Renewable Revolution

Energy => Nuke Puke => Topic started by: AGelbert on November 07, 2013, 01:19:55 am

Title: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2013, 01:19:55 am
U.S. Missile Officers Leave Blast Doors Open While Napping (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/zzz.gif)


U.S. missileers are required to adhere to all nuclear security and safety regulations at all times because even small missteps have the potential to lead to catastrophe. Despite this, U.S. Air Force officers responsible for launching land-based nuclear missiles twice violated security policy by leaving blast doors open while napping. Officials with personal knowledge of the incidents say that similar transgressions have likely taken place and not been discovered.

The Air Force released a statement assuring that security of the ICBMs was not at risk following either incident "due to the multiple safeguards and the protections in place." Two launch crew commanders and two deputies received administrative punishment for the breaches.

Only the latest in a string of embarrassments for the U.S. land-based missile crews, the thawing of the Cold War has apparently also thawed the rigid adherence to all nuclear safety and security rules.

"U.S. Missileers Left Blast Doors Open in Security Breach," Global Security Newswire, October 23, 2013.
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on November 07, 2013, 01:27:58 am
U.S. Second-in-Command of Nuclear Weapons Relieved of Duty


(http://alphapoint.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/gambling-chips.jpg)

Navy Vice Admiral Tim Giardina was relieved of duty on October 3 over allegations that he used counterfeit gambling chips at a casino in Iowa. Giardina was the second-in-command at U.S. Strategic Command, which commands all U.S. nuclear forces.

Giardina's dismissal follows the removal of two other high-profile nuclear weapon commanders in 2013. In August, Col. David Lynch was relieved of duty at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Earlier this year, Lt. Col. Randy Olson was relieved of duty at Minot Air Force Base.

"U.S. Nuclear Commander Tim Giardina Fired Amid Gambling Investigation," The Guardian, October 9, 2013.
 :P ::)
Title: Pandora's Atomic Box Score: On the Nuclear Industry's Total Meltdown
Post by: AGelbert on November 11, 2013, 08:04:45 pm

(http://www.spacedaily.com/images/nuclear-sellafield-marker-bg.jpg)
Panadora's NUCLEAR box (Not to be confused with the mendacious pro-nuclear documentary propaganda pitch for more nukes called, "Pandora's Promise")(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif)

Quote
Pandora's Atomic Box Score: On the Nuclear Industry's Total Meltdown

Published on Monday, November 11, 2013 by Common Dreams       

by Harvey Wasserman   

The first prophetic sign to follow CNN's irrelevant Pandora's Promise is this: the Dallas-based Luminant Power Company has cancelled two mammoth reactors.

Pandora's box score for atomic America 2013 is five announced early reactor closures, nine project cancellations and six ditched uprates.  Today, 100 U.S. reactors operate where 1,000 were once promised. New orders are zilch. (http://www.wallpaperdev.com/stock/wild-cats-apple-mac-hd-comic-pet-very-happy-cat.jpg) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)




Even more critical: For decades the nuclear industry said zero commercial reactors could explode.  (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif) When Chernobyl blew, they blamed it on the Soviet design. Now, three General Electric reactors have exploded at Fukushima. Unfortunately, as they age and deteriorate, there may be more to come.  >:(

"Atomic energy makes global warming worse. Its truest promise is for ever more meltdowns—in health, the ecology and economy."


Here are some more numbers to tally. More than 1,300 fuel rods sit in a damaged fuel pool 100 feet in the air at Fukushima 4. They contain radioactive cesium equivalent to 14,000 times what was released at the bombing of Hiroshima. There are some 6,000 rods in a common fuel pool nearby. There are some 11,000 rods scattered around the site. The three melted cores from units One, Two and Three are missing. There are roughly 1,000 tanks holding billions of gallons of hot radioactive water that are leaking and will collapse in the next big earthquake.

All 50 allegedly operable reactors in Japan remain shut. Germany is on its way to total green power. (http://www.smile-day.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smiley-Thumbs-Up2.jpg)

Pandora's Promise was largely bankrolled by Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen,  (http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg)  whose buddy Bill Gates has bet big on the mythic "new generation" reactors.  >:(

(http://www.mountainfilm.org/files/images/films/pandora_image_02.jpg)
WHAT IF conscience free, predatory capitalist ONE PERCENTERS could Convince Americans to Act AGAINST Their RENEWABLE ENERGY and HEALTH BEST INTERESTS ON BEHALF OF NUCLEAR Power plant PROFITS and POISON With a Misleading, Mendacious and Fact Free Symbolic Image of a Nice Clean BOX/CUBE Containing "UNLIMITED" (http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif)  energy ? (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png)

Agelbert NOTE: Click below for further info about how images prior to articles are used to convince you that a statement is true (regardless of whether it is true or not! :o)
How Does a Photo Influence Perceived Veracity of a Statement? (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/who-can-you-trust/resisting-brainwashing-propaganda/msg302/#msg302)

Quote
As it aired on CNN, a grassroots coalition presented more than 150,000 signatures to the United Nations, requesting a global takeover at the accursed Fukushima, where three reactors cores are missing and radiation still pours into the ocean.

Meanwhile Tokyo Electric Power postponed its potentially apocalyptic bring-down of the radioactive fuel rods at Unit Four.

"More tests" were needed, they said. This week the U.S. Department of Energy will meet on how to aid an untried engineering exercise whose failure doom the planet. But if it can be done at all, it will take the entire global community to bring this beast under control.

CNN dumped a ton of hype on Pandora's Promise, (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)and made no real attempt to hide its own pro-nuke bias.  :P  Lead-up debates were heavily weighted toward the industry, whose push for a new generation of reactors will ultimately go nowhere.

The scenario is obvious: Gates and his fellow mega-rich will pour into various theoretical atomic technologies a few hundred million dollars. They'll write it all off their taxes. They'll demand immunity for any accidents. It'll all run billions over budget and years behind schedule.[ Then they'll leave yet another radioactive mess for the rest of us to clean up. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif) >:(

Atomic energy makes global warming worse. Its truest promise is for ever more meltdowns—in health, the ecology and economy.

This movie maker needs to revisit Fukushima and report on those fuel rods flying in the sky, the river of radiation pouring into the oceans and the lethal long-lived poisons spewing into the air we breathe. As Hesiod says, when the original Pandora opened her forbidden box, "the Earth and sea were full of evils."

But hope did remain, now in the form of the green power revolution. The world of finance is on our side. So is the insurance industry. And, basic sanity.(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)


On the 11th of every month, in commemoration of Fukushima, many of us will fast in solidarity with the victims in hope of a survivable outcome. You can help by signing our petitions. With our grassroots organizing and escalated resistance, a Solartopian world can be won.

Pandora's clear promise-call it a warning-is that our survival depends on it. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
 

Harvey Wasserman's Solartopia Green Power & Wellness Show is at www.progressiveradionetwork.com, and he edits www.nukefree.org. Harvey Wasserman's History of the US and Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth are at www.harveywasserman.com along with Passions of the PotSmoking Patriots by "Thomas Paine."  He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election, at www.freepress.org.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/11-7

Title: On The Fukushima Beach
Post by: AGelbert on December 23, 2013, 12:50:48 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZWmW91XEs0&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 08, 2014, 09:45:45 pm
Nuclear Insanity


Congressman Supports Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran  (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)


In a statement on C-Span, Republican congressman Duncan Hunter of California said that if the U.S. had to hit Iran, "you don’t do it with boots on the ground, you do it with tactical nuclear devices." This remark goes a step further than those made by GOP donor Sheldon Adelson in October, who said that a nuclear device should be detonated in the desert of Iran to send a warning. Hunter said that his opinion is formed by his own service spent in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hunter’s statement had no lack of opponents. Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation responded, "The first use of nuclear weapons against Iran would guarantee a mad Iranian dash to acquire nuclear weapons to deter future such US attacks."

Ben Armbruster, "Congressman Says U.S. Should Use Nuclear Weapons if it Attacks Iran," ThinkProgress, December 4, 2013.
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 09, 2014, 07:25:28 pm

300+ Groups Urge Climate Scientist Dr. Hansen to Rethink Support of Nuclear Power

Civil Society Institute | January 9, 2014 9:43 am


A total of 311 U.S. and international environmental and clean energy groups said yesterday that, while they respect the climate change work of Dr. James Hansen and three of his academic colleagues, they take strong exception to the notion that nuclear power is the solution to global warming.

Instead of embracing nuclear power, we request that you join us in supporting an electric grid dominated by energy efficiency, renewable, distributed power and storage technologies.
Instead of embracing nuclear power, we request that you join us in supporting an electric grid dominated by energy efficiency, renewable, distributed power and storage technologies.

The joint letter from more than 300 groups—including 237 from 46 U.S. states and the District of Columbia and 74 from 44 other nations around the globe, including those on the ground dealing with the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster—is being issued in response to a Nov. 3, 2013 statement from Dr. James Hansen and three of his academic colleagues, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley. In that statement Hansen and the others voiced their advocacy for nuclear power, an industry plagued by financial, technical and safety issues for more than 50 years.

In yesterday’s statement organized by the Civil Society Institute (CSI) and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), 311 organizations are urging Dr. Hansen and his colleagues to publicly debate the question of climate change and nuclear power.

The statement reads in part:


Instead of embracing nuclear power, we request that you join us in supporting an electric grid dominated by energy efficiency, renewable, distributed power and storage technologies. We ask you to join us in supporting the phase-out of nuclear power as Germany and other countries are pursuing. It is simply not feasible for nuclear power to be a part of a sustainable, safe and affordable future for humankind. We would be pleased to meet with you directly to further discuss these issues, to bring the relevant research on renewable energy and grid integration to a dialog with you. Again, we thank you for your service and contribution to our country’s understanding about climate change.

The full text of yesterday’s statement is available online.

“We can admire the important work of Dr. Hansen on climate change, which is his area of expertise, while disagreeing with his advocacy of nuclear power,”
said CSI Senior Energy Analyst Grant Smith. “In the face of a clear need for swift action on climate change, there is nothing about nuclear power that resembles a solution that can be put into place quickly, much less in a safe and affordable fashion.

“Indeed, Dr. Hansen and his colleagues tout so-called ‘advanced’ nuclear technology, which is nothing more than regurgitated attempts by the industry to bring tried-and-failed alternative designs such as expensive and dangerous breeder reactors to commercialization. We have clean, affordable, safe, reliable and proven solutions available to us. These safe and clean sources can be brought to scale creating an electric grid that relies much more heavily on increased energy efficiency, variable wind and solar photovoltaic (PV), distributed power, demand response and storage technologies. This energy path can reduce greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly, cost-effectively and safely than any nuclear option. The markets are responding and there is clear evidence that they are catalyzing an unprecedented technological revolution in the power sector.”

“What we are saying is that Dr. Hansen has things exactly half right: We need to take action now to mitigate climate change,” said NIRS President Michael Mariotte. “Where we are taking issue is with the other half: the mistaken idea that nuclear power is some kind of panacea for all that ails our climate. In fact, nuclear power is the slowest, most expensive, and most dangerous climate ‘solution’ available. Our sincere hope is that Dr. Hansen will heed the input of literally hundreds of knowledgeable energy and environmental groups around the world. The joint letter puts it best with these words: ‘It is simply not feasible for nuclear power to be a part of a sustainable, safe and affordable future for humankind.’”

The Jan. 8 statement from the more than 300 signers reads in part:

Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publicly financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the U.S. is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire—high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we’ve experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually ‘fail safe’.

As for ‘advanced’ nuclear designs endorsed in your letter, they have been tried and failed or are mere blueprints without realistic hope, in the near term, if ever, to be commercialized. The promise and potential impact you lend breeder reactor technology in your letter is misplaced. Globally, $100 billion over sixty years have been squandered to bring the technology to commercialization without success. The liquid sodium-based cooling system is highly dangerous as proven in Japan and the U.S. And the technology has proven to be highly unreliable.

Equally detrimental in cost and environmental impact is reprocessing of nuclear waste. In France, the poster child for nuclear energy, reprocessing results in a marginal increase in energetic use of uranium while largely increasing the volume of all levels of radioactive waste. Indeed, the process generates large volumes of radioactive liquid waste annually that is dumped into the English Channel and has increased electric costs to consumers significantly. Not to mention the well-recognized proliferation risks of adopting a plutonium-based energy system.

As to the issue of what represents the best path forward to deal with climate change, the Jan. 8 statement notes:

We disagree with your assessment of renewable power and energy efficiency. They can and are being brought to scale globally. Moreover, they can be deployed much more quickly than nuclear power. For instance, in the U.S. from 2002 to 2012 over 50,000 megawatts of wind were deployed. Not one megawatt of power from new nuclear reactors was deployed, despite subsidies estimated to be worth more than the value of the power new reactors would have produced. Similarly, it took 40 years globally to deploy 50,000 megawatts of solar PV and, recently, only two and a half years to deploy an equal amount. By some estimates, another 100,000 MW will be built by the end of 2015. Already, renewables and distributed power have overtaken nuclear power in terms of megawatt hour generation worldwide.

The fact of the matter is, many Wall Street analysts predict that solar PV and wind will have reached grid parity by the end of the decade. Wind in certain parts of the Midwest is already cheaper than natural gas on the wholesale level. Energy efficiency continues to outperform all technologies on a cost basis. While the cost of these technologies continues to decline and enjoy further technological advancement, the cost of nuclear power continues to increase and construction timeframes remain excessive. And we emphasize again that no technological breakthrough to reduce its costs or enhance its operation will occur in the foreseeable future.

Visit EcoWatch’s NUCLEAR page for more related news on this topic.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/01/09/urge-hansen-rethink-support-nuclear-power/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 01:10:35 am
Cesium-137 is a threat to human health

The human body thinks Cesium-137 that it finds in food you eat is POTASSIUM. So if you NEED POTASSIUM at the time you eat that food, you will incorporate a future cancer into your tissues. If you do not need it, you MIGHT be able to excrete it before it becomes part of you. California is considering fertilizing large vegetable crop areas that are becoming increasingly contaminated with ce-137 with Potassium Cholride (KCl). The reason for this is that plants supposedly will take up the KCL instead of the ce-137. We'll see.

Over the long term, the big threat to human health is cesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years.
At that rate of disintegration, John Emsley wrote in “Nature’s Building Blocks” (Oxford, 2001), “it takes over 200 years to reduce it to 1 percent of its former level.”

It is cesium-137 that still contaminates much of the land in Ukraine around the Chernobyl reactor.

Cesium-137 mixes easily with water and is chemically similar to potassium. It thus mimics how potassium gets metabolized in the body and can enter through many foods, including milk.

The Environmental Protection Agency says that … once dispersed in the environment … cesium-137 “is impossible to avoid.”


Cesium-137 is light enough to be carried by the wind a substantial distance. And it is being carried by ocean currents towards the West Coast of North America.


Fortunately – while little-known in the medical community – other harmless minerals can help “saturate” our bodies so as to minimize the uptake of other harmful types of radiation.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s Army Medical Department Center and School explained in its book Medical Consequences of Radiological and Nuclear Weapons (Chapter 4):

Quote
One of the keys to a successful treatment outcome is to reduce or eliminate the uptake of internalized radionuclides before they can reach the critical organ.

The terms “blocking” or “diluting” agent can, in most cases, be used interchangeably. These compounds reduce the uptake of a radionuclide by saturating binding sites with a stable, nonradioactive element, thereby diluting the deleterious effect of the radioisotope.

For example, potassium iodide is the FDA-recommended treatment to prevent radioactive iodine from being sequestered in the thyroid…. Nonradioactive strontium compounds may also be used to block the uptake of radioactive strontium.

In addition, elements with chemical properties similar to the internalized radio-nuclide are often used as blocking agents. For example, calcium, and to a lesser extent phosphorus, can be used to block uptake of radioactive strontium.


Agelbert NOTE: I don't trust the U.S. Army's DEFINITION of "successful" treatment against radiation. Do you?

I agree there ARE blocking agents and they CAN limit our exposure somewhat. We are Guinea pigs and will have to find out the hard way how much we can block these radioactive poisons. The USA was contaminated with Ce-137 during the above ground nuclear explosion period of several decades.

Deposition maps were made. They are OUT OF DATE as of Chernobyl, never mind Fukushima! We need new maps. Don't hold your breath waiting for out gooberment to have them made...

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, © 2014
Fact Sheet on Fallout Report and Related Maps

 
States containing counties with the highest Cs-137 deposition include:
Arkansas   Iowa   Oregon   Utah      California   Missouri   Pennsylvania   Vermont      Idaho   New Hampshire   South Dakota   Washington Indiana   North Carolina   Tennessee   Wyoming   


Counties in other states throughout the eastern half of the United States received substantial Cs-137 deposition. A larger number of states have counties that received substantial thyroid doses of radioactive iodine from NTS tests.


The CDC/NCI study included tests conducted between 1951 and 1962. This means that:

Chinese tests were not included (1964 to 1980)

French atmospheric tests after 1962 were not included. Hence all French atmospheric tests in the Pacific were not included. (France conducted atmospheric tests from 1960 until 1974.)

The pre-1951 tests in the Marshall Islands and the Soviet Union, the 1945 New Mexico test, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were not included.

Ventings from underground tests in the United States or the Soviet Union were not included.
  >:( :P

Calculations for Alaska and Hawaii have not been done. Alaska may have had quite a bit of fallout from Novaya Zemlya. Hawaii may have had fallout from the Marshall Islands tests. These two states need to be included in future work. They were not included because of the limitations of this feasibility stage of the study. These two states would involve different sets of data. Fallout would also be expected in other places, for instance Canada.

This is ONE of several FALLOUT maps you can view at the link:

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130114004500.png)
Cesium-137 deposition density due to global fallout

Fallout Maps (provided to IEER by CDC in February 2002)

Locations of sites having greater than one megaton total tests conducted prior to 1963

Preliminary estimates of total radiation dose to red bone marrow of children born 1 January 1951

from Nevada Test Site and global fallout for all radionuclides

Total (external + internal) dose to red bone marrow of an adult from global fallout

Total (external + internal) dose to red bone marrow of an adult from Nevada Test Site tests

Cesium-137 deposition density due to global fallout

Cesium-137 deposition density due to Nevada Test Site tests


Notes:
48 contiguous states only, based on cumulative exposures between 1951 and 2000, does not account for all nuclear tests as explained above ↩ Return
Estimated by IEER by assuming a 5% mortality rate from thyroid cancer. ↩ Return
Rounded best estimate of 11,000-212,000 estimated range, obtained by taking geometric mean. ↩ Return
From radionuclides such as carbon-14, tritium, cesium-137.
Rounded to one or two significant figures as indicated.

FULL DETAILS HERE:
http://ieer.org/resource/nuclear-testing/fact-sheet-fallout-report-related/ (http://ieer.org/resource/nuclear-testing/fact-sheet-fallout-report-related/)

A "study" on some poor beagles: (neoplasms are growths)
Quote
/LABORATORY ANIMALS:

Chronic Exposure or Carcinogenicity/ The toxicity of cesium-137 in the beagle dog was investigated... as part of programs to evaluate the biological effects of both radionuclides in atomic bomb fallout and internally deposited fission-product radionuclides. ...

63 dogs in three age groups (15 juveniles, 142-151 days old; 38 young adults, 388-427 days old; and 10 middle-aged dogs, 1387-2060 days old) were given cesium-137 intravenously at levels (61-162 MBq/kg) near those expected to be lethal within 30 days after injection. There were 17 control dogs from the same colony.

Twenty-three of the dogs injected with cesium-137, including all middle-aged dogs, died within 52 days after injection due to hematopoietic cell damage resulting in severe pancytopenia that led to fatal hemorrhage and/or septicemia. The other significant early effect was damage to the germinal epithelium of the seminiferous tubules of all male dogs. ...

The most significant non-neoplastic late effects in the cesium-137-injected dogs... were atrophy of the germinal epithelium of seminiferous tubules with azoospermia, and a significant dose-dependent decrease in survival. ...Numerous neoplasms occurred at many different sites in the dogs injected with cesium-137... .

Two differences in the findings of the two studies were that

(1) there was an increased risk for malignant thyroid neoplasms in /one group of/ ... male dogs injected with cesium-137, but not the... dogs /in the other study/ and

(2) there was an increased relative risk for benign neoplasms excluding mammary neoplasms in /one group of/... dogs injected with cesium-137, but not /in the other group/. ...In both groups, there were dose-related increased incidences of malignant neoplasms, malignant neoplasms excluding mammary neoplasms, all sarcomas considered as a group, all non-mammary carcinomas considered as a group and malignant liver neoplasms.

In summary, the similarity of the findings between the two studies and the dose-response relationships for survival and for large groupings of neoplasms suggests that these results are consistent findings in cesium-137-injected dogs and might (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif) be dose-related late effects in humans exposed to sufficient amounts of internally deposited cesium-137. /Cesium-137/
[Nikula KJ et al; Radiat Res 146 (5): 536-47 (1996)] **PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract

Agelbert NOTE: "MIGHT be dose-related in humans exposed" is SCIENTIST SPEAK for covering their asses about the TRUTH that humans are every bit as dose dependent as the dogs are.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif)



We are going need a LOT of Ce-137 absorbing mushrooms if the KCL doesn't cut it.

The human body is 0.4% potassium. That may not seem like a lot but it is in every single cell we have, SO, if ce-137 sneaks in, it will destroy DNA all over the place.

Check out how IMPORTANT to our body POTASSIUM is and how the food that has it that we need will uptake ce-137 as easily as WE DO thinking it is Potassium! That means mutations in the food and in us out the YING YANG, get it?




Quote

Potassium is a mineral that is needed for your body to work properly. It is a type of electrolyte.

Function

Potassium is a very important mineral to the human body.

Your body needs potassium to:
•Build proteins
•Break down and use carbohydrates
•Build muscle
•Maintain normal body growth
•Control the electrical activity of the heart
•Control the acid-base balance

Food Sources

Many foods contain potassium. All meats (red meat and chicken) and fish such as salmon, cod, flounder, and sardines are good sources of potassium. Soy products and veggie burgers are also good sources of potassium.

Vegetables including broccoli, peas, lima beans, tomatoes, potatoes (especially their skins), sweet potatoes, and winter squashes are all good sources of potassium.

Fruits that contain significant sources of potassium include citrus fruits, cantaloupe, bananas, kiwi, prunes, and apricots. Dried apricots contain more potassium than fresh apricots.

Milk and yogurt, as well as nuts, are also excellent sources of potassium.

People with kidney problems, especially those on dialysis, should not eat too many potassium-rich foods. The doctor or nurse will recommend a special diet.

Side Effects

Having too much or too little potassium in the body can have very serious consequences.

A low blood level of potassium is called hypokalemia. It can cause weak muscles, abnormal heart rhythms, and a slight rise in blood pressure. You may have hypokalemia if you:
•Take diuretics (water pills) for the treatment of high blood pressure or heart failure
•Take too many laxatives
•Have severe or prolonged vomiting and diarrhea
•Have certain kidney or adrenal gland disorders

Too much potassium in the blood is known as hyperkalemia. It may cause abnormal and dangerous heart rhythms. Some common causes include:
•Poor kidney function
•Heart medicines called angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin 2 receptor blockers (ARBs)
•Potassium-sparing diuretics (water pills) such as spironolactone or amiloride
•Severe infection

Recommendations

The Food and Nutrition Center of the Institute of Medicine has established the following recommended dietary intakes for potassium:

Infants
•0 - 6 months: 0.4 grams a day (g/day)
•7 - 12 months: 0.7 g/day

Children and Adolescents
•1 - 3 years: 3 g/day
•4 - 8 years: 3.8 g/day
•9 - 13 years: 4.5 g/day
•14 - 18 years: 4.7 g/day

Adults
•Age 19 and older: 4.7 g/day



http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002413.htm (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002413.htm)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: Surly1 on January 13, 2014, 06:53:38 am
A terrific and typically well researched article. Right on time as well. Wondering whether I should purchase a geiger counter. Have already ordered some KI for my family...
Title: How Mushrooms Can Clean Up Radioactive Contamination - An 8 Step Plan
Post by: AGelbert on January 13, 2014, 03:09:24 pm
Thanks Surly,
The Geiger counter will expose the heavy contamination but the becquerel count on food like fish or produce can be high enough to damage health without registering on the Geiger counter.  :P

Remember KI works only to block the radioactive iodine. For some reason, it doesn't seem to block the Ce-137 even though it has K in it. The KCL fertilizer is supposed to keep plants we eat from taking up Ce-137 into their tissues. Apparantly the K in KCL is more bioactive for uptake than the K in KI.

And then there are those mushrooms Paul Stamets mentions that suck up Ce-137 into their tissues at the Chernobyl area that should help.   (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)


How Mushrooms Can Clean Up Radioactive Contamination - An 8 Step Plan

Paul Stamets |  Saturday, 16th April 2011 

Paul Stamets, the master of mycorrhiza, describes how to isolate the radioactive material at Fukushima, specifically Cesium 137, and reduce its impact on the surrounding land and its wildlife and people.

(http://nd03.jxs.cz/256/857/d6283b8b5c_62143572_o2.jpg)
Gomphidius glutinosus
 

Many people have written me and asked more or less the same question: "What would you do to help heal the Japanese landscape around the failing nuclear reactors?"

The enormity and unprecedented nature of this combined natural and human-made disaster will require a massive and completely novel approach to management and remediation. And with this comes a never before seen opportunity for collaboration, research and wisdom.

The nuclear fallout will make continued human habitation in close proximity to the reactors untenable. The earthquake and tsunami created enormous debris fields near the nuclear reactors. Since much of this debris is wood, and many fungi useful in mycoremediation are wood decomposers and build the foundation of forest ecosystems, I have the following suggestions:

1. Evacuate the region around the reactors.

2. Establish a high-level, diversified remediation team including foresters, mycologists, nuclear and radiation experts, government officials, and citizens.

3. Establish a fenced off Nuclear Forest Recovery Zone.

4. Chip the wood debris from the destroyed buildings and trees and spread throughout areas suffering from high levels of radioactive contamination.

5. Mulch the landscape with the chipped wood debris to a minimum depth of 12-24 inches.

6. Plant native deciduous and conifer trees, along with hyper-accumulating mycorrhizal mushrooms, particularly Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina (all native to pines). G. glutinosus has been reported to absorb – via the mycelium – and concentrate radioactive Cesium 137 more than 10,000-fold over ambient background levels. Many other mycorrhizal mushroom species also hyper-accumulate.

7. Wait until mushrooms form and then harvest them under Radioactive HAZMAT protocols.

8. Continuously remove the mushrooms, which have now concentrated the radioactivity, particularly Cesium 137, to an incinerator. Burning the mushroom will result in radioactive ash. This ash can be further refined and the resulting concentrates vitrified (placed into glass) or stored using other state-of-the-art storage technologies.



By sampling other mushroom-forming fungi for their selective ability to hyper-accumulate radioactivity, we can learn a great deal while helping the ecosystem recover. Not only will some mushroom species hyper-accumulate radioactive compounds, but research has also shown that some mycorrhizal fungi bind and sequester radioactive elements so they remain immobilized for extended periods of time. Surprisingly, we learned from the Chernobyl disaster that many species of melanin-producing fungi have their growth stimulated by radiation.

The knowledge gained through this collaborative process would not only benefit the areas affected by the current crisis, but would also help with preparedness and future remediation responses.

How long would this remediation effort take? I have no clear idea but suggest this may require decades. However, a forested national park could emerge –The Nuclear Forest Recovery Zone – and eventually benefit future generations with its many ecological and cultural attributes.

I do not know of any other practical remedy. I do know that we have an unprecedented opportunity to work together toward solutions that make sense.

For references consult my latest book, Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World (Ten Speed Press, Berkeley or www.fungi.com). Click this link to see a video too! Utilizing search engines of the scientific literature will also reveal more corroborative references.

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-pkMK5ohF2QY/TqGnkrHxF_I/AAAAAAAACXc/NOi0ZBlmDz0/s1600/Paul%25252520Stamets.jpg)(http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/Bioneers-2008-Mushrooms.jpg)

(http://www.mushroombusiness.com/images/stamets_labo_399x292.jpg)


(http://www.thedirtmovie.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/paul_stamets1.jpg)

Paul Stamets   (http://www.smile-day.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Smiley-Thumbs-Up2.jpg)




How Mushrooms Can Clean Up Radioactive Contamination - An 8 Step Plan
(http://www.permaculture.co.uk/articles/how-mushrooms-can-clean-radioactive-contamination-8-step-plan)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2014, 09:02:09 pm
CIIRAD was created in 1986 because the government of France claimed that there was no contamination in France from Chernobyl.

Since then that contamination, the contamination from 20 closed uranium mines tapped out in France and the horrendous uranium mine contamination going on to this date in Australia (and every place else on earth that there are uranium mines) has been discovered by this bold, truthful organization.

Watch this video and learn all you have never been told about the TRUTH about Uranium mining contamination of the environment even before this poison gets to the nuclear power plant.

The tailings at them mines are hundreds of times greater in mass than the yellow cake produced. They are also 80% as radioactive as they were before U-308 was pulled out of them. As usual, the mining companies refuse to remediate the land, as they are allegedly required to do by law, while claiming there is NO contamination or hazard to the environment from the tailings.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LztHWpFpT4g&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on February 02, 2014, 01:11:52 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDgnBqBJZNc&feature=player_embedded
All about cesium-137
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on February 04, 2014, 12:36:56 am
John William Gofman is professor emeritus of Medical Physics at UC Berkeley, and lecturer for the Department of Medicine, UCSF. While getting As PhD in physics at Berkeley in the 1940s, Gofman proved the slow and fast neutron fissionability of uranium-233.

At the request of J. Robert Oppenheimer, Gofman helped produce plutonium (not even a quarter-milligram existed at the time) for the Manhattan Project.

He got his MD from UCSF in 1946 (winning the Gold-Headed Cane Award, presented to the senior who most fully personifies a "true physician") and began his research on coronary heart disease.

In 1963 the Atomic Energy Commission asked him to establish a Biomedical Research Division at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to evaluate the health effects of all types of nuclear radiation. By 1969, however, the AEC and the "radiation community" were downplaying his warnings about the risks of radiation . Gofman returned to full-time teaching at Berkeley, switching to emeritus status in 1973.


Quote
When gamma rays or x-rays set electrons in motion, the electrons are traveling at a lower speed than the electrons coming out of Cesium-137. And as a result, when they're traveling at a lower speed, they interact much more with each micrometer of path they travel.

Therefore the local harm is much greater.
So medical x-rays set in motion electrons that are traveling at a lower speed and hence producing about twice the linear energy transfer, and hence twice the biological effect.

That's why alpha particles from radium or plutonium are so much more devastating
than beta rays set in motion from x-rays. The alpha particles, with their heavy mass and plus-2 charge, just rip through tissue so strenuously that they don't go very far.

A deception of the crassest sort are the lectures by pro-nuclear people showing a plutonium or radium source and putting up a piece of paper and showing that the alpha-particle radiation on the other side is zero. "You see, a piece of paper will stop those alpha particles, folks, there's no problem with plutonium." Except when that alpha particle is lodged next to an endosteal cell in the bone and producing a horrendous amount of interaction. Or that alpha particle is lodging on the surface of the bronchi — that's why we've got an epidemic of lung cancer among the uranium miners! The fact that they don't travel far is because they interact like hell!

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/synapse.html

http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/02/50-reasons-fear-fukushima/
Title: Why Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Are Part of the Problem, Not the Solution
Post by: AGelbert on May 19, 2014, 01:47:45 am
The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low-Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors Are Part of the Problem, Not the Solution

Here's why he says SMR nuclear not only isn't part of the renewable energy equation, it actually undermines it:



1.•It won't be cheaper.

Like any significant technology leap SMR involves substantially more costs, from using more material per MW of capacity to establishing the infrastructure to design and build the reactors: up to $90 billion by 2020 to fund just two designs and assembly lines, he predicts. That's three-quarters of the total projected investment in all electricity generation — and of course it's far more than renewables' slice of that pie. And the flip side of this coin is subsidies. For 60 years nuclear has been deeply reliant upon vastly more subsidies than renewables have received, and it's still dependent upon them — except in the current scrutinous political climate many of the key ones for nuclear aren't on the table, from liability insurances and waste management to decommissioning, water use, and loan guarantees.

2 •The strategy is bad.
The aggressive deployment strategy being proposed for dozens of SMRs near population centers is reminiscent of the 'Great Bandwagon Market' of the 1960s-1980s when utilities ordered hundreds of reactors and ultimately cancelled more than half of them. That was followed by the 'nuclear renaissance' in the 2000s but only 10 percent of those planned reactors are under construction. Now SMR is in the spotlight, five years on and still on the drawing boards, with key developers Westinghouse and Babcock & Wilcox reigning in their SMR efforts (partly blaming low-cost natural gas) as they struggle to find customers and major investors. "It is always possible that nuclear power's fairy godmother will wave her magic wand over the technology and solve its economic, safety, and environmental problems," mused Cooper in an e-mail exchange, "but there is nothing in the 50-year history of commercial nuclear power that suggest this is anything but a fairy tale."


3 •Safety is not first.
Despite a raft of safety issues that SMR technologies have to overcome, proponents actually want pre-approvals, limited reviews, and reduced safety margins including staff and evacuation zones. With Fukushima still in the headlines three years later, good luck getting policymakers and regulators to agree to de-emphasize safety — as long as we're all reminded about it.


4 •What's best for the future?

The trend toward a more decentralized energy delivery system is the opposite direction from the passive one-way 24/7 baseload delivery model of a nuclear reactor. "Any resource that is not flexible becomes a burden on the system, rather than a benefit to it," said Cooper.

Billing SMR nuclear technology as more flexible and cheaper than larger reactors is an even better argument to support non-nuclear renewable energy options unencumbered by the same security, proliferation, and environmental risks, Cooper points out.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)

But giving nuclear power a central role (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif) in current climate change policy will "not only drain away resources from the more promising alternatives, it would undermine the effort to create the physical and institutional infrastructure needed to support the emerging electricity systems based on renewables, distributed generation and intensive system and demand management."  >:(


Agelbert NOTE: The SMR is another poisonous cash cow for Nuke Pukes. Raise HELL if somebody wants to put one of those near you. And when I say NEAR you, I'm not kidding. The hype is to use them in NEIGHBORHOODS to provide "electricity security" and "reliable" RADIATION SICKNESS (whoops, I mean all the conveniences of a "modern" power source). When some NUKE PUKE recommends an SMR PIG, say ---->  (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/stock/thumb_smiley-sign0105.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif) (http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/12962/noway.gif)


Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2014, 03:48:01 pm
Published on Saturday, May 31, 2014 by Common Dreams       

Feds Leave Radioactive Waste Stranded In Wildfire Danger Zone (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)   (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif)  :P  >:(
DOE announces it will not  ??? meet deadline for removal of radioactive containers held above-ground at northern New Mexico nuclear weapons lab

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer

The Department of Energy admitted Friday it will not meet a deadline to remove dangerous radioactive waste, currently stranded above-ground in unsafe conditions at a New Mexico nuclear weapons laboratory, before wildfire season hits.

At least 3,706 cubic meters of radioactive waste are being stored at the Los Alamos National Laboratory complex after the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an underground nuclear waste dump in southeastern New Mexico, was shut down indefinitely in February due to an airborne radiation leak.

Officials in New Mexico have warned that the waste at Los Alamos could be within the reach of wildfires and must be transferred elsewhere by the end of June. According to the Associated Press, "The agreement for removal of the waste by June 30 was reached after a massive wildfire lapped at the edge of lab property three years ago, raising concerns about the thousands of barrels of waste that were being stored outside."

"The waste at Los Alamos is trapped with no place to go," Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer and nuclear safety advocate at Fairewinds Associates, told Common Dreams.

The Los Alamos radioactive materials are "transuranic waste" that is described by the DOE as "clothing, tools, rags, debris, soil and other items contaminated with radioactive material generated during decades of nuclear research and weapons development."

Concerns have been raised about the safety of these barrels after it was posited that changes in methods of packaging at Los Alamos, from use of inorganic to organic cat litter to absorb moisture, may be responsible for a chemical reaction with nitrate salts and set off the "heat event" behind the WIPP leak. Officials are still trying to determine the cause of the accident and are investigating the potential danger of the more than 500 nuclear waste containers originating from Los Alamos that were packed with organic cat litter.

The DOE had been sending some Los Alamos radioactive waste to a Texas facility for temporary storage until WIPP is functional. Upon discovering that Los Alamos shipments may be dangerous, the DOE halted all shipments, citing public safety.

But Gundersen warns that these barrels of waste could pose a threat in Texas and Los Alamos, where they are being stored above-ground. "It is worse in the summer, because it is hotter in the summer, and the reactions become less stable," he said.

In a statement (pdf) released Friday, the New Mexico Environment Department said it is "disappointed, but not surprised" that the DOE will not meet its deadline to remove the waste.

Meanwhile, it is still not clear when WIPP will reopen. The facility, which was never supposed to leak, is the bedrock of the U.S. government's current approach to dispose of military-generated plutonium-contaminated transuranic waste from decades of nuclear bomb production and testing.

Critics have warned that WIPP's failure raises serious questions about the overall federal strategy  (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzb-1rVB8pc/UfXxBekcYVI/AAAAAAAAEm4/hXUkGCzFIPg/s1600/giveafuckometer-gif.gif) for disposing of nuclear waste. (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif)




https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/31-0
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 25, 2015, 09:46:22 pm
(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nukecartoon.jpg)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)

Still No Solution to Storage of High-Level Radioactive Nuclear Waste

http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/25/no-solution-radioactive-nuclear-waste/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 28, 2015, 10:30:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eiUWluJLHM&x-yt-cl=84924572&feature=player_embedded
Residents of Kingman, Arizona in Mohave County continue to die of cancer without federal compensation despite the FACT that radionuclide levels form fallout there are HIGHER than in other areas that ARE being compensated.  :o  >:(
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on April 25, 2015, 07:50:07 pm
Global Conference Urges Ban on (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2mo5pow.gif) Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/swear1.gif)  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif)

Posted on Apr 24, 2015

By Paul Brown, Climate News Network
 
LONDON—Uranium mining across the world should cease, nuclear power stations be closed and nuclear weapons be banned, according to a group of scientists, environmentalists and representatives of indigenous peoples.

Three hundred delegates from 20 countries that produce uranium for nuclear power, weapons and medical uses called for an end to all uranium mining in a declaration launched on Earth Day this week at a meeting in Quebec, Canada.

The venue for the World Uranium Symposium was chosen because Quebec state is currently considering whether to continue its moratorium on uranium mining, having already closed down its only nuclear power plant in 2013.

Symbolic choice

The city of Quebec is also symbolic because this is where Canada, the US and the UK made a co-operation agreement in 1943 that led to the building of the world’s first nuclear weapons. Two of the resulting A-Bombs were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

But the symposium was more concerned about the damage that existing uranium mining is doing to the welfare of indigenous peoples, and the “erroneous view” that nuclear power can help solve the problem of climate change.

The declaration applauded the expansion of renewable energy and the significant strides in phasing out nuclear power following the growing awareness that “nuclear power is not a cost-effective, timely, practical or safe response to climate change”.

Quote

“The risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain . . . greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”

It called for “a worldwide ban on uranium exploration, mining, milling and processing, as well as the reprocessing of nuclear waste, and the irresponsible management of radioactive waste”.

Dr. Eric Notebaert, associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, co-president of the Symposium, and member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said that the symposium delegates all agreed that “the risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain—from uranium mines, to power reactors, to nuclear weapons, to radioactive wastes—greatly exceed the potential benefits for society”.

Dr. Juan Carlos Chrigwin, a physician affiliated with McGill University, and president of Physicians for Global Survival, said: “The issuing of this World Declaration on Uranium is the culmination of essential work carried out over many years by international coalitions who, despite geographical and cultural differences, share common objectives and who desire to shape a common vision of a better world.

Quote
“Uranium does not provide a viable or sustainable approach for dealing with climate change, nor for providing isotopes for medical use. Today, there are a number of medical and energy alternatives that are cheaper and safer.”   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif)

The declaration is open for organisations and individuals to sign on the internet and is bound to put further pressure on an industry already suffering from falling confidence.

The price of uranium has dropped from $138 a tonne in 2007 to less than $40 a tonne currently as plans to build more nuclear stations have been shelved in several countries.  :emthup:

While the search continues for rich new uranium deposits—particularly by China in Africa and the US in Greenland—it is unlikely to be economically viable to exploit them at current prices.

Carbon footprint

According to the World Nuclear Association, 52% of the world’s production comes from 10 mines in six countries. The largest is in Canada, followed by one in Australia, but the largest single producer is Kazakhstan, which has four mines in the top 10 in the world. In Africa, Niger and Namibia are also big producers.

While many pro-nuclear governments—including the UK’s—regard nuclear power as a clean, low-carbon form of energy, the politicians ignore the carbon footprint of the mines and the consequences for the health of workers.

It is in developing countries that the miners and the local environment tend to suffer most because of open cast mines. For example, large areas of Kazakhstan are too dangerous to inhabit as a result of mountains of uranium tailings and mildly radioactive dust.

The Symposium’s co-president, Dr. Dale Dewar—a physician who is associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan and is co-author of the book, From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You—summed up by saying:
Quote
“We are calling on national and international leaders to protect our planet and our populations from any further nuclear catastrophes. Anything less would be irresponsible.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/global_group_seeks_ban_on_uranium_and_nuclear_power_20150424

How Much of Worldwide Disease Is Preventable?  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif)
 
About one-fourth of all instances of disease are preventable and caused by environmental factors that could be changed, health experts say. Children are even more affected by diseases caused by environmental factors, with about one-third of all instances of disease being preventable in children younger than 5 years old.

It is estimated that about 13 million lives could be saved every year if precautions were taken to better manage environments. The main preventable worldwide diseases are diarrhea, malaria, lower respiratory infections and accidental injuries. These could be reduced by improved hygiene with water storage and handling of toxic substances, cleaner fuel usage and improved building safety.

More about preventable diseases:

The leading factors of diseases in the US are poor diet, lack of exercise, tobacco use and excessive alcohol consumption. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif)

More than 90% of diarrhea-related conditions could be prevented by improving unsafe water supplies.

Nearly 3 million deaths each year are from cardiovascular diseases, which can be prevented in certain cases. This is nearly twice the amount of deaths from cancer.



Agelbert comment (I am Gelbert46 on WiseGeek):  


The article is incorrect.  Nearly 7 million people die each year of cancer. One in 10 humans were expected to get cancer in the 1950s. Thanks to nuclear power plant and atomic explosion Cesium-137 deposition throughout the globe, one in THREE people will get cancer.

The corrected sentence in the article, if the WHO (world Health Organization) wasn't prevented from telling the truth about radionuclide caused cancers by the IAEA, would be this:


The main preventable worldwide deadly diseases are all types of cancers. The rapid increase in the global cancer epidemic (one in three will get cancer in their lifetime) is caused by Cesium-137 planetary deposition from nuclear explosions and nuclear power plant radionuclide environmental contamination.  >:(
.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-of-worldwide-disease-is-preventable.htm#discussions

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241113210504.png)


And about that "background radiation" that we are all supposed to have "evolved" to live under... ::)

Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors.

Nuke pukes claim that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif)

(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif)News flash!

There was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

Cesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, cesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began.

Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is spewing more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely Nuke Puke disinformation propaganda :P.  Most of the radiation we encounter today, especially the most dangerous types, did not even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear weapons and reactors.

We all know that radionuclides cause genetic mutations and severe birth defects.

But most people are unaware of the fact that, due to the UBIQUITY of Cesium-137 in our environment, MOST of the cancers today and much of the cardiovascular disease as well as ANY soft tissue muscle related diseases are also caused by radionuclides that destroy both smooth and striated muscles. That means, the heart, the blood vessels, the intestines, the stomach lining, the lungs and every muscle in your body.

Cesium-137 goes EVERYWERE because your body thinks it is Potassium. Lodged in the heart muscle it begins to atrophy it. It happens more or less according to muscle mass location and activity. A doctor in Russia in the 1990s discovered Cesium-137 caused heart abnormalities in small animals, then in human children. He was put in prison for publishing his study.  ???

Neither the government of Russia or our Government CARES what radionuclides are doing to most humans. We have to MAKE THEM CLOSE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS by letting everyone know what is really happening out there.

And if you think the elite aren't making sure THEIR food isn't contaminated, you are kidding yourself!

We have to kill nuclear power or it will kill us. As it is many of us are already doomed because we have been exposed to too much Cesium-137 in our food or because we have lived too near a nuclear power plant.  >:( 

We have been lied to big time. Please Pass it on. 

Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on April 28, 2015, 02:40:38 pm
Renewables vs. Nuclear: Do We Need More Nuclear Power?

Tom DeRosa 
April 28, 2015

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215143525.png)

SNIPPET:


Quote
So, here is the big question: why are renewables growing faster than nuclear, even in places like China where they are building the most reactors?

In places like the U.S., Japan and Europe, is it because of nutty environmentalists and anti nuclear groups? Isn’t that what happened with Vermont Yankee? Actually, no - Vermont Yankee really closed because the O&M costs became too high.

The real answers: risk, cost and time to build.  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


Full two page article at link below:  (http://www.runemasterstudios.com/graemlins/images/2thumbs.gif) 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2015/04/renewables-vs-nuclear-do-we-need-more-nuclear-power


COMMMENT by A. G. Gelbert 

 April 28, 2015 

We actually NEED to shut down all nuclear power plants because of the added cost (and energy use involved in that cost) of health care resultant from radionuclide degradation of the biosphere and human health.

Yes, the fossil fuel industry also is a partner in crime in offloading that "externalized cost" on to the biosphere and Homo sapiens. But it will be a cold day in hell before our governments and institutions have the intestinal fortitude to fine and imprison those welfare queen dirty energy corporations on the "subsides" gravy train robbing the people of tax dollars while they visit the people with added health care costs.

QUOTE:
The Jan. 8 statement from the more than 300 signers reads in part:

Nuclear power is not a financially viable option. Since its inception it has required taxpayer subsidies and publicly financed indemnity against accidents. New construction requires billions in public subsidies to attract private capital and, once under construction, severe cost overruns are all but inevitable. As for operational safety, the history of nuclear power plants in the U.S. is fraught with near misses, as documented by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and creates another financial and safety quagmire—high-level nuclear waste. Internationally, we’ve experienced two catastrophic accidents for a technology deemed to be virtually ‘fail safe’.

As for ‘advanced’ nuclear designs endorsed in your letter, they have been tried and failed or are mere blueprints without realistic hope, in the near term, if ever, to be commercialized. The promise and potential impact you lend breeder reactor technology in your letter is misplaced. Globally, $100 billion over sixty years have been squandered to bring the technology to commercialization without success. The liquid sodium-based cooling system is highly dangerous as proven in Japan and the U.S. And the technology has proven to be highly unreliable.

Equally detrimental in cost and environmental impact is reprocessing of nuclear waste. In France, the poster child for nuclear energy, reprocessing results in a marginal increase in energetic use of uranium while largely increasing the volume of all levels of radioactive waste. Indeed, the process generates large volumes of radioactive liquid waste annually that is dumped into the English Channel and has increased electric costs to consumers significantly. Not to mention the well-recognized proliferation risks of adopting a plutonium-based energy system.

As to the issue of what represents the best path forward to deal with climate change, the Jan. 8 statement notes:

We disagree with your assessment of renewable power and energy efficiency. They can and are being brought to scale globally. Moreover, they can be deployed much more quickly than nuclear power. For instance, in the U.S. from 2002 to 2012 over 50,000 megawatts of wind were deployed. Not one megawatt of power from new nuclear reactors was deployed, despite subsidies estimated to be worth more than the value of the power new reactors would have produced. Similarly, it took 40 years globally to deploy 50,000 megawatts of solar PV and, recently, only two and a half years to deploy an equal amount. By some estimates, another 100,000 MW will be built by the end of 2015. Already, renewables and distributed power have overtaken nuclear power in terms of megawatt hour generation worldwide.

The fact of the matter is, many Wall Street analysts predict that solar PV and wind will have reached grid parity by the end of the decade. Wind in certain parts of the Midwest is already cheaper than natural gas on the wholesale level. Energy efficiency continues to outperform all technologies on a cost basis. While the cost of these technologies continues to decline and enjoy further technological advancement, the cost of nuclear power continues to increase and construction timeframes remain excessive. And we emphasize again that no technological breakthrough to reduce its costs or enhance its operation will occur in the foreseeable future.
UNQUOTE

http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-insecurity-today/msg681/#msg681

And about that "background radiation" that we are all supposed to have "evolved" to live under...

Most “Background Radiation” Didn’t Exist Before Nuclear Weapons Testing and Nuclear Reactors.

Nuke pukes claim that we get a higher exposure from background radiation (when we fly, for example) or x-rays then we get from nuclear accidents.

News flash!

There was exactly zero background radioactive cesium or iodine before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents started.

Cesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, cesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began.

Fukushima has spewed much more radioactive cesium and iodine than Chernobyl. The amount of radioactive cesium released by Fukushima was some 20-30 times higher than initially admitted. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years. Fukushima is spewing more and more radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl.

As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely Nuke Puke disinformation propaganda. Most of the radiation we encounter today, especially the most dangerous types, did not even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear weapons and reactors.

In the 1950's one ten humans was expected to get cancer in their lifetime. GOOGLE what it is now (one is two or three depending on your gender). And don't believe the propaganda lie that, "The increased rates don't matter because more people are cured of cancer now". Yes, they can catch it sooner, but most people that get cancer STILL DIE FROM IT.

We all know that radionuclides cause genetic mutations and severe birth defects.

But most people are unaware of the fact that, due to the UBIQUITY of Cesium-137 in our environment, MOST of the cancers today and much of the cardiovascular disease as well as ANY soft tissue muscle related diseases are also caused by radionuclides that destroy both smooth and striated muscles.

That means, the heart, the blood vessels, the intestines, the stomach lining, the lungs and every muscle in your body.

Cesium-137 goes EVERYWERE because your body thinks it is Potassium. Lodged in the heart muscle it begins to atrophy it. It happens more or less according to muscle mass location and activity. A doctor in Russia in the 1990s discovered Cesium-137 caused heart abnormalities in small animals, then in human children. He was put in prison for publishing his study. ???

Neither the government of Russia or our Government CARES what radionuclides are doing to most humans. We have to MAKE THEM CLOSE THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS by letting everyone know what is really happening out there.




Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on May 23, 2015, 07:34:25 pm
(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif)        (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)        (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)

Rössing, Namibia
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Arandis_Mine_quer.jpg)
Uranium mining site

The Rössing uranium mine has been a cause for concern for more than 30 years. Unsafe and inhumane working conditions, occupational exposure to radioactivity and the contamination of the environment with uranium tailings and radioactive waste rock all pose serious public health problems.

History

The Rössing uranium mine was commissioned in 1976 by the international mining company Rio Tinto. Other major stakeholders include the governments of Iran and South Africa. Rössing is the world’s largest open-pit uranium mine and its production accounts for 10 % of Namibia’s total exports. Namibia is currently the world’s fifth largest producer of uranium.
Depending on the ore grade, about two to five tons of raw ore need to be processed in order to produce a single kilogram of refined uranium oxide. The rest is deposited near the mines as waste rock or tailings and still contains about 80 % of the ore’s original radioactivity. In 2005, 19.5 million tons of ore had to be mined in order to produce 3,711 tons of uranium oxide. According to Rio Tinto, this production required more than three million m³ of water and 226,000 tons of sulphuric acid for chemical leaching.

For the miners, who are mainly recruited from the poor black Nama community
, the town of Arandis was built near the mine, while the white executives live in the coastal town of Swakopmund, about 70 km away from the harmful effects and radioactive fallout of mining operations.

There have been several cases of inadequate security measures at Rössing; an issue that has raised international concern, as fissile materials could fall into unauthorized hands. The most recent incident occurred in 2009, when workers stole 170 kg of uranium oxide from the mine and tried to sell it on the international market. They were caught, but the Global Threat Reduction Initiative still believes that security measures need to be increased at Rössing.

Health and environmental effects


As long as uranium remains deep in the soil, its alpha- and beta-emitting decay products, such as radon or thorium, pose virtually no harm to human health. As soon as it is brought to the surface, however, where it can spread as airborne dust particles or be dissolved in effluent water, humans can ingest the radioactive isotopes and can suffer from internal irradiation.

Miners at Rössing are exposed to uranium dust and inhale radon gas on a daily basis. Although vast quantities of water are used to keep uranium dust on the ground, the use of explosives in open-pit mining causes large radioactive clouds, which are carried to the fields and settlements of nearby Arandis and the region’s waterways.

Elevated levels of uranium were detected in nearly 80 % of groundwater samples, with the highest concentration of 528 µg/l 15 times above the WHO limit of 15 µg/l.

Studies have also shown quantitative health effects in the miners, which cannot be explained by confounding factors.

An independent case-controlled study performed by the Charité University Clinic of Berlin showed a sixfold increase in uranium excretion among uranium miners compared with the control group. The researches also found three times as many chromosomal aberrations, a significantly reduced lymphocyte count as a sign of hematopoietic damage, and lower testosterone levels, suggestive of gonadal damage.

The blood cells of Rössing miners showed similar defects as those found in the casualties of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima or the nuclear meltdown of Chernobyl. These findings echo newer scientific evidence that chronic exposure to low-level radioactivity can have effects similar to acute high-level exposure.

Outlook

Large-scale epidemiological studies would be needed in order to determine cancer incidence among the miners and inhabitants of the region, but none have been undertaken so far. Instead, Rössing Uranium Ltd commissioned a study  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp) in order to refute the findings of the Berlin research group . In 2007, instead of examining the damage already caused, Rio Tinto decided to expand the Rössing mine, extend its runtime to 2016 and increase the output to 3,800 tons of uranium oxide per year.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif) (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

The people living near Rössing are suffering from the industry‘s appetite for cheap uranium – they, too, have become Hibakusha.   (http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-large.gif)


Further information


A well-researched film about uranium mining at Rössing is “Yellow Cake – The Dirt Behind Uranium” by Joachim Tschirner: www.yellowcake-derfilm.de/index.php?id=209

References


Shindondola-Mote H.
“Uranium mining in Namibia – the mystery behind ‘low level radiation’ .” Labor Resource and Research Institute, February 2009. http://somo.nl/publications-en/Publication_3061/at_download/fullfile “

Report to Stakeholders 2005.”
Rössing Uranium. www.rossing-com.info/reports/stake_report_3MB.pdf

Duddy JM. “Nam uranium spooks the U.S..” The Namibian, February 3, 2010. www.namibian.com.na/indexx.php?archive_id=62401&page_type=archive_story_detail&page=2591

Kingel et al.
“Groundwater quality assessment in the Khan- and Swakop River catchment.” Joint report of the German Federal Agency for Geoscience and Resources (BGR) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (MBZ), July 2010. www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Wasser/Projekte/abgeschlossen/TZ/Namibia/nausea_fb_en_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

Zaire et al. “Unexpected Rates" of Chromosomal Instabilities and Alterations of Hormone Levels in Namibian Uranium Miners.” Rad Res 1997 May;147(5):579-84. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9146703
Agelbert NOTE: "Unexpected Rates" of DNA and other tissue damage, MY ASS! (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300115234833.gif) They didn't build that high class WHITE coastal town of Swakopmund about 70 km away from the Uranium POISON just for the ocean view!

http://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/roessing.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2015, 07:31:53 pm
Quote
The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210714023342.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif)

Grand Bargain Is Not So Grand

by David Krieger

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has two major purposes and together they form a grand bargain. First, the treaty seeks to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries.  Second, the treaty seeks to level the playing field by the pursuit of negotiations in good faith to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to achieve nuclear disarmament. The goal of the grand bargain, in other words, is a world without nuclear weapons.

For the most part the non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty are playing by the rules and not developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. However, one country – the United States – has stationed its nuclear weapons on the territories of five European countries otherwise without nuclear weapons (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey), and agreed to turn these weapons over to the host countries in a time of war. The US has also placed all NATO countries plus Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan under its “nuclear umbrella.” Collectively these countries are known as the weasel countries, non-nuclear in name but not in reality.

In addition, there has been nuclear proliferation outside the NPT. Three countries that never joined the NPT developed nuclear arsenals (Israel, India and Pakistan), and North Korea withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons. Despite all of this actual nuclear proliferation, attention seems to be primarily focused on the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, even though Iran appears to be willing to take all necessary steps, including intrusive inspections, to assure the world that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.

It is the other side of the grand bargain, though, where things really break down. The five nuclear-armed countries that are parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) appear more comfortable working together to maintain and modernize their nuclear arsenals than they do to fulfilling their disarmament obligations under the treaty. Their common strategy appears to be “nuclear weapons forever.”   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif)

The US, which plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades, is also largely responsible for the modernization programs of Russia and China as a result of unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002 and placing land- and sea-based missile defenses close to the Russian and Chinese borders. Since missile defenses can also be part of an integrated plan to launch first-strike attacks, Russia and China may feel compelled to maintain the effectiveness of their nuclear deterrent by enhancing their offensive forces to counter US missile defenses. Avoiding such defensive-offensive escalations was the purpose of the ABM Treaty in the first place. One can get a better sense of this by imagining the US response if Russian missile defenses were placed on the Canadian border and Chinese missile defenses were placed on the Mexican border.

The parties to the NPT just completed a month of negotiations for their ninth five-year review conference. The conference ended in failure without agreement on a final document to guide the work of the parties over the next five years. The US, UK and Canada refused to support a conference to begin negotiating a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to take place by March 1, 2016. This conference, promised when the NPT was extended indefinitely in 1995, has been put off previously and now it has been put off yet again.

Even if there had been consensus on a final document from the 2015 NPT review conference, however, it would not have been a strong or satisfactory document. The nuclear-armed parties to the treaty spent their time at the meetings watering down the disarmament provisions to which they had previously made an “unequivocal undertaking.” The nuclear-armed states and the weasel states, despite their protestations, don’t seem serious about keeping their commitments to achieve nuclear disarmament. Increasingly, the non-nuclear weapons states and civil society organizations are coming to the conclusion that the nuclear-armed countries are not acting in good faith and, as a result, the grand bargain is not being fulfilled.

A positive and hopeful outcome of the conference, though, is that the non-nuclear weapon states may be sufficiently fed up with the nuclear-armed countries to act boldly to push ahead on a new path to nuclear disarmament. More than 100 countries have now endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, initiated by Austria, to work for a new legal instrument to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons, just as has been done for chemical and biological weapons and for landmines and cluster munitions. This legal instrument could take the form of a new Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.

Also on the positive and hopeful side are the bold and courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice in The Hague and separately against the US in US federal court. These lawsuits seek declaratory relief, stating that the nuclear weapon states are in violation of the disarmament provisions of the NPT and of customary international law, and seek injunctive relief ordering the nuclear-armed countries to initiate and engage in negotiations in good faith for total nuclear disarmament. A well-attended side panel at the NPT review conference provided an update on the status of the lawsuits.

This is the 70th year since nuclear weapons were used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There are still over 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Enough is enough. It is time to abolish these weapons before they cause irreversible damage to civilization, the human species and other forms of life. We owe it to ourselves and to future generations of life on Earth to break our chains of complacency and demonstrate that the engaged human heart is more powerful than even nuclear arms.

David Krieger  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the author of ZERO: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.


http://www.wagingpeace.org/grand-bargain-not-so-grand/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on June 01, 2015, 07:47:07 pm

Ex-Chief of Nuclear Forces General Lee Butler Still Dismayed by Deterrence Theory and Missiles on Hair-Trigger Alert


by Robert Kazel
 
After the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the danger of nuclear weapons faded as a source of anxiety for some Americans. To them, worrying that the world’s stockpiles of missiles and bombs could eventually create catastrophe seemed as anachronistic as the duck-and-cover classroom drills of a previous generation. But for George Lee Butler, a four-star U.S. Air Force general and the commander of U.S. nuclear forces between 1991 and 1994, thinking about the possibility of just such a calamity didn’t end. The reality was always a phone call away.

The calls would come at least once a month, and there was never advance warning. Butler might be anywhere: his office at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Neb., or traveling, or home sleeping. A hotline to other military officers and the White House sat on a bedside table, closer to his wife’s head because she was the lighter sleeper.

It always turned out to be an exercise—World War III obviously never broke out during Butler’s tenure. But, at least at the outset, he never knew for sure. The games were thought to be more useful if the participants—even a key player such as Butler—were kept in the dark about that.

Every drill ran an identical course; the dialog was scripted. An officer from NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, informed Butler that satellites and ground radar had seemingly detected nuclear missiles flying toward the United States. After a brief talk about the extent of the apparent attack, Butler was required to phone the President.

Quote
“You can imagine, it’s 2:37 in the morning, and the President has been at a gala that night—not feeling very well, kind of groggy,” Butler says today. “He gets a call from me that says, ‘Sir, the United States is under nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. It appears to be a wholesale nuclear attack: land-, sea- and air-based.’  At that point, while I’m talking, the Major with the briefcase [with Presidential nuclear launch codes] is unlocking it and pulling out the black three-ring binder.”

Actual presidents—in Butler’s day, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton—never took part in these “missile threat conferences.” Like a stand-in for a movie star who wished to avoid an unpleasant stunt, someone else always acted out the role of commander-in-chief at the other end of the line. Butler felt disgust that such a crucial task was left to a substitute.

Butler, pictured (at the link) here in 1983, was commander of the 320th Bombardment Wing, Mather Air Force Base, east of Sacramento, Cal. The base was home to long-range, B-52 strategic bombers on alert for the Strategic Air Command.

Few knew it, but for Butler that sense of abhorrence gradually began to encompass nuclear weapons in general, as he became privy to more secrets about them. After he retired from the Air Force in 1994 as head of the U.S. Strategic Command (where he had authority over land-based missiles, bombers, and nuclear submarines), he worked for a time as president of a Nebraska-based energy company. Then, his life transformed in a way that he could never have anticipated.

The former Air Force career officer and decorated Vietnam War pilot, considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on nuclear weapons and strategy in the world, began talking like the most passionate of anti-nuclear activists. (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png) A fascinated media listened, all over the world.


Full article shedding much light on our CONTINUED nuclear insecurity:

(http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif)

http://www.wagingpeace.org/general-lee-butler/

Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on June 06, 2015, 06:08:08 pm
(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sanandreas650.jpg)

‘San Andreas’ Blockbuster Has Huge Radioactive Omissions

http://ecowatch.com/2015/06/05/san-andreas-diablo-canyon/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on June 20, 2015, 12:36:02 am
Quote
“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   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

Erin Mansfield Jun. 18 2015, 7:35 pm

http://vtdigger.org/2015/06/18/nrc-says-entergy-can-use-decommissioning-fund-to-store-spent-fuel/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on July 03, 2015, 07:01:49 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIEzTKO03do&feature=player_embedded
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   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif)


June 24, 2015 - 9:20am

http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-issues-remaining-18-billion-loan-guarantees-vogtle-advanced-nuclear

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.

Quote

"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

Quote
"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.

Quote
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.

GO,

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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on July 04, 2015, 09:39:35 pm
ANOTHER Nuke Puke based Socialized Cost is Coming Soon.  >:(
(http://www.islandbreath.org/2015Year/07/150703runit.jpg)


This dome in the Pacific houses tons of radioactive waste – and it's leaking   (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)

 
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.

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/scientists_warn_nuclear_sarcophagus_in_marshall_islands_is_leaking_20150703

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wfl8DveOIM&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on July 12, 2015, 10:28:34 pm
Quote
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.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

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." (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)
http://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/uranium-mining/events/ronneburg-meeting-2014.html


Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on August 30, 2015, 03:10:29 pm
The old "National Security" trick -  Flag Waving Draped Taxpayer Fleecing

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300815150023.gif)
A flight test body for a B61-12 nuclear weapon  Jerry Refern for Reveal

Quote
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.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/nuclear-weapon-obama-most-expensive-ever (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/nuclear-weapon-obama-most-expensive-ever)

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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)

Energy Department Issues Remaining $1.8 Billion in Loan Guarantees for Vogtle Advanced Nuclear Energy Project (http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/nuclear-insecurity-today/msg3397/#msg3397)  >:(
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on September 28, 2015, 09:27:20 pm
(http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif)
State slams emergency plan changes at Vermont Yankee

September 28, 2015 by Mike Faher
(http://vtdigger.org/vtdNewsMachine/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Vermont-Yankee-spent-fuel-pad-610x429.jpg)
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.  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)

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.

Quote
“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  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif), 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

http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/28/state-slams-emergency-plan-changes-at-vermont-yankee/



Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on September 30, 2015, 08:35:07 pm
Quote

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

http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/29/tale-of-two-yankees-vt-nuke-panelists-find-tranquility-at-ct-site/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on October 01, 2015, 05:43:14 pm
ACID: Apathy, Conformity, Ignorance and Denial.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bzb-1rVB8pc/UfXxBekcYVI/AAAAAAAAEm4/hXUkGCzFIPg/s1600/giveafuckometer-gif.gif)


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.
Quote

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 (http://cliparts.co/cliparts/Big/Egq/BigEgqBMT.png)


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


https://www.wagingpeace.org/reason-is-not-enough/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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.”

Quote
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.  (http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg) 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,”    (http://www.emofaces.com/png/200/emoticons/fingerscrossed.png) 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

(http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/images/f/f1/Cost_v_design_graph_clr.jpeg)


 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.

http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/index.php/PR:Oak_Ridge_Bomb_Plant_Cost_Soaring_Towards_$10_Billion
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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.

Monsta,
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.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on October 11, 2015, 08:35:44 pm
Monsta,
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    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)



  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)  ;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.   (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-280515145049.png)  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png)

Sorry old chum, I think your position lacks objectivity.
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on October 16, 2015, 03:54:31 pm
(http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif)

Feds rule Entergy must disclose some details of Yankee trust fund use  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

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.”  (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif)


http://vtdigger.org/2015/10/15/feds-rule-entergy-must-disclose-some-details-of-yankee-trust-fund-use/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on January 12, 2016, 12:09:50 am
Feds won’t stop nuclear plant exemptions  (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil19.gif)

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

SNIPPET:


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.

http://vtdigger.org/2016/01/10/feds-wont-stop-nuclear-plant-exemptions/

(http://media.tumblr.com/f743217795e126d61e2b86481f9dfb4a/tumblr_inline_n1mtftG9F61rl7j9n.gif)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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.”

http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/03/groundwater-problem-emerges-at-vermont-yankee/ (http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/03/groundwater-problem-emerges-at-vermont-yankee/)

Agelbert NOTE: The Vermont wit and humor is showcased below in EXCELLENT comments.     (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)


Quote
Bob Stannard  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif)

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


Quote
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. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gif)  (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/5yjbztv.gif)

    Reply
    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!?  ;)

   Reply 
   Jon Warren Lentz

Ship the tainted water to D.C. & plumb it to the Senator’s & Representative’s  drinking fountains.  :D
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on February 15, 2016, 07:06:31 pm
(http://dl10.glitter-graphics.net/pub/2491/2491210ovie015m90.gif)


State will allow nuclear critic’s testimony in fuel case  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080515182559.png)

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

http://vtdigger.org/2016/02/14/state-will-allow-nuclear-critics-testimony-in-fuel-case/

Agelbert Note: The Entergy nuclear power Welfare Queens are not happy campers. GOOD!    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191456.bmp)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on March 13, 2016, 03:45:13 pm
(http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_1593.gif)

(http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/nukedisaster750.jpg)
7 Top NRC Experts Break Ranks to Warn of Critical Danger  at Aging Nuke Plants

Harvey Wasserman | March 9, 2016 11:48 am

http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/09/nrc-experts-warn-dangers-nuclear/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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

(http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MV-Sigrid-nuclear-waste-ship.jpg)
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.
(http://www.karnteknik.se/upload/bildarkiv/Barseb%C3%A4ck/Flygfoto%20anl%C3%A4ggning_image-980px.jpg)
Barsebäck nuclear power plant

The ship was not carrying any dangerous cargo  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png), the administration and the ship’s owner confirmed.  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg)

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.  (http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/xig/ojx/xigojx6KT.png)

https://gcaptain.com/nuclear-waste-ship-mv-sigrid-runs-aground-in-sweden/
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on December 22, 2016, 04:35:31 pm
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Flag_of_Germany_(unoff).svg/1280px-Flag_of_Germany_(unoff).svg.png)
(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.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/federal-cabinet-agrees-final-repository-law-vw-settlement-deals
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on December 23, 2016, 08:54:07 pm
(http://therealnews.com/t2/templates/gk_twn/images/logo3.png)

December 23, 2016
How Will Trump Wield Obama's Modernized Nukes?  (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp)   

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

https://youtu.be/YAu6HArPpow

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18012
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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.

http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/02/a-hard-rains-gonna-fall.html

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".  (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)

(http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif)

(http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg)

PODCAST AT LINK:


http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/02/a-hard-rains-gonna-fall.html

Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on February 11, 2017, 06:28:05 pm
https://youtu.be/pbFA0mxzgjY

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on March 12, 2017, 01:55:24 pm
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/all/themes/clew/logo.png)

Osnabrücker Zeitung

Who wants to live on a nuclear toilet?  :P
  (http://www.netanimations.net/Frankenstein-looks-stares-and-blinks-animated-gif.gif)(http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)


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 (http://www.noz.de/deutschland-welt/politik/artikel/861757/wer-will-schon-auf-einem-atomklo-wohnen).


For background read the CLEW dossier The challenges of Germany’s nuclear phase-out (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/dossiers/challenges-germanys-nuclear-phase-out)and the CLEW factsheet What to do with the nuclear waste – the storage question
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-do-nuclear-waste-storage-question).
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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?   (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

(http://media.tumblr.com/c6492e4b47cfdbd50e74d285fde3c53e/tumblr_inline_mm3g4yCaZc1qz4rgp.gif)

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:  (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)
 
 
https://youtu.be/HpbNgi_4aX4

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.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/bigpicture/japans-rejected-radioactive-food-ending-your-grocery-store-wguest-kevin-kamps

 
(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=550)

 
(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=608)(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/MGalleryItem.php?id=557)


Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on May 09, 2017, 10:19:13 pm
Emergency Declared at Nuclear Waste Site in Washington State   (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)

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 (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png) 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." (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png)

Watch here to learn more about the Hanford site:

https://youtu.be/L8eDFhHpf2s

http://www.ecowatch.com/hanford-tunnel-collapse-2400226509.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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]
http://gcaptain.com/watch-canadas-new-shipping-shortcut/ (http://gcaptain.com/watch-canadas-new-shipping-shortcut/)


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.

(http://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/print/tom-toro-yes-the-planet-got-destroyed-but-for-a-beautiful-moment-in-time-we-created-a-lot-of-value-for-sh_a-g-9318033-8736197.jpg?w=900&h=900)

This would be a good time to start equipping your Bugout Machine and picking Bugout Locations.  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png)


(http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Boondocks-Campground-Site-13-Unpacking-768x576.jpg)

RE

Thank you Surly and RE for your thoughtful comments.  (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)


It was interesting to note how the USA bent the Canadians out of shape (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-301014183629.gif) in 1985 (Reagan and Bush must have enjoyed that. (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2z6in9g.gif))  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.   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)

https://youtu.be/j48Z3W35FI0



(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317173810.png)

Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post 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. (http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6656.gif)

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.  (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)

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.   (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

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.    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png) (http://pm1.narvii.com/5869/6a64193d6770c3afd17406c78686c0eda32ded1c_hq.jpg)

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

https://youtu.be/xrGAQCq9BMU

Learn more about the Plutonium RISK below:

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

https://www.csmonitor.com/1997/1010/101097.opin.opin.1.html






 
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on August 21, 2017, 01:51:57 pm
  (http://www.netanimations.net/Frankenstein-looks-stares-and-blinks-animated-gif.gif)(http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif)    (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-300714025456.bmp) 


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."

(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1sLBdIXXXXXX1XXXXq6xXFXXXp/Free-Shipping-3-PiecesToxic-Nuclear-Toilet-Paper-Novelty-Printed-Zone-Radioactive-Napkin-Paper-Home-Toilet-Tissue.jpg_640x640.jpg)
:P

https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

Watch above.

https://www.ecowatch.com/john-oliver-nuclear-waste-2475379771.html
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on November 04, 2017, 07:00:13 pm
Address on Nuclear War to Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

https://youtu.be/z4l6Pdo3-xw

David Swanson

Published on Aug 15, 2017

David Swanson speaking by video to the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action.  (http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png)



 
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on December 29, 2017, 02:47:33 pm
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--kzQzpiAI--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ohp1rzyokcen26vllaa2.png)

We've Forgotten How To Fear

By Will Leitch

December 28, 2017

SNIPPET 1:

Quote
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  (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-311013201314.png) tells him.

SNIPPET 2:

Quote
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.   (http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif)

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).  

They   (http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mocantina.gif)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".  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg) (http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg)

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.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183337.bmp)

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.

(http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-080814213147.png)
Title: Re: Nuclear Insecurity Today
Post by: AGelbert on February 04, 2018, 11:50:15 pm
(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200317173810.png)

They're Talking About "Winnable" Nuclear War Again (https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1sLBdIXXXXXX1XXXXq6xXFXXXp/Free-Shipping-3-PiecesToxic-Nuclear-Toilet-Paper-Novelty-Printed-Zone-Radioactive-Napkin-Paper-Home-Toilet-Tissue.jpg_640x640.jpg)(http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-250817122018.gif)

Saturday, February 03, 2018

By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

SNIPPET:

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  (http://www.emofaces.com/en/emoticons/n/nuclear-emoticon.gif).


Full article:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/43446-they-re-talking-about-winnable-nuclear-war-again