law that is aimed at facilitating the search for a final repository for the country’s nuclear waste by 2031, the Federal Ministry for the Environment has said in a press release. Environment minister Barbara Hendricks said that “historically speaking”, the law perhaps was her most important one in this legislative period and was going to “put an end to the nuclear waste chaos”, Michael Bauchmüller writes in Süddeutsche Zeitung. According to Hendricks, the search conducted over the next 15 years is going to be based on “broad and transparent public participation” and will be conducted across Germany. “The search for a nuclear repository is not going to be any easier now”, Bauchmüller says, but “its much debated start is coming closer”, he adds.

For background read the CLEW factsheet What to do with the nuclear waste – the storage question.

Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz

“Living a lie”

The problem of finding a final repository for Germany’s nuclear waste does not have “a solution in the true sense of the word, but only makeshift at best”, Reinhard Breidenbach writes in an opinion piece for Allgemeine Zeitung Mainz. Advocates of nuclear power production have been “living a lie” from the beginning, Breidenbach says, adding that the technology “actually does not help with anything but only creates absolutely inacceptable risks”. The “so-called temporary storage” was a “highly explosive farce” many generations to come are going to be burdened with, according to Breidenbach.

For background read the CLEW dossier The challenges of Germany’s nuclear phase-out.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: April 12, 2016, 06:33:47 pm »

Nuclear Waste Ship MV Sigrid Runs Aground  :P in Sweden

April 8, 2016 by gCaptain

The MV Sigrid is designed to transport up to 12 nuclear waste containers. Photo: SKB

A Swedish cargo ship designed to haul radioactive waste ran into a little trouble Friday outside the harbor of a decommissioned nuclear power plant in southeastern Sweden.

The Swedish Maritime Administration confirmed that the MV Sigrid had a pilot on board when it ran aground at about 8 a.m. as it approached the Barsebäck nuclear power plant.
Barsebäck nuclear power plant

The ship was not carrying any dangerous cargo  , the administration and the ship’s owner confirmed. 

Wind at the time was about 10 to 12 knots.

A tugboat, two coast guard vessels and a ship inspector from the Swedish Transport Agency were sent to assist the vessel, confirming that no oil was leaking from the ship.

By noon, a tug was able to free the Sigrid and pull it into deeper water. Within a few hours, divers were able to confirm that there was no damage to ship’s hull or propellers.

The cause of the grounding is under investigation.

The nuclear cargo vessel MV Sigrid was delivered in 2013 by Damen’s Galati Shipyard in Romania to the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company (SKB).

The ship was designed to transport radioactive material from Swedish nuclear power plants to SKB’s facilities in Oskarshamn and Forsmark. The vessel can transport up to 12 nuclear waste containers, as well as standard cargo containers or special trucks.

The Barsebäck Nuclear Power Plant has two reactors that have been decommissioned since 1999 and 2005, respectively. 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: March 13, 2016, 03:45:13 pm »

7 Top NRC Experts Break Ranks to Warn of Critical Danger  at Aging Nuke Plants

Harvey Wasserman | March 9, 2016 11:48 am

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 15, 2016, 07:06:31 pm »

State will allow nuclear critic’s testimony in fuel case 

Feb. 14, 2016, 12:58 pm by Mike Faher


Agelbert Note: The Entergy nuclear power Welfare Queens are not happy campers. GOOD!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:10:41 pm »

Groundwater problem emerges at Vermont Yankee

Feb. 3, 2016, 5:29 pm by Mike Faher

Vermont Yankee 2010
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon. File photo
(at link)

VERNON — Greater-than-anticipated amounts of groundwater — 90,000 gallons so far — are encroaching into a key building at Vermont Yankee, and plant administrators are weighing options to deal with the contaminated liquid.

Those options include shipping the water — which an official described as having “slight radioactive contamination” — to an out-of-state storage facility. There also has been preliminary talk of releasing water that is within allowable pollution limits into the Connecticut River, though state officials say they’ve not received any request to do so from plant owner Entergy.

The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission also is monitoring the water situation, and it appears to be improving: The agency noted in a recent inspection report that “the groundwater intrusion rate has slowed considerably” at the nuclear plant’s turbine building, and there is still excess storage capacity to handle it.

“Our inspectors will continue to track Entergy’s efforts to address the issue, but it does not pose any threat to public health and safety,” NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said that, while the amount of water is unexpected, the issue itself was part of the company’s decommissioning plans and will not cause any significant additional costs. “We anticipated this water management program in our decommissioning costs estimate,” Cohn said. “All we’re doing now is figuring out how to dispose of it.”

Vermont Yankee ceased producing power in December 2014, and Entergy has spent the past year preparing the plant for an extended period of dormancy that will precede decommissioning. The NRC says Yankee is in a “post-operation transition phase.”

Last year, the NRC pulled its resident inspector from the plant. But the agency continues to visit and inspect the site. The most recent quarterly inspection report, dated Jan. 28, was based in part on two site visits and identified “no findings of safety significance.”

Within that report, however, is a paragraph saying the plant’s “radioactive water inventories were increasing due mainly to the intrusion of groundwater.” An NRC inspector “determined that VY is considering options regarding future disposal of on-site radioactive water inventory and is also considering options for future action to further mitigate groundwater intrusion,” the document says.

Sheehan said the issue is ongoing. Since the plant shut down, “Vermont Yankee has experienced greater groundwater intrusion into the lowest level of the turbine building,” he said. “Generally, the groundwater totals a few hundred gallons a day, though there are occasional spikes, including one recent day when the amount rose to about 1,500 gallons.”

He cited increased rainfall as one factor. A bigger problem is that the plant is no longer operational, since higher temperatures from power production had led to greater evaporation of intruding groundwater in the past.

Sheehan said Entergy has been working to slow the flow by hiring a contractor to seal cracks in the turbine building and drilling “interceptor wells” nearby. Cohn clarified that those are not deep wells, but rather horizontal holes that act as drainage routes. “What you’re trying to do is redirect the water,” Cohn said.

The NRC inspection report says Entergy is tracking the plant’s water inventory daily, and Sheehan said the company has been pumping and storing groundwater — about 90,000 gallons at this point. He characterized the liquid as having “slight radioactive contamination” after having come into contact with the turbine building.

Cohn said the location of the water is what dictates its contamination status. “Any water that comes into the protected area — rain, etc. — becomes part of our onsite radioactive water inventory,” he said. “We have to come up with ways to dispose of it.”

The NRC says Entergy is developing a radioactive water management plan for Vermont Yankee. Its scope will extend beyond the current groundwater intrusion issue; Sheehan said the site has more than 1 million gallons of radioactive water. That includes water in the torus, a doughnut-shaped reservoir at the base of the reactor building, and in a condensate storage tank.

Shipping radioactive water away from the plant appears to be the most immediate proposed disposal solution.

“One element of this plan would be to ship approximately 200,000 gallons of the torus water to U.S. Ecology Inc. in Idaho by truck for disposal,” Sheehan said. “Entergy last month submitted an exemption request to the NRC seeking approval for these shipments.” It wants an answer by April 15, he said.

While such a shipment falls under federal regulations, state officials say they are aware of Entergy’s request and want to keep an eye on any transfer of radioactive water. “We’re evaluating what kind of monitoring we would want to do,” said Trey Martin, deputy secretary of natural resources.

Some of the water could end up in the Connecticut River. “All nuclear power plants are allowed to discharge slightly radioactive water to adjoining waterways provided the radioactivity is within allowable federal limits,” Sheehan said.

Any proposed discharges would be likely to cause controversy, and they would be regulated by the state. Martin said his agency has no permit requests to review, so he can’t take a position on the matter at this point.

“(Entergy) would have to come to us to talk about a discharge,” Martin said. “If they do come to that, we’ll obviously take a very hard look at that.”

Also watching closely is Bill Irwin, the state Health Department’s radiological and toxicological sciences chief. At a meeting in Brattleboro last week, Irwin made the case for ongoing, intensive Vermont Yankee groundwater monitoring by both Entergy and the state.

“We certainly are interested in what’s occurring there relative both to the groundwater into the turbine building” and Entergy’s disposal plans, Irwin said Wednesday. “Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of information about that, and I’ve asked for additional information.”


Agelbert NOTE: The Vermont wit and humor is showcased below in EXCELLENT comments.     

Bob Stannard 

I wonder if Neil Sheehan has ever stopped to think about how many times he’s said “it’s just slightly radioactive”? How much radiation is safe? Zero. There is no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Much like the lead poisoned water we’re hearing about radiation is cumulative. The more you get; the more you get to keep.

Meanwhile, Entergy is doing what it planned to do all along; confiscate as much of the decommissioning fund as possible and abrogate as much responsibility as possible. They would walk away from all of these old, leaking plants if they could. I’ve never had much faith in Neil Sheehan taking any action that was in the public’s best interest.

The NRC is funded by the industry it oversees. In Vermont we call that rabbits watching over lettuce.  ;) ;D

Terry Allen

Hi there Vermont, Martin Shkreli here (of 5000% price boost on life-saving drug fame) and I have a solution for you guys for the radioactive groundwater challenge. You are looking at it all wrong!! It is NOT a problem. It is an opportunity. Instead of trucking the radioactive toxic waste water to Idaho, send it to Flint, MI, and sell it to the local populace there. First of all it’s safer than their lead-contaminated water they have been drinking, and second, the health consequences are less documented and further out into the future, when likely Entergy will have figured out how to wash it’s hands (in Perrier) of the whole thing before any law suits wend their way to settlement. Win, win win win, win. Glad to help. The consulting bill is in the mail.  

    Greg Morgan

This is not a big problem – and one that has already been solved. Post 3 Mile Island, SNL’s Garrett Morris entered the reactor building with a mop and bucket. Problem solved. I looked for a link to the skit, but couldn’t dig it up. One of my SNL favorites. I am a bit worried about proposing this, fearing that it might be picked up as a good idea!?  ;)

   Jon Warren Lentz

Ship the tainted water to D.C. & plumb it to the Senator’s & Representative’s  drinking fountains.  :D
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: January 12, 2016, 12:09:50 am »

Feds won’t stop nuclear plant exemptions 

Jan. 10, 2016, 8:20 pm by Mike Faher


BRATTLEBORO – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission won’t change its controversial practice of exempting shut-down plants like Vermont Yankee from federal regulations governing emergency operations, trust fund spending and other issues.

That’s the word from NRC Chairman Stephen Burns in a new letter sent to federal lawmakers from Vermont and Massachusetts.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 16, 2015, 03:54:31 pm »

Feds rule Entergy must disclose some details of Yankee trust fund use 

Oct. 15, 2015, 5:53 pm by Mike Faher

VERNON  – If Entergy wants to use the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund to pay for expenses such as property taxes, insurance and emergency preparedness, it’s going to have to tell the federal and state governments in advance.

On Thursday, the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled that requiring Entergy to provide such specifics in its notifications “will afford Vermont an opportunity, if it chooses, to dispute a specific disbursement” from the Vernon plant’s trust fund.

The licensing board’s decision is a victory for the state, and it is also an acknowledgment that many legal and regulatory battles – especially regarding controversial disbursements from the trust fund – have yet to be resolved.

“Although Entergy has stated in previous 30-day notices to the NRC that its disbursements are for ‘legitimate decommissioning’ expenses, this proceeding makes clear that Vermont and Entergy define the term differently,” the licensing board wrote.

Vermont Yankee stopped producing power Dec. 29, but decommissioning will take decades as the plant enters a period of extended dormancy called SAFSTOR. The speed of the cleanup process is reliant on how much cash is in the plant’s decommissioning trust fund, and that fund currently contains about half of the estimated $1.2 billion needed to finish the job.

Any use of the trust fund attracts scrutiny: For example, the state and Entergy are battling over the company’s plans to withdraw from the fund for spent nuclear fuel management and property tax payments.

Additionally, when Entergy asked for permission to stop sending 30-day advance notices to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission before dipping into the trust fund, Vermont officials objected on the grounds that the state wouldn’t be able to challenge those expenditures before they happened. The state was granted a hearing on the matter Aug. 31, but Entergy later decided to drop the license-amendment request and continue providing 30-day notifications.

But, as is often the case with Vermont Yankee matters, the argument did not end there. State officials had asked the licensing board to do two things before allowing Entergy to withdraw its request:

• First, the state wanted key parts of the case preserved – specifically the fact that, after much legal wrangling, Vermont had been granted two admissible arguments and a hearing. Otherwise, if Entergy walked away from the matter and refiled the same request later, Vermont “would be starting over again from scratch, without the benefit of the large amount of resources already expended in this proceeding,” officials wrote.

• Second, the state wanted Entergy to give far more detail on “specific expenses” from the trust fund when providing 30-day notices. Currently, the company does not detail its planned expenditures; it provides only the maximum amount it intends to withdraw from the fund during a specified time frame.

Thursday’s ruling by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board serves as the official termination of Entergy’s original license-amendment request, and it grants the state one of its demands – but only in part.

Siding with Entergy, the board declined to preserve any of the license-amendment case for future proceedings. “Vermont has not demonstrated sufficient legal harm to justify the sanction of turning a voluntary withdrawal into a withdrawal with prejudice,” the board wrote.

Also, board members said the state’s specific arguments in this case may not necessarily apply to any future license amendment filed by the company.

But the licensing board leaned toward the state’s point of view by requiring Entergy to specify in its 30-day notices when the company plans to use trust-fund cash for any of six purposes – all relating to issues that state officials had raised in the license-amendment case.

The six trust-fund uses that require disclosure are:

• Payment of $5 million to Vermont as part of a settlement agreement with the state.

• Emergency-preparedness costs.

• Shipments of non-radiological asbestos waste.

• Insurance.

• Property taxes.

• “Replacement of structures related to dry cask storage, such as a bituminous roof.”
(Dry cask storage is the manner in which all of Vermont Yankee’s spent fuel eventually will be stored at the plant site.)

Entergy also must provide advance notice if it plans to use the trust fund for legal fees that were disputed in the license-amendment case.

There was one additional condition imposed by the licensing board – a condition that also had been recommended by the NRC staff: In a mechanism designed to give Vermont more time to respond to future regulatory changes proposed by Entergy, the company “must provide written notice to Vermont of any new license-amendment application relating to the decommissioning trust fund at the time such application is submitted to the NRC,” the board wrote.

In reaction to Thursday’s ruling, Entergy spokesman Marty Cohn said the company “will continue to abide by all NRC requirements, and we’re exploring our legal options.”

Though state officials didn’t get everything they wanted, Public Service Department Commissioner Chris Recchia lauded the licensing board’s decision.

“I am pleased that the licensing board has seen the wisdom of Entergy notifying us of specific expenditures from the decommissioning trust fund,” Recchia said in a statement. “I think this will help us in being able to ensure that the funds are used appropriately and that decommissioning can occur at the earliest possible time.” 

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 11, 2015, 08:35:44 pm »

As to the "feasibility" of the new scam to fleece the taxpayers, I suggest you try real hard to understand that the designers of these nuclear power pants knew damned good and well, WHEN THEY WERE DESIGNING THEM, that the day would come when they couldn't suck more electrical energy from fuel assemblies for PRIVATE corporate profit.

So NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, the "feasibility" of vitrification, reprocessing or baby sitting in underground caves (all techniques are DECADES old already - they just haven't suckered all of us to pay for them YET), ALL of which will be PAID for by SOCIALIZED (i.e. we-the-people) is being "pondered".

This is not hard, Monsta. The people that PROFITED by owning STOCK in those nuclear power should be required to PAY for any baby sitting or reprocessing of "waste" radionuclide fuel assemblies, PERIOD.

Whether we like it or not there is nuclear waste and it has to be tackled somehow. Just because I provide an explanation on how to tackle the waste this doesn't equate to me being an advocate for nuclear energy. It is simply a case of trying to solve a long standing problem. Plus there are means to pay for this privately through some sort of levy system. If the tax payer must foot the bill then there has to be clear guidelines to stopping the plants or/and reducing any subsidy direct or otherwise in the near to medium future. If the technology is truly viable it should be able to stand on its two feet. In any case though this business of nuclear waste needs to be tackled before economic collapse because without abundant sources of energy managing and disposing of this waste gets a whole lot harder. It is boondoggle but this rubbish needs a solution in the near future and waiting will just increase the costs further.

In reality nuclear energy is not compatible with a long energy future and has to be wound down; part of that winding down though will involve tackling the nuclear waste issue though. If the taxpayer has to pay to get this thing wound up then that is bad and should be avoided if possible but if there are no other means it needs to be done as this problem needs to be sorted as quickly as possible. A long delay will just increase the costs for future generations who are unlikely to have the same capacity to deal with this issue.

Yes - it must be "wound down" and "tackled".  I like your semantics or "choice of words" in your comment Monsta.  Are you running for any "office"?   ;D   


Hey Monsta, as long you pay for the "tackling", go for it. Nuclear energy was NEVER "cost effective" or a "benefit" to society. I WON'T PAY for other people's TOXIC WASTE, PERIOD. And I do not really care if that leads us to extinction. If you do the crime and want to socialize the time, then to HELL with human society!

And by the way, the effect of future generations is FAR MORE DIRE form burning fossil fuels, but I don't hear you demanding drastic GOVERNMENT FUNDED measures to STOP burning fossil fuels and go to 100% Renewable energy within a decade or so.    

Sorry old chum, I think your position lacks objectivity.
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 11, 2015, 06:53:50 pm »

I was googling articles on the viability of storing high-grade nuclear waste under the ocean beds and it would seem this idea while challenging could be feasible. What is more due to characteristics of the ocean bed it would not require any further active measures to contain the radioactive waste. In some of the ocean beds the rock formation share a number of favourable characteristics namely they are not permeable to water absorption but can absorb any leaks from the canisters themselves. In addition they have a natural plasticity meaning that any breaches in the containment would be sealed by the actual rock formation. Finally if there are number of highly stable regions that have not shown any notable seismic activity in tens of millions of years which is a long enough time-frame to make these materials inert.

In the end these measures will face a lot of political and social opposition and this is before you consider the international laws in place. I do know that the London Convention does not place a distinction between conventional ocean dumping and the placement of waste under the sea bed. However that treaty is due to expire around 2018 so in theory you could have enough time to get this idea of the ground provided you plug it in the right places. One of the disadvantages mentioned about this method is that it becomes difficult to retrieve the waste at a later date. However even that is not impossible. For example most of the proposed solutions to this disposal involve vitrification of the waste (to make the waste safer and less prone to nuclear proliferation) and then using rigs similar to oil extraction to bore holes in the actual ocean floor. Those regions are marked in some measure so if those vessels need to be recovered at a later date it could be possible.

As to the "feasibility" of the new scam to fleece the taxpayers, I suggest you try real hard to understand that the designers of these nuclear power pants knew damned good and well, WHEN THEY WERE DESIGNING THEM, that the day would come when they couldn't suck more electrical energy from fuel assemblies for PRIVATE corporate profit.

So NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, the "feasibility" of vitrification, reprocessing or baby sitting in underground caves (all techniques are DECADES old already - they just haven't suckered all of us to pay for them YET), ALL of which will be PAID for by SOCIALIZED (i.e. we-the-people) is being "pondered".

This is not hard, Monsta. The people that PROFITED by owning STOCK in those nuclear power should be required to PAY for any baby sitting or reprocessing of "waste" radionuclide fuel assemblies, PERIOD.

After EVERY CENT those stockholders (the records over the past 60 years clearly contain everybody, including pension funds, who fed at that trough so they CANNOT hide) made in profits is spent taking care of the nuclear CRAP, then, and ONLY THEN, can we discuss the feasibility of making ALL OF US foot the bill for that TOXIC WASTE.

People are getting just a little tired of the old "Privatize the profits and socialize the costs" BALONEY.

While you are Googling, I suggest you look up boondoggle.

The other rather important aspect of the Manhattan project is that it was the beginning of the secret, behind-the-scenes shadow government that now controls everything in the West. Until then, we had pretty good transparency built into our system. From the Manhattan Project, we got NSA, CIA, USMIC, and a load of other nasty little acronyms that all mean secret government.

I suggest we store a couple of truckloads of nuclear waste in the basement of any government building whose occupants work for departments with initials like that.

As long as the stockholders who profited from the utilities that ran those nuclear power plants are the only people taxed to pay the costs, I agree.   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 01, 2015, 09:35:32 pm »

PR:Oak Ridge Bomb Plant Cost Soaring Towards $10 Billion

OREPA releases cost estimate for Uranium Processing Facility in Tennessee

— Bomb Plant to cost $10 billion or more, NOT $6.5 billion —

Says Senator Lamar Alexander shields bomb plant from scrutiny and withholds information from public

Tuesday, September 8, 2015
 Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance’s UPF Accountability Project today released a $10 billion cost estimate for the Uranium Processing Facility bomb plant slated to be built at the Y12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

OREPA’s cost estimate, based on the cost of the bomb plant design through FY2016, reveals the current assurances of Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and the National Nuclear Security Administration to be deceptively erroneous.

“They are lowballing the actual cost of the project,”
charged OREPA coordinator Ralph Hutchison. “And they are withholding information from the public about the money they have already spent. They know there is no way in the world they will build the UPF for $6.5 billion, even though they’ve scaled back the project and shifted major pieces to other lines in the budget. Still the UPF is on a trajectory to cost more than ten billion dollars.”

OREPA’s calculations, explained in the September 2015 UPF Update, are based on the simple calculation of total project cost from the cost of design.

“Our number is actually conservative,” said Hutchison. “We are cutting them slack because the UPF is a complicated project. And we’re not counting the first half billion dollars plus they spent on their first two designs.”

By the end of FY 2016 (September 30, 2016) the UPF bomb plant design team will have spent more than one billion dollars on the current design (since November 2013). The industry standard for calculating design cost as a fraction of total project cost is 3.5%; for complex projects, it can be as high as 6.5%.

“We’re saying the UPF design may be 10% of the total cost—which means the whole thing will cost over $10 billion. If they come in closer to the industry standard, the total cost will be even higher. And the longer they take, the more it will cost.”

The Uranium Processing Facility has been plagued by mismanagement, runaway cost projections, and schedules that recede toward infinity. It continues, year after year, to be listed on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk Projects” list.

Despite the problems, the UPF continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget.  Rather than be accountable to the public for the money it is spending, the UPF project managers and contractor representatives hold secret meetings with Senator Alexander, chair of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee. The subcommittee holds the purse strings for the UPF.

The NNSA has declined to provide any numbers or cost projections related to the UPF, saying it will wait until the design is 90% complete before hazarding a guess about the total cost.

OREPA also wrote to Senator Alexander on Friday, September 4, demanding accountability for the money spent so far on the UPF design. “We still live in a democracy,”    Hutchison said, “Even here in Tennessee. In a democracy, taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going. And the government has a duty to disclose.”

## The UPF Update, September 2015 is available here.
## The letter to Alexander is available here.

For more information: Ralph Hutchison +1 865 776 5050

 The Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance works to stop nuclear weapons production at the Y - 12 Nuclear Weapons Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This is a tightly moderated list which includes a wide range of members from across the country. It is strictly limited to matters of concern to OREPA and its work to abolish nuclear weapons.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 01, 2015, 05:43:14 pm »

ACID: Apathy, Conformity, Ignorance and Denial.   

Reason Is Not Enough

by David Krieger
Reason is not enough to halt the nuclear juggernaut that rumbles unsteadily toward catastrophe, toward omnicide.

The broken heart of humanity must find a way to enter the debate.  The heart must find common cause with imagination.  We cannot wait until the missiles are in the air with the sand falling through the hourglass.  We must use our imaginations.  We must listen to the sad stories of those who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and imagine the force of the winds, the firestorms rushing through our cities, the mushroom clouds rising, the invisible radiation spreading.  If we can’t imagine the death and destruction, we cannot combat it and we will never stop it.

David KriegerWe are trapped by our myopia and lethargy, the forces that keep us impotent in the face of the nuclear threat.  I call these forces ACID: Apathy, Conformity, Ignorance and Denial.  ACID is corrosive to our common future.  ACID is the collection of obstacles to change that is preventing us from ending the nuclear weapons era and preserving the human future.

Our challenge is to move from ACID to Action by changing apathy to empathy; conformity to critical thinking; ignorance to wisdom; and denial to recognition.

Apathy is indifference, a recipe for maintaining the status quo.  Empathy is the result of imagining oneself in another’s shoes, in this case the shoes of those who were victims of the atomic bombings, either at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or victims of atmospheric nuclear testing.

Conformity is going along with the herd mentality, like lemmings over a cliff.  Critical thinking is a means of breaking with the herd, of seeing the dangers in what is commonly considered acceptable.  Apply critical thinking to nuclear deterrence theory and you find a theory that cannot be proven and is subject to failure.  Nuclear deterrence cannot, for example, stand up to terrorists, those who have no territory or are suicidal.  Nor can deterrence theory apply to leaders who are not rational, and most leaders are not fully rational in times of extreme crisis.

Ignorance is not knowing, or thinking one knows that which is just plain wrong.  It is a result of disinterest or a warped perspective.  It bends toward extreme arrogance or hubris, and includes an absurd and dangerous belief in human infallibility.  Wisdom is grasping our human fallibility and acting to prevent it from leading to disaster.

Denial is putting on blindfolds and failing to see a problem or threat that would otherwise be obvious.  It is countered by recognition of the threat, in the case of nuclear weapons by recognition of the threat to all humanity.

We must move from ACID to action, from education to engagement, starting with the recognition that nuclear weapons undermine security, provide no physical protection, threaten civilization and complex life, and are subject to human fallibility.  They are the ultimate evil for they threaten all we love and cherish.

What can you do?  Start with A-B-C.  Awaken.  Believe.  Contribute.  Awaken to the threat (be aware, attentive and active).  Believe you can make a difference on this most critical of issues.  Contribute time, talent, money, ideas.  Everyone has something they can contribute, and it will take many of us joining together to achieve the goal.  Beyond A-B-C, stand up, speak out and join in.  Be a nonviolent warrior for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons. Choose hope and keep hope alive, and persevere and never give up

This entry was posted in Peace, President's Message and tagged David Krieger on September 24, 2015 by David Krieger.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 30, 2015, 08:35:07 pm »


Tom Buchanan    
September 29, 2015 at 8:55 pm

It’s a shame the group didn’t bring a shovel to check below the surface. At Vermont Yankee, Entergy plans to remove non-contaminated foundations to just three feet below the surface, then cover the mess with dirt and pretend it’s back to the original condition. Sure, it’ll look pretty to a casual visitor, but if Entergy gets its way the VY site will forever be a mess.

Tale of two Yankees: VT nuke panelists find tranquility at CT site

Sep. 29, 2015, 6:52 pm by Mike Faher

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 28, 2015, 09:27:20 pm »

State slams emergency plan changes at Vermont Yankee

September 28, 2015 by Mike Faher
Vermont Yankee spent fuel pad  :P
Dry casks hold spent nuclear fuel at Vermont Yankee in Vernon. Photo courtesy Vermont Yankee

BRATTLEBORO – If Entergy has its way, Vermont Yankee’s emergency programs – and the funding that goes with them – are due for a major downsizing in the first half of next year. 

In Brattleboro on Thursday night, several Vermont officials argued that the company’s emergency commitments to surrounding towns and to the state should continue for at least the next several years. Those programs are necessary, they say, to protect public health and the environment around the Vernon plant, where spent nuclear fuel is stored in a pool in the reactor building.

Vermont Public Service Department Commissioner Chris Recchia confirmed that there have been talks between state officials and Entergy aimed at securing an ongoing financial commitment from the company to support emergency operations. But Recchia also complained, strenuously, that the two sides are far apart.

“The fact of the matter is, (the talks) have been unproductive and going in the wrong direction,” Recchia said.  >:(  :(

Agelbert NOTE: 
If you have a strong stomach, please read the article exposing the TYPICAL gross irresponsibility based on GREED of the nuke pukes  , quite willing to endanger a community in order to keep from spending money. This is money they CONTRACTED to spend to ensure safety. Breach of contract is par for the corporate course. Their lackey lawyers try to make sure they get away with it. They need to bring a sandwich to do that in Vermont.  ;D


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 30, 2015, 03:10:29 pm »

The old "National Security" trick -  Flag Waving Draped Taxpayer Fleecing

A flight test body for a B61-12 nuclear weapon  Jerry Refern for Reveal

The B61-12 could be deployed by the new generation of F-35 fighter jets...
Agelbert NOTE:
A boondoggle bomb made by a welfare queen carried by a flying garage queen DUD made by another welfare queen.  >:(  :P

And then they say there is "just no money" for a 100% transition to a Renewable Energy based infrastructure... ::)


Inside the Most Expensive Nuclear Bomb Ever Made

Could America's latest atomic weapon ignite a new arms race?   ???

—By Len Ackland and Burt Hubbard

Engineers at the United States' nuclear weapons lab in Albuquerque, New Mexico, have spent the past few years designing and testing the B61-12, a high-tech addition to our nation's atomic arsenal. Unlike the free-fall gravity bombs it will replace, the B61-12 is a guided nuclear bomb. A new tail kit assembly, made by Boeing, enables the bomb to hit targets far more precisely than its predecessors.

Greg Maxon

Using "Dial-a-yield" technology, the bomb's explosive force can be adjusted before launch from a high of 50,000 tons of TNT equivalent to a low of 300 tons—that's 98 percent smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima 70 years ago.

Despite these innovations, the government doesn't consider the B61-12 to be a new weapon but simply an upgrade. In the past, Congress has rejected funding for similar weapons, reasoning that more accurate, less powerful bombs were more likely to be used. In 2010, the Obama administration announced that it would not make any nuclear weapons with new capabilities. The White House and Pentagon insist that the B61-12 won't violate that pledge.

The B61-12 could be deployed by the new generation of F-35 fighter jets, a prospect that worries Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists. "If the Russians put out a guided nuclear bomb on a stealthy fighter that could sneak through air defenses, would that add to the perception here that they were lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons?" he asks. "Absolutely."

So far, most of the criticism of B61-12 has focused on its price tag. Once full production commences in 2020, the program will cost more than $11 billion for about 400 to 480 bombs—more than double the original estimate, making it the most expensive nuclear bomb ever built.

This story comes from our friends at Reveal. Read more of their coverage of the B61-12 and national security.


Agelbert NOTE: Readers should be reminded that  "National Security" for the nuke pukes is code speech for MIC nuke puke JOB security.

The bombs are just one part of the nuclear welfare queen SCAM.

Energy Department Issues Remaining $1.8 Billion in Loan Guarantees for Vogtle Advanced Nuclear Energy Project  >:(
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 12, 2015, 10:28:34 pm »

Shortly after German reunification, uranium mining in the region was stopped due to the high risks for public health and the environment.

In the past 24 years, more than 7 billion Euros have been spent on renaturalization projects. This is an attempt to rehabilitate the scars of uranium mining, which has turned this once pastoral countryside into a hostile moon-landscape, dubbed by locals as "valleys of death". Uranium mining left radioactive waste dumps right next to towns, highly poisonous tailing ponds, acidic and contaminated ground water, collapsing, delapitated mine shafts, radioactive roads and houses, constructed from mine waste, and high concentrations of radon gas in most municipalities in the region. Water treatment and mine stabilisation will have to continue for many centuries to come. If one includes the social, medical and environmental impact of uranium mining, the long-term financial costs have proven to far outweigh the orginal profit gained.
The detrimental legacy of uranium mining in Germany is slowly beginning to be addressed. But in other countries, especially in Africa, the extraction of uranium ore continues unabated. Guests from South Africa, Australia and Niger described the current situation in their countries.

While uranium mines in Australia are putting production on hold due to low demand after Fukushima, profitable mining is still possible in Africa, where safety regulations or trade unions are virtually non-existent, working conditions inhumane and environmental impacts not taken into consideration.   

Around Johannesburg in South Africa, impoverished black townships are constructed on top of radioactive tailing heaps  :o  >:(, and in Arlit, Niger, the radioactive dust from dried-out tailing ponds contaminates the nearby city. In both places, health effects are not addressed and exposure data are not collected or kept secret from the affected population.
IPPNW called for a worldwide ban on uranium mining at its World Congress in Basel and continues to work for this goal. Generations to come will have to deal with the negative impact of uranium mining on health and the environment. It is imperative to stop further mining and to begin the long and difficult process of renaturalization and securing the radioactive materials to prevent further public health disasters.
Dr. Alex Rosen, pediatrician and member of the German IPPNW Board of Directors closed the conference with the words: "Every part of the nuclear chain represents a threat to public health: from uranium mining to the industrial enrichment process, the transportation of fissile materials around the globe, the unsafe civil use of nuclear energy, the inhumane military use in nuclear warheads, all the way to the unsolved problem of nuclear waste - we should leave the uranium where it belongs - deep under the surface of the earth."

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 04, 2015, 09:39:35 pm »

ANOTHER Nuke Puke based Socialized Cost is Coming Soon.  >:(

This dome in the Pacific houses tons of radioactive waste and it's leaking    

The Runit Dome in the Marshall Islands is a hulking legacy of years of US nuclear testing. Now locals and scientists are warning that rising sea levels caused by climate change could cause 111,000 cubic yards of debris to spill into the ocean.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 03, 2015, 07:01:49 pm »

Moving quietly into DISASTER
For those naïve folks that think the above video is "ancient history" and our scientists and energy fixated Empathy Deficit Disordered (EDD) CORPORATIONS that run our Government have learned how do the biosphere math, I suggest you read the following story about "government renewable energy" grants:

Energy Department Issues Remaining $1.8 Billion in Loan Guarantees for Vogtle Advanced Nuclear Energy Project   

June 24, 2015 - 9:20am


The Georgia nuclear plant has been a massively over budget exercise in nuclear job security from the get-go. And that is EXCLUDING THE FACT that NO VIABLE PLAN TO DEAL WITH NUCLEAR WASTE HAS YET TO BE DEVELOPED. This is world class pollution on steroids passed off as "green" energy!

Consequently, the film tells it like it IS, not just like it was.

GO, DON'T talk to me about LIBERTY! As long as the corporate EDD ass holes govern this country, there is NO LIBERTY.


"in many ways the West already observes truly 'free markets,' or economic anarchy where giant corporations are free to do anything they wish, including wage massive, global wars in pursuit of their interests. The constrictive laws and regulations many well-intentioned free-market advocates abhor, have been imposed by these unhindered, anarchical corporations, not by a 'socialist government.' What these advocates perceive as a 'socialist government' is in fact an interface created and controlled by unhindered, unregulated, unaccountable corporate-financier interests. " -- Charles Hugh Smith

"The rich executed a coup d’état that transformed the three branches of the U.S. government and nearly all institutions, including the mass media, into wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state." -- Chris Hedges

Chris Hedges has connected ALL the "LIBERTY for the wealthy few and the SHAFT for the rest" dots from the Founding Fathers to the present.

I wouldn’t say they are destroying democracy; I would say they have destroyed democracy. You have held up throughout this conversation the founding fathers.

And I want to go back to Thomas Paine, who was the real radical, who called for—he didn’t use the word socialism, but a type of socialism, who was an abolitionist, who was a proponent of direct democracy, which the founding fathers were not, who opposed the genocidal campaigns against Native Americans, which all of the founding fathers embraced with relish, who wanted rights for women.

And I think Zinn points out that all of these freedoms that you talk about were reserved for a very small, select group of largely slave-holding white males, our aristocratic class, who replaced the aristocratic class of Britain, and that it was—Washington, by the time he was president, was the wealthiest person in the United States, largely by seizing Indian lands with land speculators and selling it for profit—of course, he himself was a large slaveholder—And that through the constitutional conventions that were held after independence, you really saw a rolling back of that populism and radicalism that Paine, who himself became a pariah, spoke so eloquently about, and of course Common Sense and his journalism were used to fuel—most of the people fighting the revolution were yeoman farmers.

So they created mechanisms by which we would never have a voice—the Senate, the Electoral College. That’s how you had Al Gore win 500,000 more votes than Bush and Bush still wins or Nader did not lose the election.

Everything was built into the system to create a kind of protection of rights for a very select few.

There are three legs to the fascism stool:

1) A melding of corporate and civil governance.

2) A foreign policy predicated on an aggressive nationalistic worldview.

3) An authoritarian government.

A political system that recognizes corporations as individual persons certainly provides one of those legs.


I hope you are not content with the idea of "LIBERTY" for the wealthy few and the SHAFT for the rest. Patrick Henry "smelled a rat in Philadelphia". Chris Hedges confirms that RAT turned into an Empathy Deficit Disordered RAT PLAGUE on LIBERTY! When are YOU going to do the same?
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: June 20, 2015, 12:36:02 am »

“It just reaffirms all my thoughts on what a lapdog the NRC really is,” Gundersen said. “The decommissioning fund was not designed for this kind of spent fuel management. Entergy was supposed to pay for that themselves. They made the profits, and now we, Vermonters, are paying for the cleanup.”

NRC says Entergy can use decommissioning fund to store spent fuel   

Erin Mansfield Jun. 18 2015, 7:35 pm


+-Recent Topics

Corporate Fascist Corruption of Christianity by AGelbert
Today at 03:37:15 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
Today at 02:47:34 pm

Sustainable Farming by AGelbert
Today at 02:34:26 pm

Robotics by AGelbert
Today at 02:10:32 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
Today at 01:34:21 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 01:22:33 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
Today at 12:57:25 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 08:35:08 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 07:53:55 pm

Non-routine News by AGelbert
February 20, 2018, 07:43:39 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial