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

Nuclear industry bamboozling the Environmental Protection Agency: Nuclear is NOT clean

dirty-nuclearUnclean Nuclear Energy, ttp:// ROGER JOHNSON The nuclear industry is bamboozling the Environmental Protection Agency into its agenda of promoting nuclear power as “clean” (“E.P.A. Wrestles With Role of Nuclear Plants in Carbon Emission Rules,” Business Day, Dec. 26). It is no secret that every nuclear power plant regularly emits low-level radiation into the environment. Why focus only on carbon emissions while ignoring iodine-129, plutonium-239, cesium-135 and other lethal radionuclides?

The nuclear industry wants us to focus narrowly on the fission process and to ignore the footprint of mining, milling, global-warming-nuke2enrichment, processing and storing of nuclear fuel.

elephant-in-room1It also wants us to ignore the elephant in the room: its inability to rid the planet of high-level nuclear waste that accumulates every hour that any nuclear power plant is operating. The latest plan of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in effect to turn every nuclear power plant in the country into a nuclear waste dump is shocking indeed.

The bottom line is very simple: Nuclear power is the most expensive, the most unreliable, the most dangerous and the most environmentally damaging of all forms of energy production.


January 2, 2015 Posted by | general | 3 Comments

David Attenborough’s warning to world leaders, to stop denying climate change

climate-changeDavid Attenborough: Leaders are in denial about climate change The Independent 1 Jan 15 Sir David Attenborough is calling on global leaders to step-up their actions to curb climate change, saying that they are in denial about the dangers it poses despite the overwhelming evidence about its risks.

The TV naturalist said those who wield power need to use it: “Wherever you look there are huge risks. The awful thing is that people in authority and power deny that, when the evidence is overwhelming and they deny it because it’s easier to deny it – much easier to deny it’s a problem and say ‘we don’t care’,” Sir David said.

In terms of climate change, “we won’t do enough and no one can do enough, because it’s a very major, serious problem facing humanity; but at the same time it would be silly to minimise the size of the problem,” he told Sky News.

Later this year a crucial UN climate summit will be held, at which world leaders have pledged to agree to tough cuts in their carbon emissions, to ensure the increase in global warming does not exceed 2°C – beyond which its consequences become increasingly devastating.

Although that meeting is not scheduled to take place until December, the scale of the task ahead is huge and world leaders are already working towards the summit.

However Sir David is concerned that, despite the increasingly obvious scale of the threat climate change poses, leaders are not taking the matter as seriously as they should. “Never in the history of humanity in the last 10 million years have all human beings got together to face one danger that threatens us – never.

“It’s a big ask, but the penalty of not taking any notice is huge,” he said.

Sir David’s comments come two days after a separate warning – on the dangers posed by the booming human population. “It’s desperately difficult, the dangers are apparent to anybody,” he told The Independent. We can’t go on increasing at the rate human beings are increasing forever, because the Earth is finite and you can’t put infinity into something that is finite.

“So if we don’t do something about it – the natural world that is – we will starve,” Sir David said…………..

January 2, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

Economically, closure of Vermont Nuclear Plant points to the coming transformation of USA’s electricity system

piggy-bank--nuke-sadEven optimistic projections of the cost of building new nuclear reactors leaves them four times as costly as energy efficiency and twice as costly as wind and gas. Many analysts believe that solar power will be significantly less costly than nuclear in the next decade. Moreover, nuclear power never lives up to the optimistic cost projections of its boosters. Reactors under construction in the U.S. and Europe are way behind schedule and over budget.

sun-championThe problem with new reactor construction costs is well known, but the really stunning development is the problem that nuclear power has in terms of operating costs

the “dinosaurs” in the electricity sector have enough political clout to slow or prevent the change in the environment. Nuclear power is a major obstacle, demonstrated by its steadfast opposition to and an all-out attack on renewables and efficiency. Shuttering old, uneconomic reactors like Vermont Yankee is important not only because it removes an economic obstacle to change, but also because it shows the political will to transform America’s electricity system.

Why Closing Vermont Yankee Won’t Raise New England’s Power Bills Forbes Staff , Contributor Mark Cooper 31 Dec 14  Mr. Cooper is a senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. Critics of the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor have forecast a 40 percent jump in New England winter heating bills as a result of the shutdown. The facts suggest they have it wrong in more ways than one. Continue reading

January 2, 2015 Posted by | business and costs, ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Grim year ahead for nuclear industry, with ever cheaper renewables and climate action

renewables-not-nukesNuclear faces tough 2015 as renewables growth soars RTCC Responding to Climate Change 31 December 2014,  Governments are still spending billions on nuclear research, but it looks like being an unhappy new year for the industry  By Paul Brown

With nuclear power falling ever further behind renewables as a global energy source, and as the price of oil and gas falls, the future of the industry in 2015 and beyond looks bleak.

Renewables now supply 22% of global electricity and nuclear only 11% − a share that is gradually falling as old plants close and fewer new ones are commissioned.

New large-scale installations of wind and solar power arrays continue to surge across the world. Countries without full grids and power outages, such as India, increasingly find that wind and solar are quick and easy ways to bring electricity to people who have previously had no supply.

Developed countries, meanwhile, faced with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, find that the cost of both these renewable technologies is coming down substantially. Subsidies for wind and solar are being reduced and, in some cases, will disappear altogether in the next 10 years.

Speed of installation

The other advantage that renewables have is speed of installation. Solar panels, once manufactured, can be installed on a rooftop and be in operation in a single day. Wind turbines can be put up in a week.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, continues to get more expensive. In China and Russia, costs are not transparent, and even in democracies they hard to pin down. But it is clear that they are rising dramatically…………

a drawback is the price tag of around $3 billion dollars. Both the US and UK are supporting private firms in research and development, but commercial operation is a long way off.

Whether a small nuclear power station would be any more welcomed than a wind or solar farm to provide power in a neighbourhood is a question still to be tested.

Nuclear enthusiasts − and there are still many in the political and scientific world − continue to work on fast breeder reactors, fusion and thorium reactors, heavily supported by governments who still believe that one day the technology will piggy-bank--nuke-sadbe the source of cheap and unlimited power. But, so far, that remains a distant dream.

In the meantime, investors are increasingly sceptical about putting their money into nuclear − whereas renewables promise an increasingly rapid return on investment, and may get a further boost if the governments of the world finally take climate change seriously.


January 2, 2015 Posted by | 2 WORLD, renewable | Leave a comment

Under the public radar, NATO is modernising its tactical nuclear arsenal.

NATO’s nuclear relapse Under the public radar, NATO is modernising its tactical nuclear arsenal. Aljazeera  Ian Klinke  1 Dec 15  Ian Klinke is a researcher at the University of Oxford.Moscow’s latest tests of intercontinental missiles and its parading of nuclear capable strategic bombers have rightly prompted international concern. In December 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov implied that Russia might be moving nuclear weapons to Crimea.

From violations of airspace to near mid-air collisions, the number of incidents between Russia and NATO has soared dramatically, increasing the danger of an unintended escalation. Yet, it is rarely mentioned that NATO, too, is back in the game of nuclear deterrence.

Washington has recently sent its nuclear capable B-2 and B-52 to Europe for training missions with its NATO partners. It also continues to test intercontinental ballistic missiles. Most problematically, the western military alliance is currently modernising the air-launched nuclear gravity bombs that fall under NATO’s nuclear sharing initiative………..


Tactical nukes are particularly problematic because their short range provides the missing link between a localised conventional war and a highly improbable global exchange of strategic nuclear missiles between Moscow and Washington.

Tactical nuclear weapons are no status quo weapons. Their battlefield purpose increases the chance of a nuclear escalation, which is why the superpowers removed most of them from Central Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

If everything goes to plan, the controversial B61 weapons will be modernised by around 2020. This “life extension programme” is not simply an initiative to replace rusty old nukes with shiny new ones, but an attempt to increase their accuracy, to replace free fall with precision guided bombs.

Ultimately, this will transform the B61 into a new kind of weapon and undermine any pretence that the West is still in the game of denuclearisation.

Interestingly, plans to modernise the B61 were initiated in April 2010, only shortly after NATO decided to scrap its nuclear missile shield in Eastern Europe and in the same month that the two largest nuclear powers signed a new Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty.

How does NATO explain this nuclear relapse precisely at a time when the alliance had just “reset” its relations with Russia? And what role does the B61 play in the Ukrainian proxy war?……..


January 2, 2015 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nowhere to put nuclear waste, so the companies just sue the USA government

Waste Confidence 1Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant Just Shut Down; U.S. Still Has No System for Disposing of Nuclear Waste BY  12/31/14 The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant officially went offline Monday, halting the nuclear reaction process and beginning what could be a nearly 40-year process to fully decommission the plant. But what happens to all the plant’s nuclear waste at the end of those decades? No one knows for sure, because the U.S. government has nowhere to put it.

That’s also the case for the nuclear waste from decommissioned plants all over the country: Their spent fuel rods remain on the reactor property, trapped inside steel cylinders called “dry casks,” even after the reactor is disassembled.

Since 1998, the federal government has been legally bound to remove dry-casked nuclear waste from private plants and dispose of it in a secure facility. But it can’t, because no such facility exists. Yucca Mountain, the facility that might have been, has been in limbo since its conception in 1987. It was initially scheduled to come online in 1998, but never did. Only 5 miles of the 40-mile storage tunnel were ever built. With more than $30 billion already collected over three decades from taxpayers for the project, the Obama administration cut funding to the mostly-unbuilt project in 2011.

As it stands now, it’s predicted the waste from the plant will be transfered from cooling ponds into dry casks by 2020. Then those casks may end up sitting on the reactor’s property in Vernon, Vermont, indefinitely, like so many thousands of casks lying around on reactor sites all over the country. The Vermont Yankee lists 2052 as the year the federal government might come take them away, but that’s pending Congressional action that has not yet taken place. So what does a corporation do when a contract, government or otherwise, is violated? They sue.

“You then sue the Department of Energy for the costs that are incurred for storing the spent fuel. [So do] all the other decommissioned facilities—the dry casks still remain on the site because there’s no place to bring the spent fuel. So you sue the Department of Energy and they pay you back for the cost that you’ve incurred,” says Martin Cohn, a spokesperson Entergy Wholesale Commodities, which owns Vermont Yankee.

Continue reading

January 2, 2015 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Savannah River Site Secretly Becoming World’s Nuclear Dumping Ground

wastes-1Flag-USASecretly Dumping Other People’s Problem Savannah River Site Becoming World’s Nuclear Dumping Ground, despite Safety Risks By: GLORIA TATUM Atlanta Progressive News 6-9-2014 (APN) ATLANTA The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is close to finalizing plans to accept highly radioactive commercial spent nuclear fuel from Germany to be deposited at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, according to news reports that were buried deeper than the plutonium itself.

However, it is not only Germany that is sending, or has sent, nuclear waste to SRS, but also Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Canada, and perhaps other countries not yet known, Atlanta Progressive News has learned.

Atlanta Progressive News can report that South Carolina’s Savannah River Site is quietly becoming the world’s nuclear dumping ground, and de facto nuclear waste storage site, despite the facts that frequent rain and an overlapping earthquake zone make the site extremely dangerous, especially to our water supply.

There is no long-term storage plan for the waste in the U.S., with the Yucca Mountain proposal on the rocks, as it were, and with a temporary nuclear waste storage site in New Mexico having been closed to new shipments indefinitely.

SRS is already quietly storing plutonium brought in from other countries, and is now also planning to import 23,000 liters of liquid high-level waste from the Chalk River Laboratories in Canada, which would end up in the already stressed high-level waste tank system, according to an SRS Watch news release.

Shipments of foreign plutonium appear to have been secretly brought in via Charleston, South Carolina, in February and March 2014 of this year, according to an article by the Ottawa Citizen, dated March 29, 2014.

The article has a photo of PNTL transport ship Pacific Egret, noting that the ship carried guns and cannons, and that the ship–which originated in Italy with sensitive nuclear material– disappeared from an online marine tracking system after entering Canadian waters:

Italy and Belgium have announced the transfer of plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) to the Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site.  The Italy and Belgium imports are admitted to in two respective statements posted to the White House’s website, just days before the Ottawa Citizen report:

Meanwhile, according to Reuters and other reports, Japan will transfer HEU and plutonium to the U.S., but that the destination is not known.  However, based on the closure of the New Mexico facility, it is highly reasonable to suspect that the Japanese shipment will also be dumped at SRS.

At the National Security Summit at the Hague on March 24 and 25, 2014, a priority item on the agenda was to reduce the amount of dangerous nuclear material in the world.  They issued a statement that countries should repatriate highly enriched uranium (HEU) to its country of origin, thereby reducing the number of locations that terrorist groups could target to obtain it.

With the U.S. being the country of origin for much of the world’s nuclear material, this means all our nuclear chickens are coming home to roost…….


January 2, 2015 Posted by | USA, wastes | 1 Comment

A diplomatic deal with Iran would be the most globally significant step forward

diplomacy-not-bombsflag-IranA nuclear deal with Iran would mean a less volatile world, Julian Borger Guardian, 1 jan 15 There will be no greater diplomatic prize in 2015 than a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran. In its global significance, it would dwarf the US detente with Cuba, and not just because there are seven times more Iranians than Cubans. This deal will not be about cash machines in the Caribbean, but about nuclear proliferation in the most volatile region on Earth.

An agreement was supposed to have been reached by 24 November, but Iran and the west were too far apart to make the final leap. After nine months of bargaining, the intricate, multidimensional negotiation boiled down to two main obstacles: Iran’s long-term capacity to enrich uranium, and the speed and scale of sanctions relief.

Iran wants international recognition of its right not just to enrich, but to do so on an industrial scale. It wants to maintain its existing infrastructure of 10,000 centrifuges in operation and another 9,000 on standby, and it wants to be able to scale that capacity up many times.

The US and its allies say Tehran has no need for so much enriched uranium. Its one existing reactor is Russian-built, as are its planned reactors, so all of them come with Russian-supplied fuel as part of the contract. The fear is that industrial enrichment capacity would allow Iran to make a bomb’s-worth of weapons-grade uranium very quickly, if it decided it needed one – faster than the international community could react.

However, the west is currently not offering large-scale, immediate sanctions relief in return for such curbs on Iran’s activity. President Barack Obama can only temporarily suspend US congressional sanctions, and western states are prepared to reverse only some elements of UN security council sanctions. The best the west can offer upfront is a lifting of the EU oil embargo.

These gaps remain substantial, but none of the parties involved can walk away from the table. A collapse of talks would lead to a slide back to the edge of conflict between Iran and Israel; the latter has vowed to launch military strikes rather than allow the former to build a bomb. It could also trigger a wave of proliferation across the region and beyond as other countries hedge their bets.

So the parties to the talks have given themselves more time – until 1 March 2015 – to agree a framework deal for bridging them and until 1 July to work out all of the details. ……

January 2, 2015 Posted by | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Vermont Nuclear Shutdown highlights reality of nuclear’s radioactive legacy

text-wise-owlAnother Reactor Closes, Punctuating New Reality for U.S. Nuclear Power As Vermont Yankee shuts down, the U.S. has yet to address industry issues that span decades Christina Nunez National Geographic JANUARY 1, 2015

As another nuclear power plant closed this week, the United States faced a dwindling fleet of aging reactors, few new projects, and the challenge of safely mothballing radioactive fuel for decades……..

So far, nuclear isn’t winning. Vermont Yankee, which shut down Monday after 42 years of operation, is the fourth U.S. nuclear facility to close in two years. For the owners of each recent retiree—from Vermont Yankee to San Onofre in California, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, and Crystal River in Florida—the math just didn’t work.

“When we looked at the cost of those improvements with what we projected as the cost of energy, the decision was that it would be better to shut the plant down,” said Martin Cohn, spokesperson for Vermont Yankee’s operator, Entergy.

More closures in the United States, the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, could lead to a far different nuclear landscape from the one imagined before the gas boom.

Nuclear’s Long-Term Legacy

Technically, the decades-long process of decommissioning a nuclear plant hasn’t changed much over the years: The reactor is shut down, the radioactive fuel is removed and encased for storage, and the plant itself is eventually dismantled.

“We will have a concrete pad with a bunch of casks of spent fuel on it that will look almost exactly like the ones at Maine Yankee or Yankee Rowe [in Massachusetts],” which retired in 1996 and 1991, respectively, said Chris Wamser, Vermont Yankee site vice president.

The rules surrounding that process haven’t changed either, which is a problem, according to Vermont Yankee executives. “Just because we shut down, we’re still a nuclear plant with a license,” said Barrett Green, who is leading the project. He said the NRC hasn’t finalized a road map for decommissioning.


“We’ve had to make all sorts of petitions for amendments to the license, or exceptions to a rule, or various other allowances for the regulatory process to say it’s OK for us to stop maintaining a system that we’re never going to need again,” Green said.

Outgoing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Allison Macfarlane acknowledged this issue at a National Press Club luncheon in November, suggesting that the agency has not prepared for a future where, instead of overseeing new nuclear plants, it is reckoning with older plants such as Vermont Yankee retiring ahead of schedule.

“The predicted ‘nuclear renaissance’ did not materialize,” Macfarlane said. “It’s time for the NRC to develop regulations specific to the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and to structure public expectations of the process.”………On Twitter: Follow Christina Nunez and get more environment and energy coverage at NatGeoGreen. The story is part of a special series that explores energy issues. For more, visit The Great Energy Challenge

January 2, 2015 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Can we trust public officials on nuclear radiation?

regulatory-capture-1I wish I could trust public officials to honestly appraise the public of conditions, risks, and mitigation strategies but I cannot.

I worry that even the environmental science on Fukushima and other radioactive contamination processes will be corrupted by capture.

Beta Spikes and Rising Radiation Levels
Yesterday and perhaps the day before Phoenix encountered a radioactive plume: I don’t know where it came from. It could have derived from Fukushima, Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, or Palo Verde nuclear power plant. In the end, I guess it doesn’t matter because the overarching point is that nuclear power plants are contaminating our environment with man-made radionuclides (and I do mean “man” made).

After seeing this uptick in beta count, I perused the other west coast sites. Many Radnet sites are no longer reporting beta data at all, while gamma data patterns look odd,

The EPA Radnet data over the last three years have not been reliable because of many problems with collection, inexplicable temporary outages, and permanently offline sites. I strongly suspect these problems are deliberate because the EPA Inspector General chastised the Radnet system, and Gina McCarthy who was responsible for EPA’s atmospheric radiation monitoring, for poor performance during the March 2011 Fukushima disaster and yet the problems cited in their report remain unaddressed and now Gina is heading the EPA. Poor performance was richly rewarded.

My guess is that there have been deliberate efforts made to halt and/or censor atmospheric radiation reporting at locations that show strong beta surges with incoming radiation plumes from Fukushima and other spewing nuclear power plants. Continue reading

January 2, 2015 Posted by | spinbuster, USA | 1 Comment

Radioactive pollution of Lake Malawi by Australian uranium company Paladin?

Malawi-LakeThe lake provides water for drinking and domestic use to millions of Malawians. Part of the lake is protected as a national park, and it is inhabited by more than 850 cichlid fish species found nowhere else on Earth.

Malawi: Paladin Accused of Discharging Uranium-Contaminated Sludge in Lake Malawi A coalition of Malawi civil society organisations (CSOs) has accused Paladin Energy Ltd, a company that is mining Uranium ore at Kayerekera in the northern district of Karonga over reports the mining company is secretly discharging into Lake Malawi uranium contaminated sludge from the tailings dam at the mining site.

Renowned human rights activist, Rafiq Hajat shared a report compiled by a members of the Natural Resources Justice Network (NRJN) in which it is alleged paladin is discharging uranium sludge from Kayerekera into Lake Malawi.

“A radius of 35 km from the Boma, you will be shocked to see fish of different species dead with some communities along the lakeshore collecting [the fish]. Collectiong as part of their relish. The cause not yet known. Reports from the Beach Village Chairman indicates that this started in late November but Government was not forth coming (sich)” reads part of the post.

Paladin had aroused the wrath of the coalition of the CSOs under the banner of Natural Resources Justice Network (NRJN) over reports which emerged late November that Paladin Energy was planning of discharging uranium mining sludge into the Sere and North Rukuru rivers.

The toxic substances that would flow from the tailings pond at the Kayelekera Uranium Mine into Lake Malawi 50 kilometers (30 miles) downstream include waste uranium rock, acids, arsenic and other chemicals used in processing the uranium ore, the coalition fears.

“It is rumored that Paladin secretly have started discharging the so called purified water and the trip was one of the verification. This is terrible news and may have catastrophic ramifications if not checked immediately.” Reads the statement shared by Hajat.

However, in a statement issued last month, Paladin Energy stated that water from its tailings dam at Kayelekera uranium mine which is discharging into the North Rukuru River poses no human or environmental risks.

The process has been reviewed and agreed by relevant agencies of the Government of Malawi, which is imposing conditions regulating critical water quality parameters, including uranium, consistent with international guidelines” a statement issued in November by Paladin Energy stated.

The company also said that it plans to start discharging the water in early 2015 and that reports it is discharging the contaminated wastes are not true.

Lake Malawi in eastern Africa is the world’s ninth largest lake, some 580 kilometers (360 miles) long, and 75 kilometres (47 miles) wide at its widest point. It extends into Malawi’s neighbours Tanzania and Mozambique.

The lake provides water for drinking and domestic use to millions of Malawians. Part of the lake is protected as a national park, and it is inhabited by more than 850 cichlid fish species found nowhere else on Earth.

Paladin Africa is the Malawi subsidiary of Australian mining giant Paladin Energy Ltd, with 15 percent owned by the Government of Malawi.

Last year, Paladin Africa’s Kayelekera Mine in Karonga produced 1,066 metric tonnes of U3O8, triuranium octoxide, a compound of uranium. One of the more popular forms of yellowcake, U3O8 is converted to uranium hexafluoride to make enriched uranium for use in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

January 2, 2015 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, environment, Malawi | Leave a comment

USA getting ready for a year of conflict, ready for first strike nuclear attack.

weapons1US shaped 2015 to be a year of conflict Press TV Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Jan 15 The conflict that Washington has initiated between the West and Russia/China is reckless and irresponsible. Nuclear war could be the outcome. Indeed, Washington has been preparing for nuclear war since the George W. Bush regime.

Washington has revised US war doctrine in order to initiate conflict with a first strike nuclear attack.

Washington has discarded the ABM treaty in order to build and deploy anti-ballistic missiles that are intended to prevent a retaliatory strike against the US. Washington is engaged in a buildup of military forces on Russia’s borders, and Washington is demonizing Russia’s government with false charges.

As the Bush/Obama regimes dismantled the safeguards put in place in order to minimize the risk of nuclear war, no protests came from the American public or the media. Washington’s European vassal states have also been silent.

Washington’s drive for hegemony has brought nuclear insanity to the world.

Moscow and Beijing understand that they are Washington’s targets. As Larchmonter explains, Russia and China are conjoining their economic and military capabilities in order to protect against Washington’s attack. (Read what Larchmonter reports. Open the URL in my column below and run your cursor over the bottom of the page and click “page fit.” Choose 50% and readable text will fill your screen.)

Washington’s demonization of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad were preludes to military attacks on Iraq, Libya, and Syria. In view of these precedents, it is reasonable to regard Washington’s demonization of Vladimir Putin as a prelude to military action.

Russia is not Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Russian war doctrine states that Russia can use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear or conventional attack on Russia. For the world to sit silent while Washington’s arrogance provokes armageddon telegraphs total political failure. Where are the voices in behalf of humanity?……………….

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

January 2, 2015 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Did America’s CIA orchestrate the coup in Ukraine?

flag-UkraineOliver Stone Says Ukrainian Coup Was Directed by CIA US film maker claims he is currently engaged in production of a documentary about Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. WASHINGTON, December 31 (Sputnik) – US filmmaker Oliver Stone is currently engaged in production of a documentary about Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who fled the country following the February coup, according to the post on his Facebook page published Tuesday.

“[I] Interviewed Viktor Yanukovych 4 hours in Moscow for new English language documentary produced by Ukrainians. He [Yanukovych] was the legitimate President of Ukraine until he suddenly wasn’t on February 22 of this year. Details to follow in the documentary,” Stone said.

According to the renowned filmmaker, in the aftermath of the coup, “the West has maintained the dominant narrative of ‘Russia in Crimea’ whereas the true narrative is ‘USA in Ukraine.’ The truth is not being aired in the West. It’s a surreal perversion of history that’s going on once again, as in Bush pre-Iraq ‘WMD’ [Weapons of Mass Destruction] campaign.”

Stone also said that the shooters, who killed killed 14 police officers, wounded some 85, and killed 45 protesting civilians during the clashes in Kiev, were outside “third party agitators.”

“Many witnesses, including Yanukovych and police officials, believe these foreign elements were introduced by pro-Western factions with CIA fingerprints on it,” he stated.

Stone concluded by expressing hope that the truth about the Ukrainian coup would come out in the West soon “in time to stop further insanity.”

Former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted late February following mass rallies in Kiev, triggered by the president’s refusal to sign a European Union association agreement. Yanukovych fled the country for Russia, while the protests led to the violent unrest in Ukraine, that dramatically escalated in mid-April, when Kiev launched a military operation against independence supporters in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

January 2, 2015 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) facility would further pollute and endanger Georgia and South Carolina

MOXSavannah River Site Becoming World’s Nuclear Dumping Ground, despite Safety Risks By: GLORIA TATUM Atlanta Progressive News 6-9-2014

“……..We are wasting money and increasing the risk of a terrorist accident if we build that MOX plant at SRS.  Plutonium fuel cost more than uranium fuel and there’s plenty of uranium on the planet.  So we are taking other people’s plutonium to keep a MOX plant running and no one wants to buy the output from it,” Gundersen told APN.

Plutonium is a man made element derived from the transformation of uranium through fission. Plutonium, Pu-239, has a half life of 24,100 hundred years; that’s the time it will take for half of the plutonium to radioactively decay.  Radioactive contaminants are dangerous for ten to twenty times the length of their half-lives, meaning that if plutonium gets into the environment, it will be dangerous essentially forever.  If ingested into the body, it causes DNA damage in tissue, and cancer.

The use of MOX fuel does not get rid of plutonium; instead it becomes part of the lethal soup of ingredients termed “high level nuclear waste.”  There are no safe long-term storage for nuclear waste, only interim storage solutions for waste that will remain hazardous for thousands of years.

“When I hear plutonium in the environment, it becomes a problem not only for the next generation – we were not even a [human] species a quarter of a million years ago – we might be a new species before this stuff completely disintegrates from the environment,” Gundersen said.

Citizens living downstream from the site have complained for years of high levels of cancer and death in their community, which they attribute to the SRS and Plant Vogtle’s nuclear reactors across the river on the Georgia side.

“The DOE is more interested in jobs this year and totally forgetting about the environmental costs for the next 300 or a thousand years.  It’s unfair to the people of Georgia and South Carolina to make some money now and pollute the Savannah River for a thousand years,” Gundersen said.

January 2, 2015 Posted by | - plutonium, reprocessing, USA | Leave a comment




  • Dr. Alex Rosen of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, who takes on and eviscerates the United Nations’UNSCEAR report that criminally underplays the radiation dangers from Fukushima; International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War;
  • Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, executive director of Radiation and Public Health Project, who explains why TEPCO’s interpretation of radiation data is intentionally wrong as the company tries to undermine legitimate claims of damages to the health of the USS Ronald Reagan sailors, who were hit with catastrophic radiation while on an humanitarian aid mission in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima.


IPPNW – English:  Link to downloadable PDF:

IPPNW – Germany:
IPPNW Germany’s Fukushima Website w/link to downloadable PDF:

Japanese version of Critical Analysis of UNSCEAR report – WHO (世界保健機関)の「2011年東日本大地震津波後の原発事故がもたらす被曝線量の仮算定」フクシマ大災害リポート:アレックスローゼン博士による分析の 日本語版はこちらをクリックして下さい。:

January 2, 2015 Posted by | general | Leave a comment