Wednesday, May 27, 2015

WTO US Consumers Have No Right To Know What They Eat

stock here: it looks like they are upping the game, in a very sick way. Hillary Clinton cut the deal in 2011 that US would buy Japan food as long as they rolled out the BP playbook to protect US nuclear conglomerates.

Now they are looking to prevent even labelling the country of origin.

"They" point to Mexico and Canada as the countries that could be affected, but methinks that Japan is the real target of this non-labelling.

story below
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2015/05/19/wto-us-shoppers-have-no-right-to-know-what-eat/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

 (Reuters) The World Trade Organization (WTO) just ruled that America’s popular country-of-origin labeling law (COOL) enacted in 2008 violates global trade standards because it erects a trade barrier to U.S. meat imports from countries like Canada and Mexico.

Meat and poultry livestock producers in these countries blame the labeling law for a drop in exports, despite the global downturn. The WTO’s move could complicate Fast Track trade authority and trade deals sought by the Obama Administration, watchdog groups say.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Molten Salt Reactors Are Claimed to Be Inherently Safe, But This Insider Exposes a Blow Up and Cover Up

http://www.doewatch.com/msre/ 

The ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Fluoride Conspiracy
By: Jim Phelps
Copyright 2004, 2005


When the criticality pressure pulse ruptured one of the bellows valves and the fluorine and UF-6 gas hit oil and water in and around the valve, a sizable explosion occurred that blew a shielding plug out of the floor and blew some metal sheeting off the side of the building due to the blast effect. The noise and building shutter was overheard and felt by one of the MSRE building workers named Richard Mathis. Mathis called the ORNL I and C Division to report the explosion problem after normal working hours. The ORNL I and C Division was named for Reactor Instrumentation and Controls, and they used to design reactor controls. Richard Mathis [Jewish Surname] has the very unusual U-233 contamination retained in his body from the event. Mathis used to work for the I and C Division. 

Late in the evening the message of the explosion reached Hugh Brashears of the ORNL I and C Division, who sent up a technician named Clint Miller [Jewish Surname] to survey the damage. I was there when this happened and when the damage report came back. Brashers asked Miller if the sheeting blown off the side of the building could be seen from the road. The answer was that it could not be seen very well and the decision was made to push the siding back down, clean up the damage, and hide the explosion. With this cover up began the story of health damage to the workers exposed to HF in this building's air.

Sunday, May 24, 2015

Solar Victory -- Proud to Be Part Of It

Hawaii has had great sucess with solar thermal and electric.   

So good in fact that the local utility decided to scuttle the solar industry by stopping all solar work in 2012 under the lie of "safety" and "grid stability".

"stock" attended a HECO meeting in Feb 2015, with 200 stake holders, and gave them some truth, speaking truth to power.      I got them to admit in front of 200 people that Solar has NEVER caused a single problem with the grid.  

I spoke directly to Senator Gabbard, mentioned in the article below.  

Then some politicians jumped on their case for killing 4200 solar jobs just to increase their own profits.   The utitlity did start trickling out "approvals" to let PV interconnect with the grid.   Some people had been waiting 2 years after spending all the money on the system!     Thousands more still wait and the solar market has been badly damaged with 16 of the biggest players either going legally bankrupt or just shutting down solar operations.

Now this month, a broad base of politics voted for a 100% renewable portfolio.  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stock here:   I did my first Solar Thermal in 1995 in Guam, and my first Solar Electric PV in Honolulu in 1999.     So I am going to take a bit of a victory lap here, indulge me.

I am proud to be on the front edge of the new energy (one of my 'stage names' is Fresh Energy) that will lead the world into the next 50 years.      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2015/05/hawaii-lawmakers-mandate-100-percent-renewable-energy-by-2045.html?cmpid=enl-poe-weekly-may-08-2015
VICTORY LAP
Hawaii lawmakers voted 74-2 this week to pass the nation's first state-wide requirement for 100 percent renewable energy generation. House Bill (HB) 623 mandates that the entirety of the state’s energy portfolios must be generated using renewable energy resources no later than 2045.

As reported by eSolarEnergyNews, Jeff Mikulina, Executive Director of the Blue Planet Foundation said, "Hawaii lawmakers made history passing this legislation--not only for the islands, but for the planet. Passage of this measure is a historic step towards a fossil fuel-free Hawaii. This visionary policy is a promise to future generations that their lives will be powered not by climate-changing fossil fuel, but by clean, local, and sustainable sources of energy."

"Local renewable projects are already cheaper than liquid natural gas and oil,” said Chris Lee, Chairman of the House Energy and Environmental Protection Committee and introducer of HB 623. “Our progress toward meeting our renewable energy standards has already saved local residents hundreds of millions on their electric bills. Moving to 100 percent renewable energy will do more to reduce energy prices for local residents in the long term than almost anything else we could do."

Senator Gabbard, Chair of the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, said, "With this bill, we'll now be the most populated set of islands in the world with an independent grid to establish a 100 percent renewable electricity goal. Through this process of transformation, Hawaii can be the model that other states, and even nations, follow. And we'll achieve the biggest energy turnaround in the country, going from 90 percent dependence on fossil fuels to 100 percent clean energy."

House Bill 623 also increases interim requirements for renewable energy to 30 percent by 2020. Last year, Hawaii generated about 22 percent of its electricity from renewable resources.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

ZeroHedge and Dying Pacific



Finally, ZeroHedge picking up on this.   Washingtons Blog (which often gets picked up on ZH) has done a lot of good articles, but nothing on the death of the Pacific.    

 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/guest-post-unprecedented-mass-die-offs-pacific-ocean-turning-desert-california-coast

The original source is SHTFPlan.com
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/unprecedented-mass-die-offs-as-pacific-ocean-turning-into-a-desert-off-california-coast_05212015


Natural causes in the environment are partly to blame; so too are the corporations of man; the effects of Fukushima, unleashing untold levels of radiation into the ocean and onto Pacific shores; the cumulative effect of modern chemicals and agricultural waste tainting the water and disrupting reproduction.
A startling new report says in no uncertain terms that the Pacific Ocean off the California coast is turning into a desert. Once full of life, it is now becoming barren, and marine mammals, seabirds and fish are starving as a result. According to Ocean Health:

Paveway IV
Paveway IV's picture
I've heard that before, Deathrips - about blind sea lions, actually. If seals are going blind, too, then... gosh, something for the pointy-heads to investigate, no? Yet it seems like it's all the marine biologists can do to get off their ass and figure out why everything else is dying off. I hold out little hope for them to grab a few hundred seals and sea lions and figure out if they're blind and what's making them blind. But then who would fund THAT grant - the U.S. government?? [derisive snort]
I'll toss a few more rocks out at the 'scientific community'. The direct threat to most larger sea creatures directly from radiation in the water is small. The real threat is bio-amplification throughout the food chain. Seems like a good place to go is right off the Japanese coast and start grabbing phytoplankton and zooplankton and see what those little bastards are sucking up. Then check the things that eat them: krill. Shouldn't be too hard to find any - in fact the coast off of Fukushima was one of the richest Pacific Krill fishing areas in the entire Pacific the last couple of decades.
Are the krill accumulating anything?

Is is getting better or worse? Well, we don't know except the food chain has also crashed off of Fukushima, just like it's crashing off of the West Coast. Try to Google a study, article or even a conspiracy nutjob blog where ANYONE has done a serious radiation study of plankton and krill off of U.S. coasts, much less off of Fukushima. Nothing. Almost like they wouldn't think it matters. And no studies for the last few years means we have nothing to compare it with even if someone did a huge study today. There have been plenty of studies on raw seawater, but the amounts are barely detectable.

I don't really give a crap because I don't drink much seawater.
About the only reports I did see is how there isn't even as much cesium as 'naturally-occurring Polonium-210' in fish. Well, there was always microscopic amounts of Polonium-210 from radon decay, but it's like 20,000 times more toxic than cyanide. The Po-210 alpha decay causes about a thousand times more damage to chromosomes than the beta decay of our old banana friend: Potassium-40. So if a fish had 1/10th the amount of Po-210 vs. P-40 (radiation-wise), the Polonium would still be causing 100 times more chromosome damage than a the decay of potassium. Gosh, they never mention that in banana-dose calculus.

No harm in a little 'natural' Polonium-210 in fish, right? I guess unless you're an ex-Russian spy in exile in London like Litvenenko. He got a massive 10 microgram dose, but you really only need 50 nanograms on average to kill you. And, yes, it kills entirely throught acute radiation poisoning - not chemical toxicity. Incidentally, as a liquid-borne alpha emitter, it would be impossible to measure its presence with a Geiger counter or even a sensitive gamma detector for that matter. Litvenenko's hospital had him there for weeks and tested him for radiation several times and found nothing - because they were using gamma detectors like they always did and they wouldn't detect polonium-210's lethal alpha, especially in bodily fluids. You need alpha spectrometers and a completely different way of preparing a sample.

So no big deal in fish because polonium is 'natural' right? Well, since they haven't bothered to measure it except in samples AFTER Fukushima, we really don't have much to compare it with. Common sense says that there is a crapload of highly-toxic polonium-210 in fish that probably wasn't there before Fukushima. Polonium-210 is part of the uranium decay chain. Uranium - I believe several hundred tons of uranium were either launched into the air or are being continually washed into the sea right now from Fukushima. But the fuel rods also had plenty of uranium decay products before they melted. How many 50 nanogram lethal doses of polonium were in the hundreds of tons of fuel rods that melted down? Maybe some scientist should ask themselves if we 1) suddenly have like 10x or 100x the amount of 'natural radon' in the atmosphere turning into polonium, or 2) the three uranium-lava cores of the reactors are somehow responsible for the increase.

I have no idea if polonium-210 is the biggest or even a major danger from Pacific seafood OR if it has anything to do with Fukushima. That's just one thing I can think of that is remarkable by it's (apparently) complete absence of study in the scientific community. It might be nothing. Maybe the whole West Coast thing CAN be explained by sea lion overpopulation and warmer water temperatures.

Call me a nutter but - personally - I'm trying to cut back on my imaginary polonium intake. A nanogram here and a nanogram there, and pretty soon you're bleeding out every orifice of your body. You know how funny people get about THAT nowadays.

Idiocracy, Now A Scientific Explanation and a Video Showing Alpha Radiation in Real Time

I just need to store this comment from ENENEWS for when I can do some due diligence.

Neurotoxins in 97% of algae is not a good thing.

EUREKA!
Cyanobacteria and BMMA
BMMA-[beta-methyl-amino-alanine] HIGHLY toxic acid produced by Cyanobacteria.
An international team of researchers from Dundee have detected a neurotoxin in 29 out of 30 samples of blue green algae they have tested. Sourced from Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Israel, India, Australia, the U.S., Guam and elsewhere.
SCIENTISTS STRESS PRECAUTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN, PARTICULARLY WITH DRINKING WATER. BMMA should be monitored in water sources including reservoirs.
Samples of Cyanobacteria were collected from SEAS, FRESHWATER, SOIL, LICHEN, A CAVE, AND HOT SPRINGS AROUND THE WORLD [read that again] OF THE CULTURES 95% WERE SHOWN TO PRODUCE..BMMA "The findings was of ecological and evolutionary significance". (Suggesting extinction? )
Ready for this: THE RESULTS WERE PUBLISHED IN THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE USA. [THEY HAVE KNOWN MANY YEARS]
A huge thank you to:
Dr. James Metcalf
Louise Morrison, Dundee University
Research teams, Hawaii, California, and Sweden
Research leader, Paul Allen Cox, Hawaii Institute for Ethnomedicine.
Found in human brains 2003 [CANADA]
Potential for widespread human exposure: ALGAE.
SPREAD CAUSED BY POLLUTION
Toxic to fish, shellfish, pets.
Linked to brain disease in humans.
http://www.locationseffect.proboards.com/thread/222/cyanobacteria-bmma

 ----------------------------

http://youtu.be/L_4Q6dB_SiM

At about 6 minutes into the above video, he conjures up a way to view alpha particles in real time.  It is pretty interesting,, it demonstates the different distances that Alpha flies, as well as a pretty uniform spherical distribution of disintegrations.

 

Radioactive Seal Names Dedux, Only 1 patient in 2015, did they just give up?

OK I'll will  start with the real story

Remember in 2014, the Marine Mammal Hospital was naming this Harbour Seals after radioactive elements?

The had 100 or more patients in 2014, in 2015 they only show 1 patient and it is shown as deceased.

I wonder what the "real story" is?

Putting plants INTO the organic garden today, no time to mess around.
I sent them an email to inquire as to why only 1 patient in 2015


stock out.

visit them and send email here

 http://www.vanaqua.org/act/direct-action/marine-mammal-rescue/patient-list

or call or write to them

General Inquiries

For general inquiries, please contact:
Phone: 604-258-7325
rescue@vanaqua.org



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A troll /nukist shill who goes by the name Sam Gilman had this to say to try to "expose stock"

Unfortunately, "Nuke Pro" is not quite telling the truth about our conversation. He insisted he had, deploying all his expertise, checked the list thoroughly and that they were using radioactive elements only. The truth was (because I check stuff, if only to poke fun at freaks) that the rescue centre was using all the elements, and the first three names were Nickel, Tungsten and Helium - which, unsurprisingly, given their widespread use in everyday objects, are not radioactive elements in their abundant forms. (Think about it: we give helium balloons to children; you can buy helium to breathe for a laugh. Nickel and Tungsten are everywhere in our lives. These are not obscure elements, and a scientist should know about them). So anyone reading even this exchange can see that "Nuke Pro", with his "they ran out of radioactive elements" line is not telling the truth. I also had to point out to him that the names, which he was quite definite he had thoroughly checked out deploying his immense expertise, also included Adamantium, which is what Wolverine's skeleton is made of.

 stocks reply
Hmmmm, here is the list of sea lion patients.
https://app.box.com/s/7lflyhn1...
It is amazing the lengths that nukists will go to lie about things. Sociopaths take this type of action....lying even when there is no real benefit. They just like "getting away with lying"
Interesting though, they have pages and pages of 2014 sea lion patients, but only 1 patient in 2015 and that patient is listed as deceased.
Per the nuke shill above he claims
"The truth was (because I check stuff, if only to poke fun at freaks)
that the rescue centre was using all the elements, and the first three
names were Nickel, Tungsten and Helium - which, unsurprisingly, given
their widespread use in everyday objects, are not radioactive elements
in their abundant forms."
Here is the direct link to the list......See if you can find the three elements the shill lists.....LOL. Nukists expose themselves, its like they can't avoid it.
http://www.vanaqua.org/act/dir...

Friday, May 22, 2015

US Armed Forces Declassified Report Shows Bio-accumulation in Plankton is 1000 times or more

Whilst Kenny-boy insists on testing only Sea Water, the 800 Lb Gorilla in the room is bio-accumulation.

Since 1955, the US Armed Forces has know exactly how bad things can get.    It took 60 years to declassify this document.    

Quote (emphasis added) “Page 59. The problem of radioactive particles falling into the ocean raises the question of their availability to this portion of the biosphere. Plankton normally found in sea water are consumed in large quantities by fish.
These plankton concentrate mineral elements from the water, and it has been found that radioactivity may be concentrated (Page 60) in this manner by as much as a thousand fold. Thus, for example, one gram of plankton could contain a thousand times as much radioactivity as a gram of water adjacent to it. The radioactivity from these plankton which form a portion of fish diet tends to concentrate in the liver of the fish, and, if sufficiently high levels of contamination are encountered, could have a marked effect upon the ecology of an ocean area.

end quote
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7752105

hat tip to Nuclear History for this story
https://nuclearhistory.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/the-bioaccumulation-of-contamination-in-plankton-us-armed-forces-1955/

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Nuclear Plants Are Not Safe, Even Before Considering the Arrogance of the Profit Driven Corporations That Own Them and the NRC

None of these plants are safe.   Ginna ignored a 1980's finding of flood hazard, for decades, willfully and knowingly.  Then in their response

Due to the visual reference a majority of the site staff did not believe that Deer Creek can flood at levels that would challenge Ginna.   This is compounded by the challenges technical staff experience when they attempt to calculate how flooding conditions could occur
FOUND HERE
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1407/ML14078A030.pdf

INTERPRETATION:

Because it looked like a nice little river, we just ignored the scientific evidence, and whistled past your graveyard.  
 And because its hard to calculate flooding conditions, we were certain that by ignoring flood levels set by the authorities having jurisdiction, and by relying (compounded) by our complacent vision of a nice little river, that we decided that doing nothing was OK.    

When the NRC said it was not OK and that we were exposed to the same problem at Fukushima, station blackout, we decided to run some calculations (note prior sentence, we feel challenged by these calculations) to show that even though we are harping to the public in a massive pro nuke media blitz how climate change can be mitigated with more nuclear power....that we also ignore the effects of climate change in creating even more extreme weather events in the future.   In particular, more sporadic weather with period of higher moisture in the air, leading to potentially much larger rains and flooding events than were even predicted in 1980.  

We did all this to avoid having to squeeze some sealant around cables that had big gaping hole in the drainage manhole that they were run in for convenience and to save money rather than giving them their own separate raceway (i.e. don't put the electric cable in the drainage water manhole and piping system).

After all, the only thing at risk was loss of backup power to shut the nuke plant down, aka Station Blackout like what happened at Fukushima and caused multiple meltdowns, meltdowns, and explosions including a nuclear explosion called a Prompt Moderated Criticality.     So wasting a few manhours and some sealant didn't really seem worth it, when we could spend $78,000 on an engineering study/calculations about the flood level and fight back against the NRC who is supposed to regulate us.

Finally under further threats we gave in, put some sealant on, and thus proving we are good safe people with no corporate profit agenda. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENENEWS keeps providing excellent service to the world!

Nukepro has gone on record as stating we can't just keep commenting at the same sites which are already anti-nuke, we coined a term

Whining to the Choir ---and got it published in the Urban Dictionary.

now "from a distance" points out a little know feature at ENENEWS, a page devoted to posting activism opportunities

from a distance
Enenewsers,
Please make a habit of checking this Forum every morning to see if there's something you could be doing –>
http://enenews.com/forum-petitions-ballot-initiatives-other-signature-drives-video
FOR EXAMPLE,
Tomorrow is the deadline to comment on what environmental impact you believe adding TWO NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS in Florida will have.
Your comment can be ANONYMOUS. It doesn't have to be a fancy comment. Just comment.
All you have to do is read this and hit the COMMENT NOW button and comment.
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NRC-2009-0337-0020
DON'T PROCASTINATE!
DO IT NOW!

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Fukushima DaiIchi units 3 and 4 Both Had MOX, and Both Blew Up Horrifically in a Moderated Prompt Criticality

A reader at Ecowatch enquired


Was FD using MOX? ... or is the Pu241 just the result of activation of U?

For sure it was MOX on Units 3 and 4.

Fukushima DaiIchi Reactor 3, had a history of cover ups on reactor vessel integrity, but several years prior to 311, they changed the shroud on F3 to be "new" but also to accommodate higher energy from MOX. That reactor blew sky high on video, see links below.

The reason GE was on site (they Scramed as fast as they could) was that they had removed a hot load of active fuel from 4, they had a fresh load of MOX in the equipment pool, and they were changing the shroud on F4. The goal was to partly change out the fuel in F4 to MOX even the complete burnup cycle wasn't done. This left partly spent fuel and new MOX in the same place. Of course by now the gov stopped all video release so we never got to see Fuku 4 blow sky high like 3, but look at the post explosion building pictures.

Fukushima DaiIchi (just means number 1, Fukushima means Island of Dreams) unit 3 and 4 blew up in a nuclear type of explosion called a Prompt Moderated Criticality. It is a runaway neutron event with a massive release of energy usually in milliseconds, which is the presence of water also becomes a steam bomb which amplifies the explosive force due the volume expansion during phase change from liquid to vapor.

More information on the amount of radiation (the inventory) blown into the atmosphere, and background information of the Prompt Moderated Criticality (with a video showing its not just theory but fact by Argonne National laboratory) are here:

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2013/12/fukushima-was-nuclear-explosion-here-is.html

A troll had this to say: "Bryan Elliot"
Fukushima could happen 150 times over and still move the Pacific's radioactivity by a factor of less than 1%. If we're doing a "great job" killing it, I'd hate to see what you consider a "bad job".
 Hmmmm....I guess in light of the coverups, the lies, the struggling bronto nuclear industry, the mass ocean dieoffs......we might as well assume that "you can't prove it's Fukushima" so therefore you could blow up all the nuclear plants in Japan and USA (about 150) and everything would be hunky dory.        As least per the troll....things should work out just fine.   

Troll
a) It's in the noise
b) Our measurement devices are so good, thats why we are seeing it

Monday, May 18, 2015

Is Oregon Going to be Corrupted by the Nuclear Cartel, Or Will They Kill the Bill 3445?

I saw this at No Nukes NW

It's a "closed group" so you don't have to tolerate the nonsense of the 12 or so industry trolls meant to disrupt the conversation, and distract our time and efforts.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/161939107241013/permalink/654470404654545/

Here is a great letter from one of the members, as pointed out  by Mimi German

Another great letter from someone in the coalition:

Dear Rep Pederson and Beth Parino, I would like to testify on Tuesday at the hearing on bill 3445. I am an Instructor in the History of Science at OSU and my dissertation involves the construction of nuclear safety and radiation safety standards.


I feel it is imperative that this bill be laid to rest. The last thing we need in Oregon is a diversion from developing sound energy alternatives to more nuclear quandaries and problems.

My dissertation involved some of the history of the behavior of the nuclear industry and government regulators such as the Public Health Service, the Atomic Energy Commission and their successor agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the UN agencies as regards safety.The bill 3445 states that there is a state of emergency in Oregon, supposedly due to Oregon's energy needs, but the real emergency is that resources are continuing to go into nuclear power, forestalling efforts for safer, known and effective alternatives to be put into place. 

As you are aware, the faulty Trojan Nuclear power plant was a huge investment that did not generate returns other than the skyrocketing costs of its decommissioning. Currently, the nuclear Columbia Generating Station has been ordered temporarily closed by the NRC due to improper safety and evacuation plans as well as unevaluated seismic risks. A neglected crack in the piping may also be dangerous and a request has been filed to investigate this.

Safety issues are endemic to the history of nuclear operations. In my years of studying this history in the records of health physicists, several instances stand out that I believe are pertinent.
The first academic research reactor that was ever installed in the US was built at North Carolina State University. Nicknamed the "Temple of the Atom" it suffered a melt down soon after operations began. Official documents in the archives show the man in charge, Clifford Beck, did not inform the college or his colleagues of the severity of the accident, which occurred in the radiation center built in the center of the Raleigh NC State University campus.

Clifford Beck was released from his position at the college when this came to light, but only to rise in the ranks of the AEC and then the NRC as an expert in nuclear reactor safety. The accident he presided over secretly, gave him expertise and rewards that led him to become in charge of nuclear power reactor safety codes for the NRC during an era when many nuclear power plants were built in the US and worldwide. Beck's actions are detailed in the book Nuclear Reactor Safety: On the History of the Regulatory Process by David O'Krent (1981) a nuclear engineer who was in the safety task force with Beck. Beck eliminated taking into account the most severe accidents that might occur due to his own opinion that these scenarios were unlikely.

Yet these unlikely scenarios have taken place. The public was reassured that a nuclear accident would only occur rarely, if at all, perhaps at most, one severe accident in every 100 years-- yet the prediction is now that we will have a serious accident each decade since the majority of the plants are now aging. We were told a technology would be found for nuclear waste, and this has also not been the case.

Many argue that due to climate change we must select the better of two evils, and nuclear is better than coal. Why frame this a choice between two evils when they could both be avoided? Oregon used to be a leader in environmental stewardship and we should follow the lead of Germany to commit to renewables that are far less dangerous and more economical than nuclear power with long lived inescapable nuclear waste and pollution.

Another aspect of nuclear history that I study is even more distressing. I study how radiation safety standards were originally made. After seeing documents from the US AEC at the National Archives, the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, the World Health Organization in Geneva, the National Institute of Health, and the papers of the founder of Health Physics, Karl Z Morgan, it is clear to me that radiation safety standards are based on highly questionable assumptions that often do not take into account known biology and chemistry and neglect internal radiation exposure, which can be caused by inhalation or ingestion of radioactivity.

Even currently used radiation health textbooks, for just one example, Radiation Protection and Dosimetry: An Introduction to Health Physics by Michael G. Stabin (Springer, 2008) admit the uncertainty of radiation dangers and effects. On pp. 4 "we are still struggling to understand... all relationships of dose and effect are not well understood...For the present, the health physicist must work with these uncertainties remaining unresolved." There is no way to really know what each type of radiation does to each organ, but "conservative assumptions are usually applied to ensure reasonable protection....while allowing technologies involving the use of radiation to continue and develop."
Is that science at all?

Even more troubling to me, is that the standards were based on unethical studies.
The data used was from unethical human radiation experiments without the knowledge or consent of the victims of exposure. Dr. Willard Libby, a scientist who worked for the AEC conducted the Sunshine Project, one of the first secret studies of the radiological contamination worldwide from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. This established the motif that "below background levels" radiation would be safe. However, It has been stated conclusively in several early government hearings, including the 1957-58 Congressional Hearing on the "The Nature of Radioactive Fallout and its Effects on Man" that according to most geneticists, no levels of radiation can be considered "safe."
There are much better alternatives and those alternatives that do not inflict harm are the ones that need study by an Oregon Legislature Task Force.

SMRs in particular are an untried technology years away from development to be useful and opposed by many Oregon citizens, who have seen the damage of other nuclear investments such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima and so called "safe" fallout from nuclear weapons tests. Time has shown there is no answer to the problem of nuclear waste, as seen by the wastelands of Hanford Nuclear Reservation and the current troubles with the vitrification plant.

Time and time again my research showed how the public trust has been broken by the nuclear industry, government and academic interests promoting the safety of nuclear power. There has been no democratic process for gaining consent to exposure to nuclear power risks and pollution. A task force on nuclear energy for Oregon is misguided about the reality of contamination and past and future accidents. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.

Thank you, Dr. ------, History of Science, Oregon State University

22 Inconvenient Truths about Climate

This is not my creation, this is not even Watts Up With That's creation (the name sounds funny, but they have top notch climate articles, real original research and findings)

Other sites that have point to these "Truths" have a disclaimer, these truths are presented in a very blunt way so they are not appropriate for all audiences.   LOL





Sheesh, read through them.    If this is blunt, I guess the Nukepro is blunt to the fourth power, lol.

The summary is here/below, but all backup is also provided on the linked site, with further sublinks available.  Click below for the full report.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

The 22 Inconvenient Truths

1. The Mean Global Temperature has been stable since 1997, despite a continuous increase of the CO2 content of the air: how could one say that the increase of the CO2 content of the air is the cause of the increase of the temperature? (discussion: p. 4)
2. 57% of the cumulative anthropic emissions since the beginning of the Industrial revolution have been emitted since 1997, but the temperature has been stable. How to uphold that anthropic CO2 emissions (or anthropic cumulative emissions) cause an increase of the Mean Global Temperature?
[Note 1: since 1880 the only one period where Global Mean Temperature and CO2 content of the air increased simultaneously has been 1978-1997. From 1910 to 1940, the Global Mean Temperature increased at about the same rate as over 1978-1997, while CO2 anthropic emissions were almost negligible. Over 1950-1978 while CO2 anthropic emissions increased rapidly the Global Mean Temperature dropped. From Vostok and other ice cores we know that it’s the increase of the temperature that drives the subsequent increase of the CO2 content of the air, thanks to ocean out-gassing, and not the opposite. The same process is still at work nowadays] (discussion: p. 7)
3. The amount of CO2 of the air from anthropic emissions is today no more than 6% of the total CO2 in the air (as shown by the isotopic ratios 13C/12C) instead of the 25% to 30% said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 9)
4. The lifetime of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is about 5 years instead of the 100 years said by IPCC. (discussion: p. 10)
5. The changes of the Mean Global Temperature are more or less sinusoidal with a well defined 60 year period. We are at a maximum of the sinusoid(s) and hence the next years should be cooler as has been observed after 1950. (discussion: p. 12)
6. The absorption of the radiation from the surface by the CO2 of the air is nearly saturated. Measuring with a spectrometer what is left from the radiation of a broadband infrared source (say a black body heated at 1000°C) after crossing the equivalent of some tens or hundreds of meters of the air, shows that the main CO2 bands (4.3 µm and 15 µm) have been replaced by the emission spectrum of the CO2 which is radiated at the temperature of the trace-gas. (discussion: p. 14)
7. In some geological periods the CO2 content of the air has been up to 20 times today’s content, and there has been no runaway temperature increase! Why would our CO2 emissions have a cataclysmic impact? The laws of Nature are the same whatever the place and the time. (discussion: p. 17)
8. The sea level is increasing by about 1.3 mm/year according to the data of the tide-gauges (after correction of the emergence or subsidence of the rock to which the tide gauge is attached, nowadays precisely known thanks to high precision GPS instrumentation); no acceleration has been observed during the last decades; the raw measurements at Brest since 1846 and at Marseille since the 1880s are slightly less than 1.3 mm/year. (discussion: p. 18)
9. The “hot spot” in the inter-tropical high troposphere is, according to all “models” and to the IPCC reports, the indubitable proof of the water vapour feedback amplification of the warming: it has not been observed and does not exist. (discussion: p. 20)
10. The water vapour content of the air has been roughly constant since more than 50 years but the humidity of the upper layers of the troposphere has been decreasing: the IPCC foretold the opposite to assert its “positive water vapour feedback” with increasing CO2. The observed “feedback” is negative. (discussion: p.22)
11. The maximum surface of the Antarctic ice-pack has been increasing every year since we have satellite observations. (discussion: p. 24)
12. The sum of the surfaces of the Arctic and Antarctic icepacks is about constant, their trends are phase-opposite; hence their total albedo is about constant. (discussion: p. 25)
13. The measurements from the 3000 oceanic ARGO buoys since 2003 may suggest a slight decrease of the oceanic heat content between the surface and a depth 700 m with very significant regional differences. (discussion: p. 27)
14. The observed outgoing longwave emission (or thermal infrared) of the globe is increasing, contrary to what models say on a would-be “radiative imbalance”; the “blanket” effect of CO2 or CH4 “greenhouse gases” is not seen. (discussion:p. 29)
15. The Stefan Boltzmann formula does not apply to gases, as they are neither black bodies, nor grey bodies: why does the IPCC community use it for gases ? (discussion: p. 30)
16. The trace gases absorb the radiation of the surface and radiate at the temperature of the air which is, at some height, most of the time slightly lower that of the surface. The trace-gases cannot “heat the surface“, according to the second principle of thermodynamics which prohibits heat transfer from a cooler body to a warmer body. (discussion: p. 32)
17. The temperatures have always driven the CO2 content of the air, never the reverse. Nowadays the net increment of the CO2 content of the air follows very closely the inter-tropical temperature anomaly. (discussion: p. 33)
18. The CLOUD project at the European Center for Nuclear Research is probing the Svensmark-Shaviv hypothesis on the role of cosmic rays modulated by the solar magnetic field on the low cloud coverage; the first and encouraging results have been published in Nature. (discussion: p. 36)
19. Numerical “Climate models” are not consistent regarding cloud coverage which is the main driver of the surface temperatures. Project Earthshine (Earthshine is the ghostly glow of the dark side of the Moon) has been measuring changes of the terrestrial albedo in relation to cloud coverage data; according to cloud coverage data available since 1983, the albedo of the Earth has decreased from 1984 to 1998, then increased up to 2004 in sync with the Mean Global Temperature. (discussion: p. 37)
20. The forecasts of the “climate models” are diverging more and more from the observations. A model is not a scientific proof of a fact and if proven false by observations (or falsified) it must be discarded, or audited and corrected. We are still waiting for the IPCC models to be discarded or revised; but alas IPCC uses the models financed by the taxpayers both to “prove” attributions to greenhouse gas and to support forecasts of doom. (discussion: p. 40)
21. As said by IPCC in its TAR (2001) “we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Has this state of affairs changed since 2001? Surely not for scientific reasons. (discussion: p. 43)
22. Last but not least the IPCC is neither a scientific organization nor an independent organization: the summary for policy makers, the only part of the report read by international organizations, politicians and media is written under the very close supervision of the representative of the countries and of the non-governmental pressure groups.
The governing body of the IPCC is made of a minority of scientists almost all of them promoters of the environmentalist ideology, and a majority of state representatives and of non-governmental green organizations. (discussion: p. 46)

We Almost Lost New York, Boston, and Lake Ontario (Ginna)

We Almost lost New York
http://ecowatch.com/2015/05/14/indian-point-transformer-fire/#comment-2031004283
 
So in an industry where technical information is closely held, we can’t fully evaluate the threat imposed by this latest malfeasance. The only thing certain is that it will happen again.
This newest fire at Indian Point should remind us that we are all hostage to an industry that operates in open defiance of the laws of the public, the economy and basic physics.
Sooner or later all three will demand their due. We can passively hope our planet and our species will survive the consequences.
Or we can redouble our efforts to make sure all these reactors are shut before such a reckoning dumps us into the abyss.

We Almost lost Boston
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/02/pilgrim-nuclear-in-boston-came-very.html
Pilgrim was very close to being forced to directly vent radioactive steam into the environment / neighborhood. They used every last line of defense they had, including dumping radioactive steam into the old BWR Torus aka Surge Tank. 
Even then the heat in the surge tank got so high, they had to use an emergency heat exchanger to cool the surge tank. Fortunately it worked. If that last piece of equipment had failed it would have been a serious accident with radiation exposure to the public.


We Almost Lost Ginna Nuke on Lake Ontario
 http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2014/02/18/ginna-nrc-fukushima/5580623/

In a violation notice released Tuesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said flooding at Ginna also could have knocked out two backup sources of electricity that could be used to control the plant during an emergency.
 
This could have left the plant completely without power in a condition known as "station blackout," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

The Ginna plant refused to make any changes to prevent a Fukushima type disaster even after the risk was clearly pointed out by the NRC.


Sunday, May 17, 2015

Nuclear Safety Is Not as Safe as They Pretend It Is, Emergency Diesel Genset Testing is Flawed

A ProNuke troll that frequents blogs and websites to throw out lies and it always a cheerleader for nuclear, Michael M**n made some big claims on how well they test their gensets which are the backup power source for nuclear power plants.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here-- my assertion has always been that even at Nuclear Plants, the backup generators are not tested under the real world conditions that they are needed in.

This means testing them support all the real loads that have to run in an emergency, including making sure that all the switchgear operates properly and automatically.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M**n says he works for Ginna, a very old plant that was SOOOOO convicted of fraud that they paid over $200M in fines in 2012.    Then a few years later, 2015, Ginna announces that they are not making a profit, and then a bogus study is produced to show that Ginna is necessary for the power grid stability, and then the captured regulatory agency decided to let Ginna charge rate payers extra costs per month, up to $45 per month per family.

But aside from all that, M**n pointed out a link to a technical spec on Westinghouse Reactors.

The link goes to a 570 page document, which is often table formatted and not as bad to read as you would think.     However it does rely on other information that if you don't know what it means....then it might take you a long time to find it in the proper context, I will give an example below.

The tech specs presented the information on modes like this, garbledegook in my book
http://allthingsnuclear.org/nuclear-energy-activist-toolkit-5-technical-specifications/

There are two MODES where the reactor is critical (MODE 1 with the reactor power level above 5 percent and MODE 2 with the reactor power level less than or equal to 5 percent). There are three MODES where the reactor is not critical (MODE 3 with the reactor water temperature greater than or equal to 350°F, MODE 5 with the reactor water temperature less than or equal to 200°F, and MODE 4 with the reactor water temperature between 200°F and 350°F. And there’s MODE 6 where the reactor is shut down with one or more of the bolts holding the head on top of the reactor vessel loosened.

Here is how I like to present the information: Clarity is power.

Mode 1 Reactor is Running, Critical, above 5%
Mode 2 Reactor is Running, Critical, below 5%
Mode 3 Reactor not running, but reactor water temp above 350F
Mode 4 Reactor not running, and reactor water temp between 200F and 350F
Mode 5 Reactor not running, and reactor water temp less than 200F
Mode 6 Reactor not running, and at least 1 reactor head bolt loosened

The "real tests" of making the Gensets (DGs) carry the actual emergency loads is not allowed in the above red highlighted Modes....ie.. when they are running or warm.   See screen capture below.

Section 3.8.1 Describes the DG testing

570 Page Westinghouse Reactor Standard Tech Specs

Note that the "Real Test" is only required every 18 months.    However, the "Real Test" cannot be conducted while the Nuke is running or even warm.    And they like to run these plants as long as they can to maximize profit.     

In fact, one of the oldest and most dangerous plants in the USA, just coincidentally on May 9, 2015 was pushed into a record run of 683 days.     Not only is this absurd to take an old plant and force it into a marathon, it is absurd to not properly test the DG backup  systems during this Clunker Marathon.   
http://www.energy-northwest.com/whoweare/news-and-info/Pages/NR-15-14-Columbia-Generating-Station-sets-longest-run-record;-begins-refueling-and-maintenance-outage.aspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep hearing about backup after backup after backup, which is not really true.   Many of the backups can be broke and they can still operate the plant, legally.

How about the Batteries? Seems they are like the DGs, they cannot be tested when the plant is running or even warm.  See below



Friday, May 15, 2015

A Lot of Scientists Believe the the Sun Is Our Major Heat Source, not CO2

I prefer to trust AstroPhysicist Dr. Willie Soon, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in the belief that so called Global Warming is attributable to Solar and naturally occurring phenomena with only a small minute part attributable to human cause. Dr. Soon is not alone in that belief and has a long list of supporters:

  1. Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
  2. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  3. Timothy Ball, professor emeritus of geography at the University of Winnipeg
  4. Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
  5. Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  6. Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
  7. David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
  8. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
  9. William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
  10. William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University
  11. Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
  12. Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
  13. William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
  14. David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
  15. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
  16. Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
  17. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
  18. Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
  19. Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
  20. Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University
  21. Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
  22. Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
  23. Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[
  24. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
  25. Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
  26. Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
  27. George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
  28. Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa
  29. Nukepro, Chief Engineer, University of Solar Sciences and Common Sense

Flight Crews Get Triple the Dose of Radiation From Being at Altitude

Quick report here folks, and a reality check. 

I measured a staggering 22 CPS (Clicks per Second) on flight to Chicago.    Since background (on my Geiger which is a Radiation Alert Inspector) is around 30 CPM, or .5 CPS, that is 44 times more.     So for 3 hours FLRE Full Load Radiation Equivalent, that is 132 hours of background or like 5.5 days.    

So if you flew this 6 times a year, it would be like 33 extra days of background, not even 10% more than 365 days.


What about the flight crew, say they get 80 hours per month and 70% of this is FLRE, so 56 hours at full load?

My data logging at altitude shows that we are often around 13 to 15, sometimes as low as 6 at 30,000 to 35,000 feet, and just recently I logged 22 peak, with 18 average.  

Let's call it 14 CPS average at the 30,000 to 35,000 foot range. 

That's 28 FLRE hours per hour of full height fly time, using 56 Hours per month, is 1568 hours of background.    Divided by 24 is 65 days of equivalent background radiation.   This is extra radiation per Month!

So flight crews get 784 extra days of radiation per year.     Tripling the "nominal real" background of 2 mSv per year, to over 6 mSv per year.

A nukist, with a bit of sarcasm (playing the "radiation is common" lie) commenting on a "Power The Future" media 'article' said


chuck428 16 hours ago
I better not eat anymore bananas, take a ride in an airplane, hike a round a canyon with Granite rocks, or ever be anywhere near a cigarette. Thanks Nuke Pro

stock here

I advise to stay away from cigarettes, and the health benefit of being in the great outdoors and exercising would likely offset any minimal dose from hiking in granite.


If you have to fly, fly.   

If you are considering a career in aviation or as a flight attendant, with all the extra radiation and heavy metals put into the air by Fukushima, and now the cooling efforts of geoengineering with aluminum into the air and such.....hmmmmm, maybe try organic farming instead?   You might not "have as much fun", but you will have a healthier life.


BTW 8 of 10 females surveyed find organic farming and healthy living is sexy.

nuff said.   Get the facts.





Thursday, May 14, 2015

How to Encourage Bees and Other Pollinators

This is just a starting post, a way to store some information provided by some of the fine folks at ENENEWS.

There are reports out from US gov that bees are down 40% year over year in 2015.    Bees are important pollinators, plants won't grow properly or reproduce without being pollinated.

This is going to be a big problem.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock
I am researching how to promote/help bees.
Methinks it approaches time to choose the most useful species, I understand the ramifications and philosophy behind that statement.

  • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder
    Yeah sorry it was not ment personally , just talking in general to my own species..for past/present mistakes like fighting to keep using certain poison when suspicious in very important dieoff's..
    pardon me :)
    It crossed my mind if i could buy a hive and how hard it would be to maintain.. i don't even need the honey or something..just to help..

  • SadieDog
    Stock, Wanna help the bees? Plant a small organic garden. With assorted flowers like these… :)
    http://www.honeybeesuite.com/five-favorite-plants-for-the-bee-garden/

      • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder
        Thanks Sadie

        • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder
          And Code and stock for bringing it up and all
          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Code===== How to help bees. First, you have to get the right size comb starter. They make them too big and this unnatural size creates disease. Then you have to feed them their own honey and pollen instead of the sugar syrup stuff that passes as bee food. Then they need an environment free of pesticides. Many or most bees in the states have finally been africanized. This makes for a potential danger. A healthy hive is an amazing thing. Bees kept choosing my house to make hives

          DID-----
          looks like it could be a satisfying hobby/necessity
          http://www.hivetool.com/guide/index.htm
          Hivetool.com Guide to Beekeeping
          Our guide is based on "Beekeeping in Tennessee" which was compiled and edit by Harry Williams and John Skinner of the University of Tennessee College of Agriculture. You'll find several references that are specific to the climate and apiary laws of Tennessee. We are continuously editing this document and welcome contributions. Email us with your suggestions.
          Five favorite plants for the bee garden Since this is the season when gardening catalogs flood my mailbox, I can’t help but think about next year’s pollinator garden. 



        • My five favorite pollinator plants are all species that attract a wide variety of wildlife. In addition, they all are relatively easy to care for and don’t require a lot of water. 
        •  
        • Agastache comes in various forms and colors and is attractive to many bees and butterflies. You can plant an entire garden of just Agastache using purples, oranges, reds, and pinks. These perennials flower over many weeks and are unappealing to deer and rabbits. My favorites include the hybrid “Blue Fortune” which is especially attractive to native bees and “New Mexico Hummingbird Mint” which draws butterflies and bumble bees as well as hummingbirds. 
        •  
        • Perovskia, or Russian Sage, is a real pollinator-pleaser. Some of the varieties such as “Blue Spire” become absolutely coated with bees of all descriptions. It has dark blue flowers on spikes that reach about 4 feet high. Deer and rabbits walk right by, while the bees hang on in ecstasy. 
        •  
        • Oregano was a surprise to me. I originally planted it for the leaves, but I’ve found that whenever I need a picture of a wild bee I’m sure to find one—or many—hanging out on the oregano plants. Oregano comes in many varieties and the small flowers range from pink to white. 
        •  
        • Ceanothus, or California lilac, is a fragrant and colorful evergreen shrub. The first time I ever really noticed one was in front of a public building in Tacoma. I walked by and saw that it was covered—I mean absolutely infested—with honey bees. I cut a twig and took it to a local nursery for identification. These shrubs are very drought tolerant and the flowers are the color of blue that honey bees love. 
        •  
        • Ceanothus is also freely visited by other species including bumble bees and sweat bees. 
        •  
        • Goldenrod is an especially good bee plant because it blooms very late in the year when bees are having a hard time finding forage. The bright yellow flowers attract many species of bee, especially bumble bees. Since goldenrod is tall it makes an excellent plant for the back of a garden or along a wall or fence. This past fall I often saw seven or eight bumble bees on one inflorescence. Goldenrod is another plant that requires little care and little water. Even if you only have room for a pot or two, you will be surprised at the number of pollinators you can attract with these plants. 
        •  
        • Other plants with similar characteristics will work as well, including lavender, salvia, penstemon, and catmint. 
        •  
        • Rusty
        • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Explaining Monsanto's War on Bees As DID said above, Monsanto is in competition with bees. Its simple, and powerfully true. Monsanto makes GMO "seeds". They grow 1 time, and the plant, if it produces seeds, those seeds will not be viable next year. That means, they won't work, won't grow a plant. So Monsanto generates a captive audience, each year the farmer must come back to them to get seeds. For the old school, "heirloom" seeds, are seeds that will grow into a plant that produces seeds that will be viable, that will grow the same plant the next year. I harvested seeds last fall from a number of plants, mainly just to do it and learn the skill, not because seeds are inherently expensive, they aren't. But someday, it may be hard to buy "non heirloom" seeds. Seeds will last maybe 2 to 7 years, depends on type of seeds, and storage, and luck. This year, I tried to make sure that all seeds purchased were Heirloom type. So did this spell it out clearly enough? Monsanto sells GMO (or now called GE genetically engineered) seeds. These seeds don't need bees. And they create a captive audience and recurring sales. Then Monsanto produces Glyphosophate, aka Round Up, which kills the heck out of bees....so that the Heirloom varieties don't work as well, don't get fertilized by bees. Monsanto has a war on bees. And Monsanto is winning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Classic Movie, Idiocracy

Human Jet Pack Flight Over Dubai

Rarely do I see an impressive video like this

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Friday, May 8, 2015

One Liner Lies of The Cancer Cartel

Readers who frequent here know that I am the author of the 93 lies of nuke (it started at 55 and quickly grew, now it is probably 110).

Combomelt put those lie to music and video, what an awesome corrographed trophy, see the bottom.

Sorry to those who actually have cancer, this might not be to entertaining when it strikes so close to reality and it's a bad reality.


 I am starting a new one, the ____ one liner lies of the Cancer Cartel

  1. It's "your" cancer 
  2. Its just your bad luck 
  3. Don't worry, we are great at treating that 
  4. Who knows what caused it 
  5. We can use radiation to "treat" your cancer
  6. Those cancer hats are so stylish
  7. If you last 5 years, and die the next day, we consider our treatment sucessful no matter the cost no matter the pain
  8. Cancer is the "best" way to die (you have time to get your affairs in order)
  9. It can't be proven to be from Fukushima
  10. You didn't smile enough whilst basking in that radiation
  11. The CT scan is as effective as an MRI, and it's just like flying on an airplane.   
  12. It is your fear, uncertainty, and doubt that caused your cancer.
  13. "Everything" causes cancer, so don't blame radiation.
  14. "Our Radioactive Ocean" a lie by Kenny Busseler Boy, a Woods Whore
  15. We can "treat it"
  16. Childhood Leukemia is normal and has always been around.
  17. Mutations and tumors just happen, don't blame radiation. 
  18. Cancer is because people are poor, we need to hand money to the poor to prevent cancer and buy their votes (thus killing two mutated birds with one stone). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3077314/Poor-people-s-DNA-declining-quality-say-scientists-Study-reveals-stressful-upbringings-damage-genes.html
  19. Babies born today got the short end of the stick from baby boomers
  20. http://www.nei.org/Conferences/Annual-Nuclear-Industry-Conference-and-Nuclear-Sup
  21. from bo: Cancer is increasing because of over diagnosis
from Obewan

'My cancer brought us closer': Rita Wilson says relationship with husband Tom Hanks stronger than ever after double mastectomy



Sugar causes cancer (sheesh, this might be true, http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/research-reveals-how-sugar-causes-cancer)
Anyone got more, drop them in the comments?

Nuclear Subsidies are 5.7 cents/kWH

stock here

One of the NEW LIES in the playbook of the nukist is that nuke electricity generators should be given more money since they are "special" generators, couldn't have said it better myself, LOL.      They state that wind and solar PV get subsidies of 30% from the Fed, therefore nuke should be paid more.  

Hmmm...the average cost of electricity in the us is around 12 cents per kWH, but for nuke 5.7 cents of that is direct immediate and continuing subsidy (see the study below), neglecting of course the out years costs and waste "disposal".

That is 5.7 cents per kWH for every kWH that nuke makes throughout its lifetime.  
So nuclear electricity generation gets a continuous 47.5% subsidy.

However Solar PV gets a 30% subsidy from the Feds as a tax credit.   But wait this deserves a closer look.    That is a one time tax credit based on the construction cost of the Solar PV.

So on a small say residential scale of $20,000 invested for project cost, the Feds will cover $6,000 of that.        How much power will a $20,000 PV system make in it's lifetime.   Well being a CEM, and an expert in the field, I can tell you exactly how much.

Well the system will produce 301053 kWH in its 30 year life.      So at current PV project costs, solar PV gets a 1.9cent per kWH Fed incentive.      Funny how that is exactly 1/3 as big as the nuclear subsidy.

Nuclear gets a 300% larger subsidy than solar at this time.    As the cost of solar goes down, that subsidy in way of a tax credit will become even less on a relative basis to kWH produced.

As nuclear ages, its subsidies will become even higher.   

Chart by stock



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to subsidy related cost issues, the subsidies for new reactors from Appendix A, page 131 in this UCS paper come to 5.7 cents/kWh.

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies”:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf



Let’s contrast that with predictions that renewables will soon become competitive without subsidies, first from NREL:

“by 2025 wind and solar power electricity generation could become cost-competitive without federal subsidies, if new renewable energy development occurs in the most productive locations”:

http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2013/2283.html

And from former Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

“Before maybe the end of this decade, I see wind and solar being cost-competitive without subsidy with new fossil fuel”

http://cleanedge.com/sites/default/files/CETrends2013_Final_Web.pdf