nuclear-news

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

Inside the vast web of PR firms popularizing the Saudi crown prince

adcompanies2013acquisitiontally

@_ChrisMaguire

They mention Burson-Marsteller but avoid mentioning WPP LLC (Its parent company) who are behind the scenes covering up SCL (Cambridge Analytica) election voting scandals, The BP Gulf Oil Disaster, The Fukushima nuclear disaster etc etc. A great bit of investigative Journalism by Christine Maguire here;

“…Previously, the small firm didn’t have a record of dealing with governments, but has ties to Trump. President Jacob Daniels was chief of staff at Trump’s Michigan campaign and owner Robert Stryk is a Republican operative who represented former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

The list of US firms on the Saudi payroll is extensive. Other companies include The Harbour Group, Burson-Marsteller, Hill & Knowlton, King & Spalding, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Fleishman-Hillard Inc, Hogan & Hartson. The FT reported in September the kingdom’s information ministry was seeking to set up ‘hubs’ in Europe and Asia “to promote the changing face of KSA to the rest of the world and to improve international perception of the kingdom.”

Despite the best efforts of the multitude of PR firms, Saudi Arabia’s attempts to completely rebrand have fallen short. Bin Salman’s war in Yemen and the subsequent blockade on aid remains a sore point. Then there’s his November crackdown on corruption, which saw hundreds of businessmen and members of the royal family imprisoned in a luxury hotel where accusations of torture soon emerged.

The kingdom’s much-touted reform when it comes to women is the best PR for the country. However, with multiple reports that bin Salman has imprisoned his own mother to prevent her from influencing his father, not to mention the other obstacles imposed on the women of Saudi Arabia, the crown prince has a long way to go before he can truly be considered any sort of feminist, as Amnesty International noted on Thursday….”

https://www.rt.com/news/422858-saudi-pr-firms-yemen-terrorism/

Further reading here;

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/WPP

And here;

Beware the reputation managers

May 2011 (Post Fukushima)
“…Crisis management may, in its turn, mitigate the cost and impact of disasters, even those that are the product of mismanagement. Anterooms to the executive suite are suddenly crowded with advisers eager to point out that BP’s bill would have been lower if it had fostered better political connections before, and communicated and lobbied differently after, the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe. ..
.”

https://www.ft.com/content/cb24bd52-7fe4-11e0-b018-00144feabdc0

Image source;

http://adage.com/article/global-news/wpp-lead-deal-maker-54-acquisitions-2013/291800/

NOTE

Please note that the extensive articles posted on this blog on this companies connection to industrial disaster crisis management for governments and corporations, that mentioned WPP LLC complicity to the Fukushima nuclear disaster are not accessible as the new Google search algorythm (since July 2017) seems to block much of the content posted on this (and other websites, blogs etc)  blog (Shaun aka arclight2011). Some evidence for that here;

Advertisements

March 31, 2018 Posted by | politics, Saudi Arabia, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Women, today and always, understand and fight the peril of nuclear war, nuclear pollution

WOMEN WILL RID THE WORLD OF NUCLEAR BOMBS, https://www.damemagazine.com/2018/03/09/women-will-rid-the-world-of-nuclear-bombs/ While Trump and Kim Jong-un plan to compare button sizes, female activists are working to erase nuclear threat. But will it be enough?, Dame,  

During this dangerous time, women are leading the charge to eradicate weapons of mass destruction and forestall nuclear war. We saw this most recently in the 2017 U.N. Treaty to Prohibit the Use of Nuclear Weapons. Approved with 122 states voting for, and one against, it is the first legally binding global ban on nuclear weapons, with the intention of moving toward their complete elimination. The preamble to the treaty recognizes the maltreatment suffered as a result of nuclear weapons, including the disproportionate impact on women and girls, and on indigenous peoples around the world. The treaty has been predominantly championed and promoted by women.

My interest in nuclear issues began nearly 10 years ago when I first uncovered my mother’s work as an antinuclear activist with a group called Women Strike for Peace. I have been following women doing nuclear activism all over the world—writing about them, protesting with them, teaching about them in my university classes—and I often bring my daughter with me. My mother’s story is being passed down through an intergenerational maternal line, and with it, the activism that may help save the world, or at least help shift its view on disastrous weapons. Learning about my mother’s work radically changed my perception of her. It also changed my life.

Between 1945 and 1963, more than 200 atmospheric, underwater, and space nuclear bomb tests were conducted by the U.S., primarily in the Nevada desert and the Marshall Islands. Hundreds more took place around the world. In many instances citizens were not informed of the tests, nor were they warned of their effects. The negative health impacts of the testing and exposure to ionizing radiation turned out to be vast: early death, cancer, heart disease, and a range of other incurable illnesses, including neurological disabilities, weakened immune systems, infertility, and miscarriage. Ionizing radiation damages genes (it is mutagenic), so the health ramifications of exposures are passed down through the generations.

In the 1950s, scientists concerned with the health impacts of bomb testing and the spread of ionizing radiation conducted the St. Louis Baby Tooth Survey. The survey showed that radioactive fallout had traveled far and wide. Cow and breast milk contaminated with the isotope strontium 90 had entered children’s teeth. Strontium 90 metabolizes as calcium and these isotopes remain active in the body for many years. When Dagmar Wilson and Bella Abzug—who went on to become a Congresswoman and co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus with Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan—learned the results of the Baby Tooth Survey, they formed Women Strike for Peace. The group brought together concerned mothers from across the U.S. The women organized. First within their communities. And then, 50,000 mothers protested across the country, and 15,000 descended on Washington, D.C. for Women’s Strike for Peace Lobbying Day on November 1, 1961. My mother was one of those 15,000 protestors. The group’s efforts brought vast political attention to the dire health consequences of radioactive fallout and led to the banning of atmospheric bomb testing by the U.S., Great Britain, and the former Soviet Union in 1963, with the signing of the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Women Strike for Peace reflects a cultural nuclear gender binary—with women constructed as peaceful antinuclear protectors of children and the nation, and men positioned as perpetrators of nuclear war—the designers, planners, and regulators of weapons of mass destruction.

Has this exclusion of women from nuclear decision-making led to our current crisis—a host of locations worldwide contaminated with radioactive waste, and the great potential for nuclear war? Leading anti-nuclear activists seem to think so.

Since the dawn of the nuclear age men have dominated and controlled nuclear weapons design and policy. As Benjamin A. Valentino, Associate Professor of Government, and Coordinator, War and Peace Studies Program, Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College says, it is only recently that women have had access to positions of power in the military sphere. This is true in weapons’ sciences and engineering as well. While many women worked on the Manhattan Project, most held administrative roles. Has this exclusion of women from nuclear decision-making led to our current crisis—a host of locations worldwide contaminated with radioactive waste, and the great potential for nuclear war? Leading anti-nuclear activists seem to think so.

Carol Cohn, founding director of the Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights at the University of Massachusetts-Boston suggests that nuclear-weapons discourse is deeply rooted in hegemonic patriarchy. In nuclear techno-language metaphors of male sexual activity are used to describe nuclear violence. Nuclear missiles are referred to in phallic terms. The violence of nuclear war is described in abstract and impersonal terms, such as “collateral damage.” In her recent New York Times op-ed, Cohn finds it unsurprising that hypermasculine nuclear language has surfaced so blatantly today with Trump’s tweets about the size of his nuclear button and his overall muscular championing of expanding the nuclear weapons complex.

Following the Women Strike for Peace model, legions of anti-nuclear NGOs worldwide are predominantly led by women, including Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Reaching Critical Will, the German Green Party, Mothers for Peace, Just Moms (St. Louis), International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp, Green Action Japan, the women of Koondakulam in India, the antinuclear nuns Megan Rice, Ardeth Platte, Carol Gilbert, and many more.

At the U.N. conference to ban nuclear weapons in 2017, I asked Civil Society experts and participants about the importance of women as leaders in the antinuclear movement, and about the hegemony of masculinity in the nuclear weapons complex.

“Of course many men support disarmament and have participated in the treaty and current anti-nuclear efforts in general, but women overwhelmingly lead,” said Tim Wright, of the Australian branch of ICAN. ICAN won the 2017 Nobel Prize for their work on The Treaty to Prohibit the Use of Nuclear Weapons.

Ray Acheson, of Reaching Critical Will, said the proliferation of nuclear weapons is deeply embedded in “a misogynist and hegemonic culture of violence.” She stated this culture is oppressive to women, LGBTQ, the poor, and people of color, and, “we must smash patriarchy.” Such is the feminist cry heard around the world, but in this case, it might actually save us.

Beatrice Fihn, director of ICAN, explained that men are raised to be violent, to think it’s necessary to resolve differences through force, while “women, conversely, are socially trained to negotiate and compromise.”

According to Fihn, the problem in a patriarchal world is that peaceful negotiations are viewed as weak. The U.S. misogynist-in-chief feels we must drop nuclear bombs, expand our nuclear arsenal, and strong-arm competing nations, such as North Korea and Russia. The very act of supporting disarmament efforts in a patriarchal framework places “you in a feminine category,” Fihn stressed. “Those in favor of abolishing nuclear weapons, whether male or female, are characterized in negative, feminized terms. This characterization must be changed. It is not weak to abolish weapons of mass destruction. It is life-affirming.”

Women better understand this because they are the ones in charge of improving quality of life for all. Women most often function as caretakers of children and the elderly, they are aware of the human cost of war and radioactive disaster. When thinking about nuclear war, they wonder, if war breaks out, “How will we feed our children, how will we feed our sick? What will happen to our communities?” Fihn says she fears nuclear violence in respect to the safety of her own children. Fihn’s concern for her children echoes the concerns of my mother and her antinuclear cohort in the 1950s and ’60s. Like Fihn, they worked to save their children—all children—from radiation contamination and nuclear war. I hope I can carry on that legacy, and that my daughter chooses to pick up the cause as well.

For the 2017 UN Treaty to Prohibit the Use of Nuclear Weapons, women helped prepare key elements of the document and gave vital health testimony. Particularly poignant were tales from Australian Indigenous, Marshallese, and Hibakusha (Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors) women. I interviewed many of these women. Abacca Anjain-Madison, a former Senator of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, told me that between 1946 and 1958, the U.S. conducted 67 nuclear bomb tests on the Atoll Islands. Many babies born during the testing period resembled jellyfish and died quickly after their births. The Marshallese developed very high rates of cancer (and other diseases) as a result of ionizing radiation exposures. Now, with climate change, the radioactive dangers persist. Rising sea levels threaten the Runit Dome—a sealed space that contains large amounts of radioactive contamination. The dome has also begun to crack, and the U.S. has no plans to assist Marshallese with this crisis. They finished the cleanup and sealed the dome in 1979. Abacca Anjain-Madison asserts the clean up was not sufficient and the dome was never meant to be permanent. The Marshallese to do not have the means to protect themselves from the impending disaster.

Mary Olson, Southeast Director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, gave a presentation at the UN on the unequal health impacts of radiation exposures. Women remain unaccounted for in nuclear regulatory safety standards. Based on the data set from the BEIR VII report that both Olson and Dr. Arjun Makhijani, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research have studied, women are twice as likely to get cancer, and nearly twice as likely than men to die from cancer associated with ionizing radiation exposures. Children are five to 10 times more likely to develop cancer in their lifetimes from radiation exposures than adult males, and girls are most vulnerable of all. Scientists do not yet understand why there is an age and gender disparity. The standard “reference man” by which radiation safety regulations are set are based on a white adult male. Olson and Makhijani argue that safety regulations must change to account for age and gender disparities. Further studies are needed to assess how people of different races are impacted by radiation exposures. To date, no such completed studies exist.

At the closing of the conference and signing of the 2017 UN Treaty to Prohibit the Use of Nuclear Weapons, two speeches were made—one by Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and leading campaigner for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Abacca Anjain-Madison of the Marshall Islands also spoke.

Setsuko Thurlow told her story of beholding the bomb dropping on her city in 1945. She described how, as an 13-year-old child, she witnessed the death of her brother, and “unthinkable” violence thrust upon on her people. For Thurlow, the signing of the UN Treaty to ban nuclear weapons is a miracle, but she believes we must rid the world of weapons entirely. She will not give up her efforts until that day comes. Neither will I.

Heidi Hutner is a writer and professor at Stony Brook University in New York. She teaches and writes about ecofeminism, literature, film and environmental studies. Currently, Hutner is working on a narrative nonfiction book manuscript titled, “Accidents Can Happen: Women and Nuclear Disaster Stories From the Field.”   Find her @HeidiHutner

March 31, 2018 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Reference, weapons and war, Women | 1 Comment

The Global Solution to Extinction – The New York Times

GarryRogers Nature Conservation

GR:  In this article, E. O. Wilson gives numerical estimates of the relationship between the protected area of the Earth’s surface and the number of wildlife species saved. Wilson’s estimates are probably very conservative. They probably do not include predicted impacts of global warming.

We have to respond. One thing we can all do is insure that Progressives sweep the upcoming elections. We need them to guide the U. S. and other countries to take action for nature conservation of the drastic intensity needed to protect nature and insure that human civilization can continue to advance.

“DURING the summer of 1940, I was an 11-year-old living with my family in a low-income apartment in Washington, D.C. We were within easy walking distance of the National Zoo and an adjacent strip of woodland in Rock Creek Park. I lived most of my days there, visiting exotic animals and collecting butterflies and other…

View original post 374 more words

March 31, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The new arms race, as Russia tests its ‘Satan’ nuclear missile

Russia just tested its ‘Satan’ nuclear missile amid Putin and Trump taunting an arms race, Business Insider, ALEX LOCKIEMAR 30, 2018,  Russia says it has tested a new nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile; Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the missile can defeat any US missile defences.

March 31, 2018 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Kim Jong Un’s complete turnaround in tactics: will it result in peace, or not?

But together, the Kim-Moon meeting serves more as a prelude to the Trump-Kim summit. And if those talks fail, Harry Kazianis, an Asia security expert at the Center for the National Interest think tank, thinks the chances of war might increase.

“We are putting all of our eggs in the summit basket,” he told me. “This is the ultimate Hail Mary.”

The North Korea nuclear standoff: how we went from “fire and fury” to talks in under a year Vox,  “North Korea has 100 percent changed its tactics.” By 

 

March 31, 2018 Posted by | North Korea, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Crown Prince Bin Salman suggests war may happen between Saudi Arabia and Iran

War between Saudi Arabia and Iran May Happen in Just 10-15 Years – Crown Princhttps://human-wrongs-watch.net/2018/03/30/war-between-saudi-arabia-and-iran-may-happen-in-just-10-15-years-crown-prince/Human Wrongs Watch 30 March, 2018 (RT)* — De-facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Bin Salman has warned that Riyadh may go to war with regional nemesis Iran in the next 10-15 years if the international community fails to apply more sanctions pressure on Tehran.    30 MARCH, 2018 (RT)

March 31, 2018 Posted by | Iran, politics international, Saudi Arabia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As China’s nuclear power industry flounders, should India and Pakistan take note?

China pursued nuclear energy even as countries around the world abandoned it. But slowing demand and competition from renewables have halted new approvals.  Scroll In , Feng Hao 

As countries around the world abandoned nuclear power, China had bucked the trend, embracing nuclear power as a reliable and cheap energy source that would help reduce air pollution from burning coal. Now nuclear development in China is floundering, with the overcapacity in the power sector and fierce price competition with solar, wind and hydropower. Wider concerns about safety and lack of water (of which nuclear power plants demands a huge amount) also play a part.

The tribulations of China’s nuclear industry should be of interest to South Asian countries like India and Pakistan that harbour their own nuclear ambitions, often for similar reasons that China had continued pursuing it. With water availability a growing challenge in these countries, the amount of water that nuclear power plants need will create a three-way demand between need for domestic use, agriculture, and nuclear power. Nor will large centralised plants, with the consequent challenges of distribution of power to remote regions, deal with the problem of providing electricity to the most marginalised regions, something that flexible and distributed energy models using renewable energy do far, far better……….https://scroll.in/article/873386/as-chinas-nuclear-power-industry-flounders-should-india-and-pakistan-take-note

 

March 31, 2018 Posted by | general | Leave a comment

USA”s Environment Protection Agency shows its employees how to downgrade climate change

Leaked Memo: EPA Shows Workers How To Downplay Climate Change

Point 5: Suggest that humans are only responsible “in some manner.”, HuffPost, By Alexander C. Kaufman , 30 Mar 18The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday evening sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs ― guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

 An internal email obtained by HuffPost ― forwarded to employees by Joel Scheraga, a career staffer who served under President Barack Obama ― directs communications directors and regional office public affairs directors to note that the EPA “promotes science that helps inform states, municipalities and tribes on how to plan for and respond to extreme events and environmental emergencies” and “works with state, local, and tribal government to improve infrastructure to protect against the consequences of climate change and natural disasters.”
 But beyond those benign statements acknowledging the threats climate change poses are talking points boiled down from the sort of climate misinformation EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has long trumpeted.
 “Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner,” one point reads. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”
 The other states: “While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”

The email was sent under the subject line: “Consistent Messages on Climate Adaptation.” ………

The delivery of the talking points comes a week after Pruitt announced plans to restrict the agency’s use of science in writing environmental rules, barring the use of research unless the raw data can be made public for other scientists and industry to scrutinize. That directive would disqualify huge amounts of public health research conducted on the condition that subjects’ personal information will remain private. Two former top EPA officials called the move an “attack on science” in a New York Times op-ed published Monday.

Last year, the EPA reassigned the four staffers in the policy office who worked on climate adaptation, shuttered its program on climate adaptation and proposed eliminating funding for programs that deal with rising seas and warming temperatures.

Pruitt personally oversaw efforts to scrub climate change from EPA websites, and staunchly defended President Donald Trump’s decision last June to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. In October, Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, one of the only major federal policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The agency had also suggested zeroing out funding for most of its major climate and regional science grant programs, only to see Congress reject most of the cuts in the budget bill passed last week.

The assertions made in the new EPA talking points are not rooted in science. Ninety-seven percent of peer-reviewed research agrees with the conclusion that emissions from burning fossil fuels, deforestation and industrial farming are enshrouding the planet in heat-trapping gases, and are the primary causes of rising planetary temperatures. A research review published in November 2016 found significant flaws in the methodologies, assumptions or analyses used by the 3 percent of scientists who concluded otherwise.

But for the past three decades, a Big Tobacco-style misinformation campaign funded primarily by oil, gas and coal interests has fueled political debate over the integrity of the scientific consensus……..https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/epa-climate-adaptation_us_5abbb5e3e4b04a59a31387d7

March 31, 2018 Posted by | climate change, environment, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Another nuclear power station to bite the dust- Davis-Besse

Davis-Besse nuclear power plant to shut down permanently in 2020, The Blade, Tom Henry 

March 31, 2018 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

CLIMATE and nuclear news – to 30 March 18

Easter – Passover – time for religious observances and/or to be helping that bunny, (or bilby) to hide those chocolate Easter eggs – or something fun like that.  Probably bad timing to be talking about climate change, as the news is not good.

It’s so bad, in fact, that I aberrate here from things nuclear to draw attention to what is happening in the Arctic. Radio Ecoshock keeps us up to date, and the latest news explains the exceptionally cold Northern winter, the Arctic Meltdown, and the proposals for renewable power AND geoengineering.

Arctic temperatures have skyrocketed to 30 degrees celsius over the long-term average. Warm humid air going into the Arctic hits the dense dome of cold air, and bypasses it, going up into the upper atmosphere, even to the stratosphere. The high altitude Polar Vortex split, and a deep persistent jet stream trough over North America shifts, bringing freezing weather.The high Arctic warming  in the spring, autumn, and throughout the winter results in melting ice. The complexity of atmospheric “rivers”brings streams of warm air to the Arctic, carrying water vapour , itself a greenhouse gas, which increases absorption of heat.

For a detailed explanation of the Arctic situation, see the youtube videos by Paul Beckwith:

Climate change is the top threat to the world’s biodiversity.

Space radiation is increasing. That might put a stop to human visitors to Mars.

RUSSIA.  Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons research at Novichok (exclusive to nuclear-news). Russia’s sunken submarine– still with nuclear weapons.

CHINA. Toxic threat from Tiangong-1 Chinese space station crash soon!

UK. Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – their connection to nuclear weapons development. Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) slams biased meeting promoting Bradwell nuclear power plan.   Wind and solar make more electricity than nuclear for first time in UK. UK slowly recruiting nuclear safety staff that it will need when it leaves European union.    Assange internet connection cut off in embassy – Kim Dotcom.

NORTH KOREA. Increased activity at North Korean nuclear site.

FRANCE. France’s govt sets cost of Bure underground nuclear waste burial at 25 billion euros (about double that is likely).  AREVA – failed company exhumed – now called “ORANO” and STILL losing money.  France to make a huge investment in energy storage.

USA.

JAPAN.

CHINA. China’s progress in nuclear power is not as sure as it used to be.

SAUDI ARABIA. Saudi Arabia to build the world’s biggest solar power project.

SOUTH AFRICA. South Africa: the country that built nuclear weapons and then gave them up.

March 30, 2018 Posted by | Christina's notes | 2 Comments

Novichok A234 – The facts – Exclusive to nuclear-news.net

Posted to nuclear-news.net  by Shaun McGee (aka arclight2011)

Posted on 29th March 2018

ffcb8059fe78589c83fd9e574ab4933b

Thanks to Prof. Chris Busby for proofreading the chemical composition from the chemist source materials ( linked here link)  and for his input into this article.

After some research on Novichok i discovered that;
1/ Militarised Organophosphates (MOP) can be processed into a sticky oil or a fine powder and there are at least 4 types
2/ New Nuclear, biological and chemical NBC suits were developed before Desert Shield as the Novichok series of chemical agents were designed to circumnavigate the old Noddy suits supplied to the military.
3/ Novichok series compounds are detectable easily with testing equipment developed prior to Desert Shield
4/ It is very likely that an antidote was developed prior to desert shield (especially as Skripals daughter and the policemen are recovering)
5/ By making all references to Novichok series a matter of national security the OPCW was not told that these compounds were so dangerous thus allowing the USA and UK to keep such weapons on their shelves.
6/ Most of the Russian peer reviewed studies on this were done under the guise of fertiliser/insecticide production
7/ Although some of the precursors like SO2 are very nasty making this product difficult to produce a synthetic chemist in a lab could produce it
8/ Concerning the Polonium 210 poisoning of Litvinyenko, this polonium could have been synthesised by reducing radium tubes and dials etc reasonably easily

I have some a posit that these chemicals were not recognised as a chemical weapon because of the need to protect Big Agri profits and their business models (ever wonder why Russia agriculture is mainly organic?)
I decided to see if any country could make this and decided to see if Ukraine (as an example) could have produced this. A 2017 OSCE report cited the need to improve chemical handling, transportation and safety in Ukrainian labs needed to be improved so a 3 year plan was initiated and funded by the EU and USA. Ukraine also sent battalion of chemical trained soldiers to Kuwait before the Iraq invasion. One week after the incident with the Skripals the Ukrainian Gov. sent this message to the UK ;
“…Ukraine is ready to provide Britain with assistance in investigating the case of poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin said….”
Did the UK and USA also hide this product so they could have used it in Iraq or similar?
Ukraine had the basic Potash needed for manufacture of Novichok;
“…John J. McKetta Jr – 1989 – ‎Science
Of the foreign producers, the largest is the USSR, and its producing centers are the Upper Kama Basin of the western Urals, the Starobinsk Basin in Belorussia, and the Ciscarpathian area in the western Ukraine. USSR production has nearly tripled since 1969. Sulfates of potash are produced in the Ukraine, and Muriate Organphosphate is produced at the Upper Kama and Starobinsk basins …”


Some food for thought. Though Ukraine may not have produced this it could have been a criminal crowd in Russia or any secret services etc etc. I used Ukraine as an example and there is no direct proof that Ukraine was responsible though they were capable, thereby, busting the UK and USA government line that it HAD to be Russia!

Sources for quotes;

“…We proudly represent products of leading Russian, Belarus, and Ukrainian fertilizer producers. Member of the International Fertilizer Association. products. MOP / KCl – Muriate of Potash Ammonium Sulphate – granular / crystalline. SOP – Potassium Sulfate Calcium Ammonium Nitrate NPK blends – 15-15-15, 16-16-16…..” http://lushburyfertilizer.com/

From 2017 .. OSCE report with recommendations to have plans in place by 2020 “..2. Objectives

The overall objective of this Decision is to support OSCE projects aiming at strengthening chemical safety and security in Ukraine in line with UNSCR 1540 (2004) and the Association Agreement by providing a significant contribution to the ICSSP in Ukraine. In particular, this Decision aims at reducing the threat posed by the illicit trade of controlled and toxic chemicals in the OSCE region, in particular in Ukraine, thus promoting peace and security in the Union’s neighbourhood…..” https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017D1252

2003 – Kuwait gets a NBC Ukranian battalion trained in NBC protection and cleanup to protect them from Iraq`s “chemical weapons”  https://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticlePrintPage.aspx?id=1327966&language=en

13th March 2018 – “…Ukraine is ready to provide Britain with assistance in investigating the case of poisoning of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin said.

“The UK is investigating, of course, it will bring it (until the end – IF.) It is already known that the poisoning was due to chemicals that were developed in Russia … We are in solidarity with Britain if we need our help – expert or other – we will provide it, “the minister said to journalists on Tuesday in Kiev….” http://interfax.com.ua/news/general/491334.html

John T McKeta Jnr – https://books.google.ie/books?id=bCgffmgHmYcC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=ukraine%20mop%20chemical&source=bl&ots=zpPOcQmQkX&sig=nJ2078R-DmDt0_wVpsU_gVK7zck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjX0bSaq5DaAhXFQ8AKHR21DAYQ6AEIVTAE#v=onepage&q=ukraine%20mop%20chemical&f=false

Image source; Crimea: Ukraine notifies NATO of possible chemical weapons supply – http://qha.com.ua/en/politics/crimea-ukraine-notifies-nato-of-possible-chemical-weapons-supply/139605/

 

March 29, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Toxic threat from Tiangong-1 Chinese space station crash soon!

By Jean-Pierre Chigne Tech Times

Speculation regarding the crash of China’s Tiangong-1 space station has been going on all month, but that will come to an end this week. The space station is set to fall into the Earth within the next few days.

The earliest estimates have Tiangong-1 crashing into Earth on Friday (March 30).

Tiangong-1’s Fall

There has been a lot of news coverage for the better part of a month predicting where Tiangong-1 will fall. Predictions currently have the space station coming down to Earth within the next week. The earliest estimates have the station crashing into the planet by Friday, March 30.

China admitted in January 2018 that it lost control of the space station. It had previously lost contact with the space station in 2016.

The current window for the re-entry of Tiangong-1 has it coming in late on March 30 to the early morning of April 2. Tiangong-1 has been monitored by the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee. This agency predicts that it will fall to Earth between 43° N to 43° S latitude.

It is very unlikely that the debris from the space station will strike anyone. No one has ever died from being struck by space debris, there has been one person that has been struck. On its current path, the space station is likely to fall on locations closer to the northern latitudes.

Toxic threat warning!

There is a potentially highly toxic substance called hydrazine aboard the space station that could survive the reentry. People who come across debris from the space station are advised to stay away from it.

Hydrazine.JPG

Image source; http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Hydrazine

Watching Tiangong-1’s Crash

There will be a webcast of the re-entry of Tiangong-1 on Wednesday (March 28), and it is set to begin at 8:00 a.m. EDT. It will provide views of the space station while it is still out in space. Determining where Tiangong-1 will fall will be complicated.

Since much of the Earth is uninhabited, there is a chance that the space station will land in a remote location such as the ocean. This would make it harder for people to see the crash since no one will be around. Even as little as 7 hours before the crash, there will still be an uncertainty of where Tiangong-1 will fall.

There will be changes in the sky in areas that are able to see the space station crash. Since the space station is tumbling, there will be tracks across the sky, and rapid changes in its brightness.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/223818/20180328/chinese-space-station-tiangong-1-could-fall-to-earth-within-days.htm

Plutonium contamination of North west Canada from Kosmos954 ;

“….The fall of the 4 t satellite over Canada on January 24, 1978 would have been a disaster in urban areas: its nuclear reactor was powered by 31.1 kilograms of 235U. Radioactive waste contaminated an area of over 124,000 km2 in the Northwest. Territories and the provinces of Canada…” http://www.robindesbois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Space-Waste.pdf

USA has increased production of Plutonium 238 for its future space program;

“…..Jan 1, 2016 – For the first time in 30 years, the United States produced an isotope of plutonium that powers NASA’s deep-space missions. A total of 50 grams of plutonium-238 was produced at the Department of Energy (DOE)’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee….” https://www.space.com/31499-us-makes-plutonium-deep-space-fuel.html

 

March 29, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – their connection to nuclear weapons development

Although unstated, by far the most likely source for such support is a continuing national civil nuclear programme. And this where the burgeoning hype around UK development of SMRs comes in. Leading designs for these reactors are derived directly from submarine propulsion. British nuclear submarine reactor manufacturer Rolls-Royce is their most enthusiastic champion. But, amid intense media choreography, links between SMRs and submarines remain (aside from reports of our own work) barely discussed in the UK press. 

This neglect is odd, because the issues are very clear. Regretting that military programmes are no longer underwritten by civil nuclear research, a heavily redacted 2014 MoD report expresses serious concerns over the continued viability of the UK nuclear submarine industry. And Rolls-Royce itself is clear that success in securing government investment for SMRs would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability” for the UK’s military nuclear sector.

Why is the UK government so infatuated with nuclear power? https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2018/mar/29/why-is-uk-government-so-infatuated-nuclear-power

As the nuclear option looks less and less sensible, it becomes harder to explain Whitehall’s enthusiasm. Might it be to do with the military? Guardian,  Andy Stirling and  Phil Johnstone, 29 Mar 18, 

Against a worldwide background of declining fortunes for nuclear power, UK policy enthusiasm continues to intensify. Already pursuing one of the most ambitious nuclear new-build agendas in the world, Britain is seeking to buck 50 years of experience to develop an entirely new and untested design of small modular reactors (SMRs). In 2016, then energy and climate secretary, Amber Rudd, summed up the government’s position: “Investing in nuclear is what this government is all about for the next 20 years.”

Despite unique levels of long-term policy support, this nuclear new-build programme is severely delayed, with no chance of operations beginning as intended “significantly before 2025”, Costs have mushroomed, with even government figures showing renewables like offshore wind to already be far more affordable. With renewable costs still plummeting, global investments in these alternatives are now already greater than for all conventional generating technologies put together. With worldwide momentum so clear, the scale of UK nuclear ambitions are an international anomaly.

Unswerving British nuclear support contrasts sharply with obstructive national policy on other technologies. In 2015 various strategies supporting renewables and energy efficiency were abandoned, with the cheapest UK low-carbon power(onshore wind), effectively halted. The consequences of these cuts are now clear. The output of community energy projects has fallen by 99.4%. National investment in renewables has halved. Meanwhile, UK industrial strategy continues to prioritise nuclearNuclear R&D gets 12 times as much funding as renewables in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s “Energy Innovation Programme”. Instead of considering alternatives to spiralling nuclear costs, the UK government is looking to accommodate them with entirely new models of public financing. It seems clear that – for some undeclared reason and regardless of comparative costs or global trends – Britain simply must have new nuclear power.

The depth of this Whitehall bias creates a challenging environment for reasoned debate over British energy policy. To many, it seems scarcely believable that UK plans are so massively out of sync with current trends. The sheer weight of UK nuclear incumbency has successfully marginalised the entirely reasonable understanding that – like many technologies before it – nuclear power is simply going obsolete.

With direct reasons for the UK’s eccentric national position still unstated, we should pay attention to body language. Here, clues may be found in the work of the National Audit Office (NAO)Its 2017 report of 2017 points out serious flaws in the economic case for new nuclear – highlighting “unquantified”, “strategic” reasons why the UK still prioritises new nuclear despite the setbacks and increasingly attractive alternatives. Yet the NAO remains uncharacteristically unclear as to what these reasons might be.

An earlier NAO report may shed more light. Their 2008 costing of military nuclear activities states: “One assumption of the future deterrent programme is that the United Kingdom submarine industry will be sustainable and that the costs of supporting it will not fall directly on the future deterrent programme.” If the costs of keeping the national nuclear submarine industry in business must fall elsewhere, what could that other budget be?

Although unstated, by far the most likely source for such support is a continuing national civil nuclear programme. And this where the burgeoning hype around UK development of SMRs comes in. Leading designs for these reactors are derived directly from submarine propulsion. British nuclear submarine reactor manufacturer Rolls-Royce is their most enthusiastic champion. But, amid intense media choreography, links between SMRs and submarines remain (aside from reports of our own work) barely discussed in the UK press.

This neglect is odd, because the issues are very clear. Regretting that military programmes are no longer underwritten by civil nuclear research, a heavily redacted 2014 MoD report expresses serious concerns over the continued viability of the UK nuclear submarine industry. And Rolls-Royce itself is clear that success in securing government investment for SMRs would “relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability” for the UK’s military nuclear sector. Other defence sources are also unambiguous that survival of the British nuclear submarine industry depends on continuation of UK civil nuclear power. Many new government initiatives focus intently on realising the military and civil synergies.

Some nuclear enthusiasts have called this analysis a conspiracy theory, but these links are now becoming visible. In response to our own recent evidence to the UK Public Accounts Committee, a senior civil servant briefly acknowledged the connections. And with US civil nuclear programmes collapsing, the submarine links are also strongly emphasised by a former US energy secretary. Nuclear submarines are evidently crucial to Britain’s cherished identity as a “global power”. It seems that Whitehall’s infatuation with civil nuclear energy is in fact a military romance.

So why does the UK debate on these issues remain so muted? It is now beyond serious dispute that nuclear power has been overtaken by the extraordinary pace of progress in renewables. But – for those so minded – the military case for nuclear power remains. In a democracy, it might be expected that these arguments at least be tested in public. So, the real irrationality is that an entire policy arena should so comprehensively fail to debate such crucial issues. In the end, all technologies become obsolete. If we are not honest about UK civil nuclear policy, the danger is that British democracy may go the same way.

March 29, 2018 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Assange internet connection cut off in embassy – Kim Dotcom

Kim Dotcom is alleging WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has had his internet connection within the Ecuadorian embassy in London cut off. He has called on Assange supporters to gather outside the embassy building in solidarity.

Neither WikiLeaks nor Assange has made an official statement regarding the reports. Dotcom demanded that authorities “#ReconnectJulian.” Former Greek Minister of Finance Ioannis Varoufakis also tweeted Wednesday, calling for people to rally around Assange to force the Ecuadorian authorities to restore his internet connection.

“It is with great concern that we heard that Julian Assange has lost access to the internet and the right to receive visitors at the Ecuadorian London Embassy. Only extraordinary pressure from the US and the Spanish governments can explain why Ecuador’s authorities should have taken such appalling steps in isolating Julian,” Varoufakis wrote in an online statement.

“A world in which whistleblowers are hounded, small countries are forced to violate their cherished principles, and politicians are jailed for pursuing peacefully their political agenda is a deeply troubled world – a world at odds with the one the liberal establishment in Europe and the United States proclaimed as its artifact since the end of the Cold War.”

Assange’s latest tweet before his alleged disconnection and digital isolation came Tuesday, March 27. He responded to an apparent insult during a question and answer session in the UK House of Commons.  (VIDEO)

DETAILS TO FOLLOW

https://www.rt.com/news/422602-assange-internet-cut-dotcom-varoufakis/

March 28, 2018 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The nuclear industry and science myths- theme for April 18

The nuclear lobby is more of a religious cult than a science body. It relies a lot on the prevailing myth about “hard” science being somehow better than “soft science”.  The nuclear doctrine is that if you’re not an expert in the “hard”sciences, then you cannot have a valid opinion.

There were no biologists, geneticists, ecologists involved in the origin of nuclear weapons and nuclear power. It seems the same today, even though the most zealous nuclear lobbyists proclaim themselves as “environmentalists”. But their propaganda gives them away – shows their ignorance of those complex, nuanced sciences that are downgraded in the present global drive for unbridled technology development.

One hardly dares mention studies like sociology, anthropology, ethnic studies … even economics – these are dismissed, too, as “soft” .

But all these downgraded subjects are the ones we should be addressing, if the world is to be saved from the twin horrors of nuclear devastation and climate change.

March 28, 2018 Posted by | Christina's themes, spinbuster | 2 Comments