The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Jonathan Steele – Ukraine Whats Behind the Crisis? Belarus next?

Fourman Films Published on 18 Apr 2014
A core part of the Bank’s mandate in Belarus is to increase competition and promote the growth of the private sector.
Therefore, it is fitting that the Bank’s first investment in the fuel sector in Belarus was a long-term loan of US$ 10 million to A-100 Group, a medium-sized, privately-owned chain of Belarus petrol stations. The project will help A-100 to increase its share of the country’s fuel distribution market and challenge the state-owned and Russian energy majors that dominate the sector. The EBRD and Belarus The current political, economic and structural reform environment in Belarus warrants the continued application of a calibrated strategic approach, incorporating both political and economic benchmarks to gauge the country’s progress or regress against its key Article 1 commitments and adjusting the Bank’s operational response accordingly. In keeping with the calibrated strategic approach, the Bank’s overall engagement in Belarus will continue to be modulated to reflect the country’s progress against annually updated political and economic benchmarks. In light of recent political and economic developments, while continuing its policy of constructive engagement to promote reform, the Bank will further calibrate its engagement in Belarus to limit its involvement with state-owned enterprises in the areas of trade finance, energy efficiency credit lines and private equity funds.

Last updated 13 March 2013 Screenshot from 2014-04-19 01:03:31
The Bank continued supporting the Ukrainian banking sector. Under the conditions of limited access to international financial markets, EBRD client-banks made active use of the Trade Facilitation Programme, which recorded exceptionally high volumes. A large energy efficiency lending facility of US$ 50 million was signed with UkrEximBank. The EBRD also participated in the capital increase of Ukrsibbank (BNP Paribas Group).
Finally, a major step towards overcoming the legacy of the Chernobyl accident and ensuring long-term safety at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was achieved in 2012 with the successful completion of the first lifting stage of
the New Safe Confinement. This project is implemented under the financial supervision and the support of the EBRD

Screenshot from 2014-04-19 16:18:54

Address of EBRD
EBRD Ukraine office
16, Nemirovicha-Danchenko Street
01133 Kiev

Fax: +380 44 277 11 60
Director, Ukraine: André Küüsvek

Turkey, Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
Managing Director: Olivier Descamps
(based in London)

EBRD Headquarters
One Exchange Square
London EC2A 2JN
United Kingdom
EBRD Belarus office
34A Engelsa Street, building 2
220030 Minsk
Head of Office: Francis Delaey
The Caucasus, Moldova and Belarus

Director: Bruno Balvanera, as of 1 June 2013
(Tbilisi office)

A-100 enters into the 100 most expensive Byelorussian brands

MPP Consulting Agency (Ukraine) conducted an assessment of the Belarusian brands. The main aim of that research was the identification of one hundred most famous and valuable brands in our country. It is rating of brands created exclusively in the territory of Belarus, only Belarusian goods and services. MPP Consulting examined all industries.

During the research, evaluation of national brands «TOP National Brands» and rating “BelBrend 2011 — TOP 100 Belarusian brands,” Company A-100 took 90th in the overall ranking and first in its industry. Brand value has been estimated at 1.75 million dollars.

And the first line this year is a brand of “Santa Bremor”, valued at $ 72.5 million

The main objective of “BelBrend 2011” was to determine the 100 most valuable brands in Belarus, as well as their current market value, based on the performance of companies that use these brands, the positions of each company in the market and perspectives for their development.

The main feature of the methodology for assessing agency MPP Consulting is that the brand value includes only the cost of the brand-name, without regard to production capacity, infrastructure, patents, inventions and other tangible or intellectual property.

More information about the ranking Belarusian brands is here —

April 19, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nukes, coups and referenda: myth and reality in the Ukraine crisis

The western powers are in no position to lecture Putin, whose actions in Crimea look like a Gandhian direct action when compared to the normal US-UK mode of operation. From 28 February to 18 March, Russian forces captured over a dozen Ukrainian bases or military posts without the loss of a single life.
NATO is a machine for facilitating or imposing western domination on the rest of the world. Dismantling it would be a valuable step towards a more peaceful world, and a valuable de-escalatory move in the current crisis.

In this wide-ranging essay (a greatly extended version of the editorial in the current print edition), PN co-editor Milan Rai analyses Ukraine, western hypocrisy, the role (not) played by nuclear weapons in the ongoing crisis, claims that the US organised a “fascist coup” in Ukraine, the “referendum” in Crimea, and the path away from war.

Comment by Milan Rai

Nuclear promises

It is difficult to see the Crimea crisis clearly through the choking fog of western hypocrisy that surrounds it. Before trying to do so, there is one factor that we should deal with straightforwardly. When Ukraine became independent (after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991), it inherited 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads, more nuclear weapons than China, France and Britain held – combined.

If, instead of repatriating these weapons to Russia in the mid-1990s, Ukraine held those weapons today, it is extremely unlikely that Russia would have invaded the Crimea. This may be an uncomfortable truth, but we think it must be faced by those who want to advance nonviolence.

If we want to persuade smaller nations to remain free of nuclear weapons, as we should, as they should, we have to have answers to the questions that arise.


Abandoned nuclear bomb plant in Crimea. Photo: Victor Korniyenko

Ukraine gave up its weapons in return for a promise that its territorial integrity would be protected by the USA, Russia and the UK, under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. This agreement has manifestly not been honoured by ANY of the parties.

Strictly speaking, as Steven Pifer, former US ambassador to Ukraine, points out, the Budapest Memorandum ‘bundled together a set of assurances that Ukraine already held from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) Final Act, United Nations Charter and Non-Proliferation Treaty’. Pifer observes: ‘The Ukrainian government nevertheless found it politically valuable to have these assurances in a Ukraine-specific document.’

The specific ‘security assurance’ given in the memorandum (not a treaty) was that ‘if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used’ (emphasis added), Russia, the UK and/or the US would take steps.

Well, actually, just one step. The one action specified, in the case of a nuclear weapons-related security issue, was that they would ‘seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’.

In any non-nuclear-weapon-related situation, Russia, Britain and the US promised only to ‘consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments’.

The US and Britain have lived up to the words of the Budapest Memorandum (calling a ‘consultation’ meeting on 5 March which Russia refused to attend), while violating its spirit.

Former foreign minister of Australia Gareth Evans has argued that nuclear weapons would not have prevented the Russian invasion of Crimea: ‘weapons that would be manifestly suicidal to use are not ultimately a very credible deterrent’. In his view, Russian president Vladimir Putin would have known that Ukraine would not ‘nuke Moscow for sending tanks into Crimea, or even Dnipropetrovsk’. Yet at the same time, Evans himself points out that Ukraine’s possession of nuclear weapons would have added ‘another huge layer of potential hazard, owing to the risk of stumbling into a catastrophe through accident, miscalculation, system error, or sabotage.’

Evans is absolutely right to stress the terrifying risks and instability of ‘nuclear deterrence’, but it does no good for us advocates of disarmament to deny that invading a country that possesses nuclear weapons is a frightening prospect that no rational leadership would undertake.

This simple truth does not justify the possession of nuclear weapons, which remain immoral and illegal and dangerous to the survival of civilisation, if not humanity as a species.

An equally simple truth is that if Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons in 1991, it might not have been invaded by Russia in 2014, because there is a good chance that in the intervening years an accidental or mistaken nuclear launch would have led to the devastation of both nations, along with neighbouring countries.

Setting Crimea in context



Map of Ukraine, showing the geographical position of Crimea. Image: Sven Teschke

On 2 March, US secretary of state John Kerry reacted to the Russian invasion of Crimea by saying: ‘You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.’

Since Vladimir Putin’s first ascendancy to the Russian presidency in 2000, the Russian state has used its armed forces against other countries twice: against Georgia, in 2008; and now against Ukraine.

In the same time period, Britain has used its military forces without UN authorisation against four countries: Sierra Leone (2000), Afghanistan (2001-present); Iraq (2003-2008, officially); and Libya (2011). (In Libya, there was a UN-approved ‘no-fly zone’, but NATO forces exceeded this mandate). During these same years, France has attacked several African countries, some repeatedly, including: Côte d’Ivoire (2002, 2004, 2011); Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) (2003); Chad (2006, 2008); Libya (2011); Mali (2013); Somalia (2013); Central African Republic (2006, 2013-present).

The US has used its armed forces in a criminal fashion against a number of countries, including: Afghanistan (2001-present); Yemen (drone attacks, 2002-present); Iraq (2003-present); Pakistan (drone attacks, 2004-present); Libya (2011); Somalia (2011-present).

Some of these attacks may be classed as state terrorism, many amount to the crime of aggression.

The modern classic example of a ‘trumped-up pretext’ is, of course, the weapons of mass destruction alleged to exist in Iraq in 2003.

The 19th century is not over for these leaders of the free world.

Continue reading

April 19, 2014 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Help heat the planet with floating nuclear reactors

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

I was very taken by the latest spiel fro MIT – they’re getting desperate about being unable to market Small Modular Nuclear Reactors to any body (except perhaps ignorant Australians.)  So – they’ve come up with  a newie.  – Floating Nuclear Reactors.

Never mind the issues of safety, economics, radioactive pollution –  their big selling point is that the reactors will be kept cool by discharging heat into the oceans. They proudly boast  – the ocean is a“heat sink”.   But wait a minute –  aren’t we supposed to be preventing global warming?  Isn’t the heating of the oceans a major factor in heating the planet?


April 19, 2014 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Let’s hope that the floating nuclear reactor is better than that other ‘safest design’ – the Titanic

reactors-floatingMIT wants nuclear reactors on the ocean?
 by Nick Farrell 18 April 14, Sometimes it is best not to leave things to engineers

It used to be that silly thinks were designed by arts school graduates, but now it appears that engineers are having a crack at it. MIT have come up with what they think is a brilliant idea to stick a nuclear power plant on the ocean.

The cunning plan is to build a plant on a floating platform, moored in deep water several miles off the coast. They claim that it will be virtually immune to earthquakes, tsunamis and meltdowns. In deep water, tsunami waves aren’t large enough to cause significant damage, and earthquakes are not felt at all. MIT’s Jacopo Buongiorno said that floating the reactor on the ocean also gives the plant access to easy, passive cooling and an “infinite heat sink.”

Clearly, Buongiorno has not seen many disaster films, but we would have thought that the concept of humanity building an unsinkable anything went down with the Titanic. While deep water might be tsunami proof, it would not be immune to storms. While the in an emergency situation that sees the plant venting radioactive gasses into the ocean, rather than into the air one of the problems with the Fukushima leak was that radioactive sea water polluted huge chunks of the ocean.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | general | 1 Comment

Latest Nuclear PR Gimmick – reactors floating on the ocean

Christina Macpherson's websites & blogs

Christina Macpherson’s websites & blogs

What really fascinates me about this proposal is this bit -“the ocean serves as an “infinite heat sink,” which allows for the core to be cooled passively.”Now one current big argument FOR nuclear power, is that it would fight global warming. . Yet anyone who knows anything about global warming would know that heating up of the ocean is one of the major factors in global warming. This floating nuclear proposal is the clearest example yet, of how the nuclear industry CONTRIBUTES to global warming.

reactors-floatingMIT Wants to Mass Produce These Floating Nuclear Reactors JORDAN PEARSON 18 April 14

The reactor is essentially built like a floating oil rig, and its designers, MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and Neil Todreas, promise that it will be able ride out tsunamis, earthquakes, and that meltdowns will be essentially impossible. According to Buongiorno, the ocean serves as an “infinite heat sink,” which allows for the core to be cooled passively……….

If this scheme catches hold, in the future we could see mass-produced nuclear power plants, ranging in size, powering many of America’s coastal cities. For now, however, the design team has their eyes set on Asia, specifically Japan, as an area which has a growing need for power sources that can withstand tsunamis.

Yet floating reactors have an unmistakably ominous quality to them, not unlike the Titanic. Although meltdowns may be “virtually impossible,” they are certainly not impossible, and the big question is what happens if one of these cores goes, well, nuclear.,….The 1970s plan for nuclear energy at sea got about this far, as well, before it was shot down by a slew of environmental, economic, and social concerns. At the time, there was an outcry over the potential environmental impact of a core meltdown at sea. John O’Leary, a Department of Energy secretary, delivered what a staffer called a “grim—even alarming report.” After the Three Mile Island disaster, the curtains had closed on the plan to build reactors at sea. Until now, that is……

 What really fascinates me about this proposal is this bit -“the ocean serves as an “infinite heat sink,” which allows for the core to be cooled passively.”Now one current big argument FOR nuclear power, is that it would fight global warming. . Yet anyone who knows anything about global warming would know that heating up of the ocean is one of the major factors in global warming. This floating nuclear proposal is the clearest example yet, of how the nuclear industry CONTRIBUTES to global warming.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | Reference, technology, USA | 1 Comment

Desperate publicity manipulations by the nuclear industry

text-nuclear-uranium-liesYou know the nuclear industry is desperate when…  Michael Mariotte April 1, 2014 You know the nuclear power industry is getting desperate when it solicits its CEOs to start piling on ghost-written op-eds in publications chosen for their reach to key audiences. And you know the industry is really desperate when it brings out big guns like a couple of paid-for former U.S. Senators to support nuclear power in The Hill newspaper, which, as its name implies, is aimed at current legislators. And you know the industry is super desperate when it pulls out none other than Rudy Giuliani, who continues stuffing his wallet with nuclear-powered green.


And when it rolls out all three on the same day? That’s when you know that the nuclear industry knows what not enough clean energy activists have yet understood: the nuclear power industry is in real trouble; it’s sensing its near-imminent demise; and like the dinosaur snarling and wagging its tail on its way to extinction, it’s in a dire, and ultimately likely to be unsuccessful, scramble for its very existence.

Yesterday, March 31, the nuclear industry’s march to oblivion was on full display. Two of the op-eds it placed were remarkably similar, so much so that they probably came from the same pen. And their points are so easy to knock down that one wonders if the Nuclear Energy Institute’s public relations A-Team already has jumped ship. Seriously, if these are the best arguments the industry can offer, they’re in bigger trouble than even I thought.

First up is Mike Renchek, the CEO of Areva, who is trying to convince Providence Journal readers that “nuclear energy is crucial to New England.”The crux of his argument seems to be that nuclear reactors kept providing power during the “polar vortex” this winter. Well, so did solar and wind plants, and energy efficiency worked pretty well too we hear. What didn’t work so well was natural gas, which went up in price and down in supply. But gas, although it is typically much cheaper than nuclear and in New England especially has been undercutting the region’s reactors in price, isn’t exactly an ideal provider of electricity, especially in the nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system we’re working to build. Gas is, at this exact moment in time, a genuine competitor to nuclear, but nuclear’s real future problem isn’t gas, it’s renewables and efficiency. And Renchek’s reactors can’t compete with those anymore either and will be even less able to do so as this decade rolls on.

 Former Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire are the figureheads of a new industry-sponsored group called Nuclear Matters, which was created to try to prevent the shutdown of more existing reactors. Creation of such a group is itself a sign of the industry’s desperation–who knew a technology that is so self-evidently advantageous (at least in the minds of the industry itself, if for no one else) would need a new organization not to promote industry growth but to try to postpone its inevitable stumble into oblivion?…….

The nuclear industry’s sense of desperation is palpable. Activists need to understand what the industry obviously knows: it’s in serious trouble. This is our time to really join together, ramp  up our efforts, and kick more of these reactors over the edge; they’re already teetering. They’re dangerous, they can’t provide cost-effective electricity, they don’t have a solution to their radioactive waste and they exist now only because they were built decades ago and the utilities want to milk them for everything they can before they surrender to the inevitable and have to begin spending huge sums of money again–but this time it won’t be to build new reactors, it will be to decommission their dinosaurs.


April 19, 2014 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | Leave a comment

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant so radioactive that crews had to retreat

exclamation-AP: Crews retreat after nuclear material found at WIPP — Officials: Correct to turn back, contamination was increasing — Robots brought to site for radiation levels too high for humans — ‘Significant amount of information’ will be revealed to public in next few days (VIDEOS)

AP, Apr. 17, 2014: Crews on their fourth trip into the mine on Wednesday made it into the only active waste storage area and found contamination, [Tammy Reynolds, U.S. Dept. of Energy’s deputy recovery manager] said. The deeper they went into the area, the more widespread the contamination, she said. But the crews had to retreat before identifying the possible source because they had been underground for five hours in protective gear that retains heat and the batteries on their respiratory equipment were running low. […] The next step is for crews, and possibly robots, to go back down to see if they can identify what caused the leak.

Tammy Reynolds, deputy WIPP recovery manager: “The more they went into panel seven, the more (the contamination) became more widespread […] They made the correct decision to turn back […] Everyone was safely returned to the surface.”

John Heaton, former state representative and chairman of the Carlsbad Mayor’s Nuclear TaskforceWIPP Town Hall, Apr. 17, 2014 (at 7:00 in): I think that next week might a very busy week in that I think that there will be progress to report in terms as to what might have been the cause and also Phase 1 of the accident investigation report. […] I believe — I hate to speculate on this — but there will be a significant amount of information that will come out next week. So I think it will be a very important meeting and I think we need to have adequate time for people to be able to ask questions.

ReynoldsWIPP Town Hall, Apr. 17, 2014 (at 23:00 in): One of the other things we’ve been working on is the contingency plan […] They’ve been working to have robots prepared that in the event that the conditions in the underground don’t allow us to be able to get to the waste space or other parts of the mine later on in recovery activities because of the level of contamination, as a contingency we’re looking at the use of robots. And so there’s a couple of robot operators, they’ve already been to the WIPP site, they’ve received all of the training they would need to go into the underground […] they’ve completed that. And today they brought the robots out to the site and they did a demonstration for us […] so that if we can’t go and visibly put our eyes on certain pieces of the mine, the robot can do that for us and feed us back that information.

Watch the KRQE broadcast here

April 19, 2014 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Washington State and DOE squabble over disatrous radioactive waste problem at Hanford

Hanford 2011State, feds reject each other’s Hanford proposals April 18 BY NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS SPOKANE, Wash. — The state of Washington and the U.S. Department of Energy on Friday each rejected the other’s proposal to amend a federal court agreement governing cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the nation’s most polluted nuclear weapons production site. The state sent a letter to federal lawyers saying the Energy Department’s March 31 proposal that would have eliminated many deadlines for Hanford cleanup “is not acceptable to Washington.”

The Department of Energy, meanwhile, said a state proposal also issued March 31 that would have left many deadlines in place was unrealistic.

The state proposal does not “adequately account for the realities of technical issues resolution, project management requirements and budget constraints,” the Energy Department said in a news release.

While the state warned that it might consider legal action, the Energy Department said it wanted to keep negotiating the issues. Hanford for decades made plutonium for nuclear weapons, and now is engaged in cleaning up the nation’s largest volume of radioactive wastes. The site is near Richland. Continue reading

April 19, 2014 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Rio Tinto’s AGM faced with facts on radiological impact of Rossing uranium mine

uranium-oreRadiological Impact of Rössing Uranium Mine – Namibia April 17th, 2014 by 

At the Annual General Meeting of Rio Tinto in London, 15 May text-radiation2014, two recent reports about the impact of the uranium mine Rössing near Arandis, Namibia, on the environment and health were presented to the shareholders.

In cooperation with Earthlife Namibia, the French organizationCRIIRAD (Commission de Recherhe et d’Information Independantes sur la Radioactivite) analyzed the radiation of soil, water and sediments samples taken near Rössing´s mine caused by the tailing dams and waste rock dumps. Results show elevated levels of heavy metals and uranium in the samples up to more than 2000 times higher than WHO recommendations.

In their study, Earthlife Namibia surveyed the health status of current and former workers of the mine. Many of them complained of health problems, among them respiratory problems and illnesses due to the constant exposure to radon gas and dust.

CRIIRAD and Earthlife Namibia demand more independent research on radiation at the Rössing mine, a broad independent examination of the health status of workers and access to monitoring data for experts, as well as workers´ unrestricted access to their own medical reports.

Read CRIIRAD´s report here

Read Earthlife Namibia´s report here

April 19, 2014 Posted by | environment, Namibia, Uranium | 1 Comment

Vital to carry through with diplomacy between Iran and the West

diplomacy-not-bombsflag-IranWhy we must give Iran nuclear deal a chance, Global Public SquareBy Tyler Cullis and Jamal Abdi, Special to CNN 18 April 14 Editor’s note: Tyler Cullis is a policy associate at the National Iranian American Council. Jamal Abdi is policy director at NIAC. The views expressed are the authors’ own.

The United States could be on the verge of securing a historic agreement over Iran’s nuclear program, one that verifiably limits it and opens the door to further cooperation between the two countries. Yet with a diplomatic victory on the horizon, the rhetoric of those who have long opposed any diplomatic resolution is reaching dizzying heights of disingenuousness.

During a recent Senate hearing, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) hit out at reports that negotiations with Iran may produce a deal that “only” extends Iran’s nuclear breakout timeline to 6 to 12 months.

“I don’t think we did everything that we’ve done to only get a six to twelve month lead time,” Menendez lamented as he grilled Secretary of State John Kerry over the progress of the talks………

The Israeli government appears to believe that threatening possible military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is the solution. But here’s the kicker: some estimates suggest that an Israeli strike on Iran would delay Iran’s breakout timeline by…six to twelve months – the same as the negotiated approach. The problem, of course, is that unlike a diplomatic solution, which would trade sanctions relief for verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear program, an Israeli (or U.S.) military strike would have the opposite effect, and could prompt Iran to kick out inspectors and make a dash for a nuclear deterrent.

All this suggests an understanding of the potential timelines under these scenarios points to one conclusion – the White House is taking the best approach, one that extends the breakout timeline and has the best potential for securing an intrusive inspections regime to ensure Iranian compliance.

Opponents of diplomacy would do well to reflect on the reality that as the United States has tried to leverage sanctions against Iran, Tehran has responded by ramping up the production of centrifuges. As a result, the U.S. has long been in need of a new direction in its policy toward Iran.

Tentatively, but unmistakably, the Obama Administration has pursued a new approach – one that has brought us the first freeze on Iran’s nuclear program in a decade and which reports suggests have led to significant concessions on Iran’s Arak reactor.

If such a deal is not good enough for some in Congress or Israel’s government, then they must be prepared to speak up and offer viable alternatives. In the meantime, they should avoid undermining one of the most promising prospects for limiting Iran’s nuclear program in years.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Time to reveal the truth on Israel’s theft of nuclear weapons fuel from USA

secret-agent-SmNearly 50 years have passed since the events in question. It is time to level with the public. At this point it is up to the president himself to decide whether to declassify completely the NUMEC documents, all of which are over 30 years old. He should do so. We know that is asking a lot given the president’s sensitivity about anything involving Israel, and especially anything relating to Israeli nuclear weapons. But none of his political concerns outweigh his responsibility to tell the US public the historical truth it deserves to know.

flag-IsraelDid Israel steal bomb-grade uranium from the United States? Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Victor GilinskyRoger J. Mattson 17 April 14 Last month the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP), the nation’s highest classification authority, released a number of top-level government memoranda that shed additional light on the so-called NUMEC affair, “the story that won’t go away—the possibility that in the 1960s, Israel stole bomb-grade uranium from a US nuclear fuel-processing plant.”

The evidence available for our 2010 Bulletin article persuaded us that Israel did steal uranium from the Apollo, Pennsylvania, plant of the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC). We urged the US government to declassify CIA and FBI documents to settle the matter. In releasing the current batch—the release being largely due to the persistent appeals of researcher Grant Smith—the government has been careful to excise from all the released documents the CIA’s reasons for fingering Israel.

Despite this, the documents are significantly revealing. Continue reading

April 19, 2014 Posted by | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

A city that produces 4 times more energy than it consumes – solar Sonnenschiff

Sonnenschiff: Solar City Produces 4X the Energy it Consumes by , 07/27/11 Sonnenschiff solar city in Freiburg, Germany is very much net positive. The self-sustaining city accomplishes this feat through smart solar design and lots and lots of photovoltaic panels pointed in the right direction. It seems like a simple strategy — but designers often incorporate solar installations as an afterthought, or worse, as a label. Designed by Rolf Disch, the Sonnenschiff (Solar Ship) and Solarsiedlung (Solar Village) emphasize power production from the start by smartly incorporating a series of large rooftop solar arrays that double as sun shades. The buildings are also built to Passivhaus standards, which allows the project to produce four times the amount of energy it consumes!


The project started out as a vision for an entire community — the medium-density project balances size, accessibility, green space, and solar exposure. In all, 52 homes make up a neighborhood anchored to Sonnenschiff, a mixed-use residential and commercial building that emphasizes livability with a minimal footprint. Advanced technologies like phase-change materials and vacuum insulation significantly boost the thermal performance of the building’s wall system.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | decentralised, Germany, renewable | 1 Comment

U.S. Republican Senator Rand Paul said: Nuclear Iran is Not a Threat to Israel

diplomacy-not-bombsflag-IranRand Paul: Nuclear Iran Not a Threat to U.S., Israel, Washington Free Beacon, Endorsed Bilderberg conspiracy theories before winning Senate seat BY:  April 18, 2014

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) denied that a nuclear Iran would pose a national security threat to the United States or Israel in a 2007 radio interview with talk show host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

“Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat. Like my dad [Rep. Ron Paul] says, [the Iranians] don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have a Navy,” said Paul, according to a recording of the interview. “You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our national security.”

“It’s not even that viable to say they’re a national threat to Israel,” Paul added. “Most people say Israel has 100 nuclear weapons, you know.”

The future senator, who was working on his father’s presidential campaign at the time, also came out against military action, saying Republicans “all want to invade Iran next.”

“I tell people in speeches, I say, you know we’re against the Iraq War, we have been from the beginning,” said Paul. “But you know we’re also against the Iran war—you know the one that hasn’t started yet.”………..

April 19, 2014 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Renewable energy – Ukraine’s road to energy independence

renewable_energyflag-UkraineRenewables seen as Ukraine’s road to energy independence from Russia April 18, 2014  As a way of becoming less reliant on Russian conventional energy Ukraine is talking to US investors who want to put money into alternative energy like wind and solar.

Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine indeed brought energy security concerns to the fore,” as Bloomberg quotes Olexander Motsyk, Ukraine’s ambassador to the US said at a renewable-energy conference in Washington on Thursday. “I strongly believe the time has come for US investors to discover Ukraine, especially its energy.

To get away from Russian natural gas as the primary source for heat and electric power, Ukraine seeks wants to invest in biomass heat plants, wind and solar power.

US and European officials have been trying to find ways to help Ukraine limit its dependence, including the possibility of US approval to export liquefied natural gas.

Vadym Glamazdin, the managing director of the Energy Industry Research Center (EIRC) suggests heating in Ukraine accounts for about 40 percent of all gas imported from Russia. This could be replaced with renewable energy within three to five years.

According to his words by 2030, renewables could account for about 15 percent of Ukraine’s electricity supply, currently it is only 2 percent.

The EIRC research shows that the most likely and adoptable form of renewable energy for Ukraine are biomass and biogas, as the nation’s network of electric-power lines and substations can’t easily adjust to the addition of significant amounts of wind and solar energy.

The resources are there,” now the major challenge is to attract investment, Todd Foley, a senior vice president for policy and government relations at the American Council on Renewable Energy said.

One biomass plant could replace 24,000 natural gas boilers EIRC officials said.

April 19, 2014 Posted by | renewable, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Navajo art against uranium mining

Uranium mining should not be permitted.Daily Times, VENAYA YAZZIE, 17 April 14 “……..For the People’s Choice show I created an art piece specifically on the topic of uranium mining on the Navajo reservation, or as my people refer to the land of our ancestors – Dinétah. My Navajo tribe has endured many atrocities and triumphs since our forced exodus and return from Fort Sumner, in 1868. Yet, I believe the most terrible has been the disastrous effects of uranium mining on ancestral Navajo lands.

My painting which is titled ée’t’só: Roaming Monsters in Dinétah and Sodizin as Our Weapon, concerns the history of uranium mining in the 20th century, which shows that from 1944 to 1986 about four million tons of uranium ore was extracted throughout the reservation. Today, the Navajo reservation is riddled with 521 abandoned uranium mines, in the state of New Mexico alone there are 450. The disheartening fact is that most of these abandoned mines on the Navajo reservation have been declared contaminated sites and are no longer habitable. This fact alone is the reality that human rights to clean air, water and a healthy environment have been taken away. My hope is that this knowledge will not only bring awareness to the community, but also to the world that uranium mining should not be permitted……”

April 19, 2014 Posted by | general | 1 Comment