What Would Happen to Your City If It Got Nuked?
What would happen to your city if it got nuked? 109.com 26 Feb 09 A new Google mashup reveals what kind of damage you could expect after a nuclear attack on your city, and highlights the effects of radiation spreading outward from the blast. At BLDG BLOG, Geoff Manaugh talks about the history of “nuclear urbanism,” calling this map mashup by CarlosLabs in Australia as its latest example. The mashup, called Ground Zero, is disturbingly simple: You can pick your city, then pick your weapon (anything from 1950s “Fat Man” to an asteroid collision), then hit the button that says “Nuke it!”. Then the map blooms with flame and destruction.
Dystopia Can Be Fun: What Would Happen to Your City If It Got Nuked?
Yucca – Mountain of Doubt
Mountain of Doubt Will the country’s only planned nuclear waste dump survive Obama? BY JUDITH LEWIS/HIGH COUNTRY NEWS FEBRUARY 25, 2009- “……………As of December 2006, $13.5 billion from utility bills and taxes has gone into researching the site, and utilities have accumulated some 55,000 metric tons of waste. By 2010, the waste will exceed Yucca Mountain’s limit of 70,000 metric tons………………
Doubts about Yucca Mountain’s geologic suitability have piled up as well.
Six hundred earthquakes have rumbled under Yucca Mountain in the last 20 years, one as great as magnitude 5.6. A panel of scientists put the chances of “igneous disruption” in the ridgeline’s ancient field of volcanoes at one in 6,250 over the next 10,000 years—which seems low until you consider that, in most of the United States, the probability of a volcano erupting is zero.
Even the site’s chief meteorological selling point—the dryness of the Nevada desert—may no longer play in its favor. For one thing, climates can change: In the winter of 2004 to 2005, enough rain fell in Death Valley, 20 miles to the West, to revive seedbeds that had lain dormant for a century.
For another, the absence of water may not be as significant as the presence of air. “Yucca Mountain is an oxidizing environment,” said Allison Macfarlane, an associate professor at George Mason University and editor of a book on Yucca Mountain, “and spent nuclear fuel is not stable in the presence of water and oxygen.”
Obama To Congress: Economic Recovery ‘Begins’ With Clean Energy
Obama To Congress: Economic Recovery ‘Begins’ With Clean Energy WASHINGTON, DC, February 25, 2009 (ENS) – In his first address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, President Barack Obama earned repeated standing ovations from both Democrats and Republicans……………………….”It begins with energy.”
“We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. And yet, it is China that has launched the largest effort in history to make their economy energy efficient,” the President said. “We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea.”…………………… “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years,” he said…………………
“We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. And we will put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bills,” Obama said.
“But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy,” he said.
“So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest $15 billion a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America,” said President Obama.
With Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate, the President is likely to get the kind of climate change legislation he asked for.
Obama To Congress: Economic Recovery ‘Begins’ With Clean Energy
What the coming dialogue between US-Iran holds
What the coming dialogue between US-Iran holds Saudi Gazette Patrick Seale 26 February 2009 A WASHINGTON consensus is emerging about the necessity of talking to Iran – sooner rather than later. President Barack Obama has spoken of reaching out to the Islamic Republic, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has responded by expressing a readiness to talk. He has even written a letter to Obama congratulating him on his election. This must surely be taken as a signal of a coming thaw.Both sides recognize that, after 30 years of stubborn mutual hostility, the time for dialogue has arrived. It may still be premature to expect an early restoration of diplomatic relations, but the opening of a US-staffed interests section in Tehran seems a likely prospect…………………..Several developments seem to be driving the US and Iran to the negotiating table. Of these, probably the most important is Iran’s progress in enriching uranium. Although it denies any intention to manufacture nuclear weapons, Iran’s scientific and technological achievement suggests that it is on the ‘threshold’ of becoming a nuclear power. But it is by no means certain that it will choose to take that extra step.
America’s interest lies in persuading Iran to go no further, while Iran’s interest is to go just far enough to deter any would-be attacker, but not so far as to arouse the fears of its neighbors, and incur the problems and responsibilities of actually becoming a nuclear power.
Saudi Gazette – What the coming dialogue between US-Iran holds
Defence in the realm of fear
Defence in the realm of fear The Canberra Times 26 Feb 09 Although it is only early days for the Obama Administration, the President and his team have been conspicuously silent about whether they will persist with the Bush administration’s controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Developed in response to the September 11 attacks, the Bush Doctrine, as it is known, asserts a right to use military force against perceived terrorist threats before those threats can materialise into actual armed attacks.Asked recently about the future of the doctrine, President-elect Barack Obama, as he was then, responded, ”We have to view our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries.” While this is by no means a repudiation of the doctrine, we can be hopeful that President Obama’s broader foreign policy objectives, which emphasise engagement and multilateralism, may signal a shift back to a pre-Bush position of adherence to the international rule of law.
The Bush Doctrine is a significant departure from accepted norms of international law. After World War II, the international community vowed to end the scourge of war and promote international peace and security through proper adherence to principles of justice and international law.
The UN Charter embodies that commitment. Article 2 (4) of the charter prohibits the use of force by one state against others and is considered such a fundamental principle of law that no nation has the right to depart from it.
Military force is allowed only if the Security Council authorises its use or a country acts in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter…….
Launching pre-emptive strikes against Iran would also reinforce a dangerous precedent, established by the invasion of Iraq, that would enable other countries to act in the same way.
Countries such as Pakistan, India, China, North Korea and indeed Iran would be given the green light to advance similar claims and act pre-emptively if they believed they were threatened by another country.
……….The potential to misuse the doctrine of pre-emption is too great to make it an acceptable approach to maintaining global and regional security.
Australia has also given equivocal support for the doctrine of pre-emption. Although it has never been a stated policy objective, in an interview in 2004 John Howard insisted it was open to Australia to take pre-emptive action against terrorists, particularly in South-East Asia. This generated deep suspicion among our neighbours.
The Howard government also supported the invasion of Iraq, thereby endorsing the doctrine used by the US to justify the allied intervention.
The Rudd Government has always been critical of the Bush Doctrine but has not unequivocally disavowed it.
As one of its election commitments, the Government is commissioning a Defence white paper which, among other things, will set out Australia’s strategic defence and national security objectives. The Government should make clear in the white paper that the doctrine of pre-emption forms no part of Australia’s defence or foreign policy options.
This would not only honour Australia’s commitment to promoting the international rule of law but demonstrate the kind of global leadership that would be required of Australia if it is to gain a seat on the UN Security Council in 2013.
Defence in the realm of fear – Opinion – Editorial – General – The Canberra Times
Dr Amory Lovins talks about energy efficiency, transport and renewable energy | Zero Emissions Climate Change Global Warming Solution
Dr Amory Lovins talks about energy efficiency, transport and renewable energy
Beyond Zero 2009-02-26 “…………………. — Efficiency is arguably the highest return/lowest risk investment in the whole economy. So, smart businesses are indeed cutting their energy intensity about 6% to 16% per annum just by fixing up what they’ve got. In our latest projects, some of them in Australia by the way where I’ve worked for many years, we’re typically finding in 29 industrial sectors now, (over 30 billion US dollars worth of projects) about 30% to 60% energy saving is fixing old plants with paybacks of 2 or 3 years. And in new plants we can save more, typically 40% to 90%. But the capital cost of a plant almost always goes down, because we figured out integrated design that makes very big energy savings cost less than small savings. So we get expanding, not diminishing, returns to investments in advanced energy efficiency……………………….
Chu favors licensing Yucca Mountain dump, but Obama isn’t in favor of construction
Chu favors licensing Yucca Mountain dump, but Obama isn’t in favor of construction THE ELY TIMES STEVE TETREAULTS tephens Washington Bureau February 25, 2009 WASHINGTON — Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a group of state officials last Wednesday he favors moving toward licensing a nuclear waste repository in Nevada, although whether it would ever be built is another thing altogether………………………But several people who were at the 20-minute session said Chu stressed that President Barack
Obama doesn’t want the Yucca repository, “and I work for the president.”
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development FAIRVIEW POST 26 Feb 09 “………………….. I am all for the development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, bio-gas and smart grids. I am definitely not in favor of more money spent on nuclear power. I am against being responsible for the costs associated with the storage of the nuclear waste associated with this proposal. The nuclear industry should pay those costs, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. I am against being responsible for any capital cost overruns that a nuclear facility runs up. They should have to foot the bill just like any other industry, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. How many people are even aware of the fact that capital cost overruns for the nuclear industry in Canada come right out of taxpayer’s pockets? The nuclear industry in Canada has been operating at a loss since it’s inception, relying on constant taxpayer handouts to stay afloat.
Putting a leaky nuclear facility in the midst of 25,000 area residents is not a good idea. According to the information sessions I attended, Bruce Power is planning on storing radioactive waste on site. What guarantee can they give us that our groundwater will not be affected? According to a site called the Bruce Centre for Energy Research and Information, which is located in the heart of Bruce County, the Bruce nuclear complex has two radioactive waste storage sites that are leaking tritium into groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater sampling holes from Site 1 have in the past exceeded 203,500 Bq/L for tritium. The report states that the waste from site 1 is being moved to site 2, and that one groundwater sampling hole at site 2 has recently exceeded 12,000 Bq/L. In Canada the “safe” amount of tritium in drinking water is 7,000 Bq/L (versus 740 in the States, and 100 in Europe). I, like many people in our area, get my water straight from the ground. What would a leak like those mentioned do to the local water supply?
So, am I anti-development? Not on your life. Bring on all the green, renewable, clean energy sources we can develop, like solar, and wind, and bio-gas. Am I anti nuclear? You bet I am. Nuclear power in Ontario has shown itself to be a money-sucking black hole, relying on a constant stream of taxpayers’ cash to stay afloat. So why would anyone but a bunch of business people want a toxic dinosaur erected here? Develop something modern, stop flogging a dying horse.
Dan Streeter, Grimshaw
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development – Fairview Post – Alberta, CA
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada The New York Times By Ian Austen February 25, 2009
A Canadian nuclear facility that produces at least of half of the world’s supply of medical isotopes has a long history of leaks and unanticipated maintenance delays. And little wonder. The reactor — part of the Atomic Energy of Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories in Eastern Ontario — has been in operation for nearly 52 years.
Two successor reactors which were to replace it have been abandoned because of engineering and financial problems. And recently, the reactor at Chalk River has gone through a particularly bad patch. There have been three leaks at the facility since December.
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com
After the Apology: still keeping our distance – On Line Opinion – 26/2/2009
After the Apology: still keeping our distance
By Maggie Walter – ON LINE opinion 26 February 2009There is a casual disrespect of Aboriginal people in general that permeates everyday Australian life. This patter of casual and almost thoughtless denigration pervades our society’s conversations. You hear it in cabs, at the hairdressers, on the bus – everywhere. Not knowing anything much about Aboriginal people, or not knowing any Aboriginal people does not stop non-Aboriginal Australians having loud opinions about those people they don’t know……………………..I want an Australia where to be Australian, for all Australians, means understanding and being proud of our Indigenous heritage and our Indigenous present.
Where all Australians know and interact with Aboriginal people as part of the normal interactions of daily life; where your dentist, bus driver, teacher or neighbour or all of them are likely to be Aboriginal and this not be considered unusual.
Where Aboriginal culture is celebrated and where Aboriginal ways of being, doing and living have embedded social and political legitimacy and are a significant and inextricable aspect of “the” Australian culture. And where regardless of our own heritage, where we live, and our occupation, we all have plenty of Aboriginal friends. But there’s a long way to go.
After the Apology: still keeping our distance – On Line Opinion – 26/2/2009
1 This Month
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (8)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 