Nuke my PFI, opportunism knocks.

http://www.5min.com/Video/What-to-Do-With-US-Nuclear-Waste-517135229 (brief news report)

Has Obomber’s Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission examining the US’s huge radioactive nuclear waste stockpile issue, set in place a plan to deliberately try and defraud the US public?

The Commission has apparently launched an attack on the DoE and has effectively called for it’s nuclear waste management responsibilities to ripped away from it and a corporation established to do the job instead.

That’s simply NOT within the interests of the US citizens. A corporation WILL put money before public safety FAR MORE than a miserable and pathetic US government agency.

It’s precisely this kind of role that the state should be taking up and the polluters should be funding it.

–

I suspect the Blue Ribbon Commission have / would have a financial conflict of interest.

See also: http://global-security-news.com/2011/08/30/blue-ribbon-commission-on-nuclear-waste-missing-opportunity-for-lasting-reform/

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Nuclear Pollution

…in my estimation will get us before a nuclear war.

The War Game:

Threads:

The Day After, Part I

The Day After, Part II

The Day After, Part III

The Day After, Part IV

The Day After, Part V

The Day After Part VI

The Day After Part VIII

The Day After Part IX

The Day After Part X

The Day After Part XI

The Day After Part XII

The Day After Part XIII

The Day After Part XIV

The Day After Part XV

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

The Japanese are SCREWED!

lw’s law: The level of lies and spin are directly proportional to the level of severity.

And the corporategovernment of Japan has been lying and spinning a plenty.

And while on the subject of governments shovveling yet more crap on their poor populations (as if fraudultent money systems, banks and bail-outs weren’t enough), rather than nationalising TEPCO, The Japanese govt should

a) Sue TEPCO for damages encurred. (People already on the way to developing cancer should sue them too!)

b) Ensure NOT one TEPCO profit gained Yen is spared from being used in disaster management

c) Put all of TEPCO’s assets in ‘recievership’ as security to pay for any costs of this disaster.

d) Set in place a levvy other nuclear industries, a kind of ‘nuclear tax’ if you will, earmarked FROM THEIR PROFIT SHEETS, so funds are available in future for if (likely) when the next nuclear disaster stomps on Japanese people and society.

But the Japanese govt wont do any of this. They are in bed with the dreadful nuke industry.

–

As for this attention given the ‘US Robot” – Giving a US robot (Made in China) to the land that is a leader in the field of creating robots, doesn’t, IMHO!, seem like it’s going to achieve much.

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

 

US has enough weapons grade material to build a nuclear bomb – report

The BBC is hosting a weird article about a bottle found that contains plutonium.

Page last updated at 13:54 GMT, Monday, 2 March 2009
US nuclear relic found in bottle 
By Paul Rincon, Science reporter, BBC News website 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7918618.stm
 

[the bottle] contains the oldest sample of bomb-grade plutonium… the plutonium was manufactured at the prototype X-10 reactor at Oak Ridge in Tennessee, which began operating in 1943, a year after the Manhattan Project was authorised.

Lets take a gander at some Nuclear weapons history:

In 1938 when scientists in Germany successfully split a uranium atom by bombarding it with neutrons….Prodded by Szilard, Albert Einstein, world‐renowned German physicist who had fled to the United States, wrote to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 2 August 1939 warning that the Nazis might develop an atomic bomb….In spring 1942, Ernest Lawrence of the University of California, Berkeley, demonstrated that in addition to the scarce uranium isotope U‐235, the more available U‐238 could be converted into a new element, plutonium – source

Doesn’t this seem a bit strange to you? To me it suggests from 1938 up until 1945, a total of just 7 years, using 1930’s and early 1940’s technology, the US was able to locate uranium, mine it, purify it, process it into Pu and then build a plutonium based bomb. 7 YEARS !!!.  

Is that likely? Is that possible?? The Manhattan project was officially pretty big, but to do it in 7 years it must have been absolutely HUGE right? And remember, there are no accounts in history that says top secret information about the Manhattan project was known to others outside the US.

WARNING:::  POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY THEORY AHEAD:::

Is it possible therefore, that the US had actually embarked upon a nuclear weapons program LONG before 1939? For bloody obvious reasons. Once again, I get the feeling that I’ve been fed a pile of horse dung. Because it was so secret, the Govt would have had total control over release of information about it. Can we trust that the US government came clean about the matter?

Oh, and just for comparisons sake, lets see a US lung cancer map…

 

http://www2.eastwestcenter.org/environment/spatial/ewc_sdi/images/us_cancer_lg.png

 

Endnote: I find this strangely funny “Brit nuke subs exposed on Google Earth
GCHQ. MI6 and SAS also laid bare”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/02/google_earth_base_shocker/

–

–

–

–

–

That Nuclear Issue again

Today I had the opportunity to hear a talk by Professor Philippe Quentin of the Nuclear Study Center of Bordeaux-Gradignan, Bordeaux 1 University. Although the professor was pro-nuclear, it was refreshing to hear some honesty on the subject.  He was speaking at the Department of Physics in University Malaya.

The biggest problem Prof Quentin identified, was the long-life radio active fission products and daughter nuclei of the fission decay series. The Prof gave some very vague mention of some research that had been done to address the problem, but of course, there is no problem to the nuclear waste issue….

Mu Jaw nearly hit the floor when the Prof’s  chapperone, a gentleman who I presume was a member of the Physics department said

 “There is no nuclear waste, it’s just that we don’t know how to use/deal with the isotopes formed from nuclear processes.” – member of the Physics department, University Malaya  

To use that logic, there isn’t any waste anywhere and will never be any waste ever! That is the kind of silly thing I had become accustomed to and is spoken freely by nuclear advocates. It really is sad that such otherwise intelligent people become so silly because of their passion for nuclear energy. I should say Professor Quentin didn’t say those words, but he didn’t interject or make a correction either, not helping to remove any false perceptions arising as a result. 

Sadly, the old anthropogenic CO2 thingy raised it’s head, and had a couple of slides dedicated to it, including the “correlation” between CO2 and global temp over thousands of years graph. Sadly, no mention of the effect of global temps by the Sun. An accompanying graph showed the CO2 content said to have raised from about 30% – from something like 300 ppm to about 400 ppm (note: approx figures!)

At the end I put forward the following point:

‘Exhaust’ gases from a gas fired station is about 95% (note: cooling tower function) steam with about 5% CO2. {Those were the figures told to me after a plant operative took us on a school tour of an Irish gas-fired powerstation in Co. Cork many moons ago) If we have a nuclear power station instead of a CO2 producing powerstation, that vapour will still be present, and given water vapour is a very much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, it makes the issue of CO2 a near irrelevance.’

My point wasn’t dealt with properly. The best the Prof. could offer was that that there isn’t a mechanism of removing CO2 from the environment. Which of course lead to me saying ‘yes there is, the oceans absorb huge amounts of CO2″, but the point was just kind of hanging.

Some points were made that why can’t Malaysia have nuclear energy too, like India and Pakistan? There was also an pseudo-politic appeal made like “the (far)West hasn’t any right to stop developing countries embracing nuclear energy.” A daft point really, drawing on an emotive issue – that of western imperialism to garner pro-nuclear support, which is a trivial or non-issue.

Prof Quentin said the French govt (who the French embassy in KL were supporting his trip) was encouraging of countries to go ahead with nuclear energy, and mentioned collaboration with the Vietnamese.

One good point was about the holistic nature of science and the body of ‘nuclear knowledge’ that having a reactor must involve. One student said something like: 

“If we are weak on the envirnomental protection/management aspect of nuclear energy/waste, doesn’t that give a case for not going ahead with a nuclear program”

It was a good point, but I knew how it was would be replied to. The Prof replied saying something like “It’s important to develop that sector too”

At the end I had a chance to mention that Germany (I’ll provide details later) win something like 2023 is set to abandon it’s nuclear energy program, despite it being fully aware of the problems with aquiring other and  sufficient energy sources. I said this in response to some people coming out with the old “there is no other choice” type ‘logic’. The Prof said he disagreed with the German decision and predicted they would have problems later. He pointed to Sweden who had also preciously decared they would shut down their nuclear generators but never actually did do, and I think he said they might have opened new ones.

I tried not to hog the Q session (and look too aggressive – partly in recognition of the Prof’s general sincerity and overall honesty – plus he looked a bit like my Dad so I kept seeing my dearest father standing in front of me) so didn’t mention that something like an institute of German consumer affairs said 20+ power stations could be rendered superfluous if all buildings were made to adopt the standards that new German building standards must adhere to. That is a very large reduction in the amount of power necessity.

I also didn’t put forward these points, but they are very relevant.

1) It’s said we need energy sources to replace the ones that are currently running out. Why? This is saying we want to maintain this lifestyle, in which a significant proportion of energy is spent making super massive profits for globalised corporations, leaving the workers pecking at the crumbs. We should be looking to change lifestyle and design life in to be able to take part in a sustainable and highly energy efficient way, but this isn’t being discussed. There is no merit in continuing this crazy situation.

2) If nuclear advocated were to sign an agreement in which they agreed to clean up any nuclear disaster and decommission nuclear power plants and do the labwork containing and reprocessing waste, I suspect there would be few if any people in favour of nuclear energy. You see, such advocates sit safely in their ivory towers knowing some poor sod will be the one who develops complications due to nuclear power exposure.

3) Energetically speaking, it seems to LOT easier to me to capture CO2 (via point of origin) and trnasform it into non-CO2(g) products (polycarbonates for example – a high strength transparent polymer for use in construction) to remove CO2 from a possible (!) connection with global warming, rather than try and bombard waste with say 1 GeV particles from a cyclotron, or via MOX fuel / 4th Generation stations etc.

The case against nuclear energy still FIRMLY STANDS.

My thanks to UM (and the staff member who I’m sure would realise the folly of his ‘there is no nuclear waste’ statement) and to Prof. Quentin for today. The more honest and accepting approach to the debate is very welcomed shoudl relegate all the pro-nuclear rubbish arguements into the bin where they they firmly belong. I could be persuaded that there is a case for nuclear energy, but that’s still a million miles away.

Endnote:

Curiously(?), the event was billed as “Co-founder of Greenpeace making a case for nuclear [energy]” which is completely wrong, and once again, seems typical of the kind of rubbish pro-nuclear ‘lobby’ droll out in an attempt to inflict their nuclear nightmare upon us all. Add the NIMBY issue to point two above that the prosthelytizers of nuclear energy have the ‘no waste, waste’ buried in their own back garden, et voila, case closed.

–

–

–

–

Nuclear war looms?

If Russia is the resistance to the US, as described in conventional politics, then we are closer to some form of aggression now between the two than we have been for quite a long time.

Since (weirdly) the Russian military put faith in Yeltsin (who seemingly didn’t give a toss about Russia as long as Boris lived a life of luxury and prestidge) and the monetarists moved in, the US and UK have never ceased to interfere with it. Neither have they ceased their hipocrisy. Russia isn’t totally blameless for some of the criticism levvied against it, and the blood is thick on their hands as you may like to discover in relation to the war against Chechnya. But neither does it deserve all the muck thrown at it.

While I think all the important human parts in the machinery nuclear war machine are not so stupid to allow a full scale nuclear war, the possibility of a limited exhange cannot be ruled out. The previous post with three frames from the movie “Threads” gives such a plausible senario. All it takes is a number of misunderstandings and miscalculations for any confrontation to initiate and spiral out of control.

In this context, the actions by the US and UK (and Israyhell) in relation to Georgia and the missile defence shield are exactly the senarios that could lead to direct confrontation.

The horrors of a limited nuclear echange should never be undersimated and it is vitally important that we do what we can to stop our governments ever classing with Russia (and vice versa). In addition to threads, you may like to watch this QED program that appears on Google. It’s called “QED: Nuclear War – A Guide To Armageddon“.

 

It really is a massive failure from us CITIZENS who have allowed these dirty foul politicians to put us back in the situation where we enter the shadows of a nuclear confrontation. Sadly if we maintain this current position of apathy and self-indulgence, we shall never be free of it.

Take care…

–

Update: BBC nuclear bomb script released 
 
“Scripts were written to reassure the public the BBC was “still there”
A script written by the BBC and the government to be broadcast in the event of a nuclear attack has been published.” – source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7648042.stm

 Disaster management psychology exposed.

“It has previously been revealed the BBC stockpiled entertainment programmes to boost public morale in the event of a war.” 

–DYeah. That would be just great. isaster management psychology exposed.

“In the event of a nuclear attack, staff were told to stay in hiding for 14 days, when it would be safe to leave.”

Hummmm. Thats interesting.

 

–

–

 

Nuclear cloud spreads over earth.

 

So Pig state finally managed to spread the radioactive nuclear components in satellite – USA 193, catalog number 29651, international designation 06-057A.

Pigs will be pigs!

The Rorsat-class reconnaissance satellites contained a nuclear reactor as a power source. It was later shown that 16 of 31 Rorsats had been leaking potentially radioactive coolant into space, creating a trail of droplets in orbit. [1]

 Mars Rover contained Plutonium (one millionth of a gram will kill a human). NASA’s Environmental Impact Statement for the Mars Exploration Rover-2003 Project says, “the overall chance of an accident occurring” for each launch “is about 1 in 30” and “the overall chance of any accident that releases radioactive materials to the environment is about 1 in 230.” People “offsite in the downwind direction…could inhale small quantities of radionuclide’s,” says NASA’s statement. An area as far as 60 kilometers from the launch site could be impacted, says NASA. [2]

Uranium fallout from the nuclear-powered satellites and volcanic eruptions. J. Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chem.:
Increased Uranium concentration is rain due to volcano and 1983 fall of the nuclear-powered satellite Cosmos-1402, respectively.[3]– Yes, as early as 1983 radionuclide’s were used in satellites.! More importantly perhaps is that it also contained plutonium.[4]

 Two basic types of nuclear power supply have been used in space nuclear
reactors and radioisotope sources. In a space nuclear reactor system, the energy source is the heat generated by the controlled fission of uranium. …In an isotope power supply, the heat is produced by the natural decay of a radioisotope, which in all US-launched systems is plutonium-238.[5]

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/27/spaceexploration.usa

[2] http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Apr2003/grossman0403.html

 [3] http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0847109g61534r1/

 [4] www.springerlink.com/index/WLG804U05L4G15T4.pdf

[[5] http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/1_1-2Aftergood.pdf

[[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

[7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7213147.stm

[8] Saddams bomb: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/1191203.stm

P.S. Remember the BBC report (the website is read my millions worldwide) which carried the title “Why the spy satellite won’t fall on your head“[7] – addressed to its million+ readers it is obviously saying to all these millions there is no risk, but after the USS Lake Eire fired its missiles the BBC reports this “the missile needs to pierce the bus-sized satellite’s fuel tank, containing more than 450kg (1,000lbs) of toxic hydrazine, which would otherwise be expected to survive re-entry. ” Hydrazine is very unstable. [6]

If hydrazine is capable of surviving to pose a health risk, it MUST be in a container, so it could have fallen on your heard you stupid “newz” organisation.

Shouldn’t the BBC be challenging the authorities at the very beginning, e.g. demanding to know the totality of the satellites nuclear components, What the official risks were, what will be the environmental pollution aspect of all this and then keep following it up if there were serious environmental concerns afterwards? YES of course it bloody well should. Instead what does it do? Tells a stream of lies which help the powers that be and then post event shrugs its shoulders and says ‘oh well’

Think I’m being too harsh on the BBC? then read the BBC’s filthy propaganda speil and conspiracy and establishment lies report on how Saddam detonated a nuclear bomb in secret. (Saddams Bomb – report filed Friday, 2 March, 2001, 23:52 GMT )

Saddam Hussein.
He detonated a secret nuclear bomb
you know. OH YES HE DID! – The BBC says so.

oink bloody oink!

–

-P

–

–

–