In his last interview, Michael Mariotte exposed James Hansen as shill for the nuclear industry
just before his death, Michael Mariotte told me “…I have long trusted Hansen on climate issues; now, I am nervous about that. If he can be so wrong in Illinois, and so far removed from his own previous statements on nuclear safety, and seems willing to sell himself to the nation’s largest, and quite possibly greediest, electric utility, well, how can I trust his other work?”
It gets worse. Michael Mariotte tells us that James Hansen, in his zeal for nukes, went to other foundations asking them do cut funding to any environmental group that opposed nuclear power! I haven’t verified this myself, but NIRS has the documents. Mariotte says this Hansen push to defund even included groups like the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – which isn’t even specifically anti-nuclear, but says reactors are a concern.
Download or listen to this 21 minute interview with activist Michael Mariotte in Michael Mariotte on Ecoshock CD Quality or Michael Mariotte on Ecoshock Lo-Fi
ICE MELT CONTROLS WORLD WEATHER http://www.ecoshock.org/2016/05/ice-melt-controls-world-weather.html “……..IS JAMES HANSEN WRONG ON NUCLEAR POWER AS A SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?Why is the world’s most famous climate scientist helping out America’s biggest electricity producer Exelon? And why is James Hansen trying to get the people of Illinios to subsidize Exelon’s dangerous old reactors in Illinios? Even stranger, why did the “death of environmentalism” guy Michael Shellenberger suddenly pop up with a new front group called “Environmental Progress Illinois”? Who is the billionaire funding all that, and why did Hansen join the board? Questions, questions. Continue reading
Change “renewable” to “clean” – Exelon’s plan to get taxpayer money for nuclear power
With hard times setting in for some nuclear power plants, Illinois state legislators are trying to decide whether they should put nuclear facilities on life support, or lay them to rest early…….
How to Use the 25 Rules of Disinformation to Your Advantage
May 05, 2016
Identify the 25 rules of disinfo when you see it & then draw attention to the disinfo perpetrators by identifying which rule they are using & how they are using it to silence, bully & ridicule antinuclear voices.
Websites mentioned in the video:
The 25 Rules of Disinfo
vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Veterans Today – Your Radiation This Week
www.veteranstoday.com/author/bobnichols/
Twitter
twitter.com/nuclearworldnet
The Little Rad Book – a free download on Smashwords
www.smashwords.com/books/view/544375
Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky’s work in Minsk following Chernobyl
linkis.com/blogspot.com/wDG3h
Hiroshima Syndrome
www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/about-the-author.html
Other resources:
Tritium
www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumbasicinfo.pdf
DSM – IV PDF
justines2010blog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dsm-iv.pdf
NLP
www.sagaciousnewsnetwork.com/10-ways-to-protect-yourself-from-nlp-mind-control/
www.trans4mind.com/spiritual/brainwashing.htm
Dana Durnford
youtu.be/3Dwt1Om5CiA
youtu.be/kMgXltONBSQ
youtu.be/XeaNRAzqfcU
Uranium Mining
www.pembina.org/reports/ClearingAir_UraniumMining.pdf
www.nirs.org/factsheets/nuclearenergyisdirtyenergy.pdf
Hormesis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpeB-EjTP94
youtu.be/ZpeB-EjTP94
Mainstream Media
www.westernjournalism.com/the-mainstream-media-is-propaganda/
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-29/20-year-cbs-news-veteran-details-massive-censorship-and-propaganda-mainstream-media
Food Irradiation
www.organicconsumers.org/old_articles/irrad/alkreb.php
www.naturalnews.com/041878_food_irradiation_harmful_nutrition.html
You may want to bookmark some of these sites and go back to review them later. (It’s a lot of information to digest at once. )
Big doubts about Bill Gates’ enthusiastic claims for nuclear power
Nuclear Power: Part of the Alternative Energy ‘Solution’? Differing views voiced by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Stanford energy expert Yale Climate Connections, Mark Z. Jacobson, May 16, 2016 By Peter Sinclair
“………..“If everything goes perfectly,” Gates has told a Wall Street Journal conference, a demonstration fourth-generation design could be in place by 2022. “If everything continues to go perfectly,” that design could be replicated and built in many countries around the world by 2028.
“Big Ifs,” some might say, and a moderator suggested as much in response to Gates’ point.
In this month’s “This is Not Cool” video, Stanford University engineering professor Mark Z. Jacobson expresses reservations. His research looks at energy technologies in hand and not those he says “might be available 20, 30 years from now.” That research – as explained in an earlier related video – involves wind, solar, and water power.
To reach global carbon dioxide emissions targets, Jacobson says, 80 percent of the world’s energy infrastructure needs to be converted by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.
Jacobson says exiting nuclear power may be cleaner than natural gas, but it is nine to 25 times more polluting per kilowatt hour generated than wind power in terms of carbon and air pollution. In addition, about 40 percent of that difference results from a need to continuously mine and refine uranium during the life time of the nuclear power plant. He says the “sole purpose” of two coal-fired power plants in the U.S. now is to refine uranium for nuclear energy and weapons.
While Gates expresses optimism about fourth-generation nuclear power technology and safety, Jacobson counters that 1.5 percent of all nuclear reactors built worldwide “have melted down seriously. So there’s a catastrophic risk problem.” A world wanting to go fully nuclear – and currently having 400 850-megawatt nuclear reactors – would need 16,000 850-megawatt reactors.
Jacobson points to relative costs as the key determinant. Unsubsidized current costs are about 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour; for wind 3.2 to 5 cents per kilowatt hour; for thin film solar 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour; and for utility-scale crystalline solar 5.2 to nearly 7 cents per kilowatt hour. Big differences, he says. http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/05/nuclear-power-part-of-the-alternative-energy-solution/Nuclear
International Atomic Energy Agency keen to teach kids how great is the nuclear industry
IAEA Invites Students to Learn Nuclear Science Through Play. IAEA, By Laura Gil, IAEA Office of Public Information and Communication, 12 May 16, Teachers have reached almost 10 000 students in four Asian countries through a guidebook designed to bring nuclear science and technology closer to young adults. The compendium, which is being tested by the IAEA and education experts from several countries, collects unique teaching strategies and materials to introduce science and technology in education systems.
By generating interest in science among young generations, the compendium aims at contributing to the sustainability of the nuclear industry and related technologies in the future. With populations growing, applications of nuclear technology rapidly expanding, and active nuclear scientists ageing, a new generation of professionals will soon need to step up……
In preparation for the curriculum, experts collected ideas from, for example, Japan, where teachers often organize field trips for students; India, where education centres convoke essay contests all across the country to create an interest in the student community; Israel, where the government has built a nuclear science park and museum; and Australia, where school children are invited to an exhibition centre in the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation already from an early age. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-invites-students-to-learn-nuclear-science-through-play
So-called “charity” nuclear front group lobbies UK govt to fund Small Nuclear Reactors
UK think tank urges nuclear innovation, World Nuclear News, 28 April 2016 A think tank [Alvin Weinberg Foundation] has urged the British government to spend money earmarked for nuclear R&D on ensuring that at least three advanced reactors including at least one small modular reactor (SMR) and a Generation IV design have completed regulatory assessment by the early 2020s.
Weinberg Next Nuclear’s report, Next Steps for Nuclear Innovation in the UK….. The latest study follows a report by the same foundation, The Need for Nuclear Innovation, published in November 2015. Later that month, the UK government announced plans to invest £250 million ($377 million) over five years in a nuclear R&D program to include a competition to identify the best value SMR for the country. The initial phase of the competition was launched in March, with a call for initial expressions of interest.
The first phase of the competition, which will also lead to the development of an SMR Roadmap to set out the policy framework and assess the potential for possible pathways for SMRs in the UK, will run until late 2016. Individual reactor designs will not be assessed at this stage……
At least one of the reactors supported should be a Generation IV design that could use fuel made from previously used reactor fuel and from the UK’s plutonium stocks. It suggests that SMRs and “micro-reactors” – reactors of less than 20 MWe capacity – will be cheaper to construct than large reactors….
Finally, the report proposes that UK regulators cooperate with their peers in other countries, citing US and Canadian regulatory practices where proposed reactor designs are discussed with developers before the formal regulatory process begins. It calls for a three-way collaboration to be established with the aim of establishing international standards for the safety of advanced reactors……
Weinberg Next Nuclear is part of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation. The report was prepared with the sponsorship of Terrestrial Energy, Urenco and Moltex Energy, with Weinberg Next Nuclear retaining sole editorial control.http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK-think-tank-urges-nuclear-innovation-2804167.html
Russian nuclear corporation Rosatom to “educate” South Africans on benefits of nuclear power
ROSATOM TO GROW PUBLIC AWARENESS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY, Eyewitness News, The Russian atomic energy company faces strong resistance from environmental lobbyists in SA. Rahima Essop 21 Apr 16 CAPE TOWN – Rosatom says it has to ‘gradually grow public awareness and acceptance’ about nuclear energy as the Russian atomic energy company faces strong resistance from environmental lobbyists and opposition politicians in South Africa.
Two organisations have challenged the legality of government’s proposed 9,600 MW nuclear build programme in court before Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson calls for quotes for the tender.
Rosatom is said to be on the inside track for the contract.
The Democratic Alliance (DA), meanwhile, is pushing for the project to be abandoned on the basis that it’s unaffordable and shrouded in secrecy.
Rosatom has billed nuclear as a cheap source of energy and a job-creating solution for the country.
The company, which is building 34 reactors across the globe, is hoping to influence South African perceptions about nuclear…….Rosatom has sponsored a press trip to Hungary. http://ewn.co.za/2016/04/21/Rosatom-to-gradually-grow-public-awareness-on-nuclear-energy
Blowing away the dishonest spin of the nuclear lobby against renewable energy
Renewable energy versus nuclear: dispelling the myths http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987577/renewable_energy_versus_nuclear_dispelling_the_myths.html Mark Diesendorf 19th April 2016
Don’t believe the spurious claims of nuclear shills constantly doing down renewables, writes Mark Diesendorf. Clean, safe renewable energy technologies have the potential to supply 100% of the world’s electricity needs – but the first hurdle is to refute the deliberately misleading myths designed to promote the politically powerful but ultimately doomed nuclear industry.
Nuclear energy and renewable energy (RE) are the principal competitors for low-carbon electricity in many countries.
As RE technologies have grown in volume and investment, and become much cheaper, nuclear proponents and deniers of climate science have become deniers of RE.
The strategies and tactics of RE deniers are very similar to those of climate science deniers.
To create uncertainty about the ability of RE to power an industrial society, they bombard decision-makers and the media with negative myths about RE and positive myths about nuclear energy, attempting to turn these myths into conventional wisdom.
In responding to the climate crisis, few countries have the economic resources to expand investment substantially in both nuclear and RE. This is demonstrated in 2016 by the UK government, which is offering huge long-term subsidies to nuclear while severely cutting existing short-term subsidies to RE.
This article, a sequel to one busting the myth that we need base-load power stations such as nuclear or coal, examines critically some of the other myths about nuclear energy and RE. It offers a resource for those who wish to question these myths. The myths discussed here have been drawn from comments by nuclear proponents and RE opponents in the media, articles, blogs and on-line comments.
Myth 1: Base-load power stations are necessary to supply base-load demand. Continue reading
Who are the pro nuclear donors funding Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)?
US Think Tank Urging Japan Keep Nuclear Funded By Japanese Govt & Nuclear Industry , Simply Info, April 12th, 2016 | “……The CSIS received over $500,000 from the Japanese government. …Japan is a top donor to CSIS. Only the UAE and US are included in that top donor category along with Japan.
Contributions over $200,000
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Contributions over $100,000
Bechtel Corporation
General Dynamics Corporation
Mitsubishi Corporation
Nippon Keidanren
Raytheon
Contributions over $65,000
Marubeni Corporation
Rolls-Royce plc
Contributions over $35,000
Fluor Corporation
GE Foundation
Hitachi, Ltd.
ITOCHU Corporation
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
Contributions under $34,999
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
Électricité de France S.A.
Exelon Corporation
General Atomics
General Electric Company
Honeywell International, Inc.
Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, Ltd.
Toshiba Corporation
URENCO USA http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=15416
Disagreements in the nuclear shill camp – Patrick Moore versus Australia’s Ben Heard
Climate Science Denier Patrick Moore Under Attack From Fellow Nuclear Energy Advocates, DESMOG, 
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 7, 2016 Climate science
denialist Patrick Moore is all about “consensus building.” We know this because it says so on his biography at the think tank Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
And so, fresh from delivering a coal-funded talk in Brussels where he told the audience to “celebrate CO2”, the Canadian has been out doing a bit of that “consensus building” in his own unique way.
In recent days, Moore has accused respected climate scientist Ken Caldeira of “fakery”, called him a “jerk” and then told a fellow nuclear power advocate to “GFY”.
The nuclear advocate in question was Australian energy and climate consultant Ben Heard, who 
had engaged Moore on social media. He’s written a blog about the exchange.
British environmentalist and author Mark Lynas, who is also pro-nuclear energy, weighed in too, describing Moore as “just a predictable right-wing anti-green contrarian”.
When DeSmog UK gave Moore the chance to respond to a story showing he had been paid by coal lobbyists to deliver a talk, his response was “bugger off”.
Who is Patrick Moore?
For those that don’t know, Patrick Moore is often described as a former senior member of Greenpeace, even though he left that organisation 30 years ago.
Since then, he has spent his time being an advocate for nuclear power, GM crops, forestry and, apparently, burning as much coal as you can get your hands on.
In a French television interview last year, Moore told a journalist that the pesticide glyphosate was not a carcinogen and was so safe, “you could drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you”.
Moore was then immediately offered the chance to drink a glass by the interviewer, which he declined. “I’m not an idiot,” he said.
Moore is a long-time climate science denialist and claims, against all credible scientific institutions, that there is “no proof” that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (about 40 per cent more than there was before the industrial revolution) is causing any global warming.
Acidification denial ……..http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/07/climate-science-denier-patrick-moore-under-attack-fellow-nuclear-energy-advocates
Self styled “Pro Nuclear Environmentalists (PNEs) are just not credible on Chernobyl radiation
Evidence of PNE ignorance abounds. For the most part, PNEs had a shaky understanding of the radiation/health debates (and other nuclear issues) before they joined the pro-nuclear club, and they have a shaky understanding now.
the WHO, IAEA and other UN agencies estimated 9,000 deaths in ex-Soviet states in their 2005/06 reports, and more recently UNSCEAR has adopted the position that the long-term death toll is uncertain.
Radiation harm deniers? Pro-nuclear environmentalists and the Chernobyl death toll, Ecologist, Dr Jim Green 7th April 2016 “……….the self-styled pro-nuclear environmentalists (PNEs). We should note in passing that some PNE’s have genuine environmental credentials while others – such as Patrick Moore and Australian Ben Heard – are in the pay of the nuclear industry.
James Hansen and George Monbiot cite UNSCEAR to justify a Chernobyl death toll of 43, without noting that the UNSCEAR report did not attempt to calculate long-term deaths. James Lovelock asserts that “in fact, only 42 people died” from the Chernobyl disaster.
Patrick Moore, citing the UN Chernobyl Forum (which included UN agencies such as the IAEA, UNSCEAR, and WHO), states that Chernobyl resulted in 56 deaths. In fact, the Chernobyl Forum’s 2005 report (p.16) estimated up to 4,000 long-term cancer deaths among the higher-exposed Chernobyl populations, and a follow-up study by the World Health Organisation in 2006 estimated an additional 5,000 deaths among people exposed to lower doses in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
Australian ‘ecomodernist‘ academic Barry Brook says the Chernobyl death toll is less than 60. Ben Heard, another Australian ‘ecomodernist’ (in fact a uranium and nuclear industry consultant), claims that the death toll was 43.
In 2010, Mark Lynas said the Chernobyl death toll “has likely been only around 65.” Two years earlier, Lynas said that the WHO estimates “a few thousand deaths” (actually 9,000 deaths) but downplays the death toll by saying it was “indiscernible” in the context of overall deaths. Yes, the Chernobyl death toll is indiscernible … and the 9/11 terrorist attacks accounted for an indiscernible 0.1% of all deaths in the US in 2001.
There doesn’t appear to be a single example of a PNE – or a comparable organisation – providing a credible account of the Chernobyl death toll. They’re perfectly entitled to follow UNSCEAR’s lead and argue that the long-term death toll is uncertain. But conflating or confusing that uncertainty with a long-term death toll of zero clearly isn’t a defensible approach.
The Breakthrough Institute comes closest to a credible account of the Chernobyl death toll (which isn’t saying much), stating that “UN officials say that the death toll could be as high as 4,000”. However the Breakthrough Institute ignores:
- the follow-up UN/WHO study that estimated an additional 5,000 deaths in ex-Soviet states;
- scientific estimates of the death toll beyond ex-Soviet states (more than half of the Chernobyl fallout was deposited beyond the three most contaminated Soviet states);
- scientific literature regarding diseases other than cancer linked to radiation exposure;
- and indirect deaths associated with the permanent relocation of over 350,000 people after the Chernobyl disaster.
Cherry-picking
Cherry-picking is abundantly evident in PNE accounts of the Chernobyl death toll. In a review of Robert Stone’s ‘Pandora’s Promise’ propaganda film, physicist Dr Ed Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists writes: Continue reading
Pro Nuclear Environmentalists trivialise Chernobyl with lies about psychological trauma
Radiation harm deniers? Pro-nuclear environmentalists and the Chernobyl death toll, Ecologist, Dr Jim Green 7th April 2016“……..Psychological trauma
Finally, PNEs [Pro Nuclear Environmentalists] also trivialise Chernobyl by peddling the furphy that the psychological trauma was greater than the biological effects from radiation exposure. There’s no dispute that, as the WHO states, the relocation of more than 350,000 people in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster “proved a deeply traumatic experience because of disruption to social networks and having no possibility to return to their homes.”
How to compare that psychological trauma to estimates of the death toll, such as the UN/WHO estimate of 9,000 cancer deaths in ex-Soviet states? Your guess is as good as mine.
Perhaps the biological damage and psychological trauma can be compared and ranked if we consider the second of the two defensible positions regarding the long-term death toll – UNSCEAR’s position that the death toll is uncertain. Does the psychological trauma outweigh the 50 or so known deaths, around 6,000 non-fatal thyroid cancers (withanother 16,000 to come), and an uncertain long-term death toll?
The argument only begins to make sense if you accept the third of the two defensible positions regarding the death toll – the view that there were no deaths other than emergency workers and a small number of deaths from thyroid cancers. Thus Mark Lynasasserts that “as Chernobyl showed, fear of radiation is a far greater risk than radiation itself in the low doses experienced by the affected populations” and he goes on to blame anti-nuclear campaigners for contributing to the fear.
But the trauma isn’t simply a result of a fear of radiation – it arises from a myriad of factors, particularly for the 350,000 displaced people. Nor is the fear of radiation necessarily misplaced given that the mainstream scientific view is that there is no threshold below which radiation exposure is risk-free.
Most importantly, why on earth would anyone want to rank the biological damage and the psychological trauma from the Chernobyl disaster? Chernobyl resulted in both biological damage and psychological trauma, in spades.
Psychological insult has been added to biological injury. One doesn’t negate the other.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where a version of this article was originally published. Nuclear Monitor, published 20 times a year, has been publishing deeply researched, often critical articles on all aspects of the nuclear cycle since 1978. A must-read for all those who work on this issue! http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987515/radiation_harm_deniers_pronuclear_environmentalists_and_the_chernobyl_death_toll.html
Cheaper, faster renewable energy will obliterate the prospects for “new nuclear”
The nuclear industry: a small revolution, BBC News By Roger Harrabin BBC Environment analyst 23 March 2016“………..investors scanning the world for money-making opportunities tend to turn away when they see a nuclear reactor taking years to build, fraught with technical and political risk. Solar and wind energy offer much more predictable returns in a fraction of the pay-back time.
But SMR fans say mini-nukes as small as 50 megawatts (MW) could change that. They suggest it’s as simple as placing your order and waiting for a reactor to turn up. Then plug and play – and wait to get your money back.
If you want large-scale power, just line up a dozen SMRs side by side……
In his most recent Budget, the Chancellor George Osborne announced a competition for the design of small modular reactors for use in the UK.
‘Evolutionary technology’
There are two catches.
First, there’s still no solution (in the UK at least) to what to do with the nuclear waste. The government appears willing to go ahead with new nukes without knowing what happens to spent fuel and contaminated equipment.
Second, no-one has actually built an SMR yet, and it’s likely to take until the 2030s or 2040s before SMRs are widespread and making a real contribution to hitting carbon emission targets.
The firm claiming to be leading the global SMR race is the US government-funded NuScale. It expects to have its first American SMR in operation by 2025, and hopes to be ready to generate in the UK in 2026 at the earliest…
‘Jam tomorrow’
However, there are cautionary voices. Experts warn that to make it worthwhile building it, a reactor factory would need 40-70 orders. And the time scale is a big stumbling point for many.
According to John Sauven of Greenpeace there’s a high risk it will take longer than predicted to bring small scale nuclear on-stream. “Remember the nuclear industry promised in the 1950s that it would deliver energy too cheap to meter,” he says. “Since then it’s been completely overtaken by wind and solar energy which are much safer, reliable and cheaper.
“With nuclear it’s always jam tomorrow. We’ve got to decarbonise the energy industry now.”
Other critics warn that renewables and energy storage are progressing so fast that the energy industry won’t need the sort of round the clock “baseload” power produced by nuclear in the medium term future.
The energy commentator Kees van der Leun tweeted: “By the time [of the 2030s and 2040s] the growth of cheap solar and wind will have obliterated the chance of making any money with ‘baseload’.” http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35863846
Bill Gates enjoys spruiking his plutonium dream
Bill Gates’ Nuclear Pipe Dream: Convert Depleted Uranium to Plutonium to Power Earth for Centuries, Truth Out Tuesday, 15 March 2016 By Josh Cunnings and Emerson Urry, EnviroNews | Video Report Voice of Bill Gates –-“……… Excerpt #1: There was a concept a long time ago that you would do a different type of reactor called a “fast reactor,” that would make a bunch of another element called plutonium, and then you would pull that out, and then you would burn that. That’s called “breeding” in a fast reactor. That is bad because plutonium is nuclear weapons material. It’s messy. The processing you have to get through is not only environmentally difficultly, it’s extremely expensive.
Cunnings: The man considered by many to be supposedly a humanitarian trailblazer when it comes to combatting disease, has a plan to fast-breed the mountainous heaps of depleted uranium at Paducah into plutonium — one of the most dangerous and disease-causing substance on the face of the planet. Then in turn, this plutonium would be used to power what would be the so-called new fourth-generation nuclear power plants. Let’s listen to Gates articulate his plutonium scheme.
Voice of Bill Gates — Excerpt #2: The concept of this so-called “TerraPower reactor” is that you, in the same reactor, you both burn and breed. So, instead of making plutonium and then extracting it, we take uranium — the 99.3 percent that you normally don’t do anything with — we convert that, and we burn it.
[Editor’s Note: Bill Gates is the current Chairman of the Board of TerraPower — a Washington-based nuclear power technology company.]
Cunnings: Now get this, only 60 seconds after Gates acknowledges the tremendous problem of bringing more plutonium into this world, he turns around and makes a joke about it to a crowd filled with university students from nuclear programs — all this, only a few months after the catastrophic triple melt-through at Fukushima Daiichi.
Bill Gates — Excerpt #3: Our flame is taking the normal depleted uranium — the 99.3 percent that’s cheap as heck, and there’s a pile of it sitting in Paducah, Kentucky that’s enough to power the United States for hundreds and hundreds of years. You’re taking that and you are converting it to plutonium (humorously under his breath) — and then you’re burning that.
Cunnings: Oh yes, Mr. Gates seems to have a little love affair going on with plutonium — and the notion is that we need nuclear power to save ourselves from climate change.
Bill Gates — Excerpt #4: You could go nuts!
Wall Street Journal Interviewer Alan Murray: If everything goes perfectly?
Gates: Absolutely.
Murray: How often does everything go perfectly?
Gates: In nuclear? Ah, well, ya’ know… If you ignore… (laughter) No, no. Come on. If you ignore 1979 [Three Mile Island], and 1986 [Chernobyl], and 2011 [Fukushima], come on — we’ve had a good century (laughter). No seriously. I mean, in terms of raw figures, you know, coal mining, natural gas … More people die, I mean … It wasn’t far from here a natural gas pipe blew up and incinerated people.
Bill Gates Excerpt #5: So we can simulate Richter-10 earthquakes. We simulate 70-foot waves coming into these things. Very cool. We basically say no human should ever be required to do anything, because if you judge by Chernobyl and Fukushima, the human element is not on your side.
Bill Gates Excerpt #6: We have, you know, total fail-safe … Any reactor that a human has to do something … that’s a little scary.
Bill Gates Excerpt #7: So, you’ve got to design something that humans just don’t have to be involved in.
Bill Gates Excerpt #8: I love nuclear. It does this radiation thing that’s tricky (laughter). But they’re good solutions. You know, it was interesting; recently, in Connecticut this natural gas plant blew up 11 guys. It just blew them up.
Murray: But you are personally investing in nuclear?
Gates: Right………” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35229-bill-gates-nuclear-pipe-dream-convert-mountains-of-depleted-uranium-to-plutonium-to-power-earth-for-centuries
Nuclear propagandist Prof Geraldine Thomas: comfortable , but incorrect, spin on Fukushima
Is this a problem for human health? You bet it is. The question no-one asked is what is causing the excess dose? The answer is easy: radioactive contamination, principally of Caesium-137. On the basis of well-known physics relationships we can say that 3Sv/h at 1m above ground represents a surface contamination of about 900,000Bq per square metre of Cs-137. That is, 900,000 disintegrations per second in one square metre of surface: and note that they were standing on a tarmac road which appeared to be clean. And this is 5 years after the explosions. The material is everywhere, and it is in the form of dust particles which can be inhaled; invisible sparkling fairy-dust that kills hang in the air above such measurements.
The particles are not just of Caesium-137. They contain other long lived radioactivity, Strontium-90, Plutonium 239, Uranium-235, Uranium 238, Radium-226, Polonium-210, Lead-210, Tritium, isotopes of Rhodium, Ruthenium, Iodine, Cerium, Cobalt 60. The list is long.
the Japanese government wants to send the people back there. It is bribing them with money and housing assistance. It is saying, like Gerry Thomas, there is no danger. And the BBC is giving this misdirection a credible platform.
They keep the lid on the truth using ill-informed individuals like Geraldine Thomas.
Fukushima is far from being over, and the deaths have only just begun.
Is Fukushima’s nuclear nightmare over? Don’t count on it https://www.rt.com/op-edge/335362-fukushima-nuclear-japan-bbc/ Chris Busby 12 Mar 16
On the 5th Anniversary of the catastrophe, Prof Geraldine Thomas, the nuclear industry’s new public relations star, walked through the abandoned town of Ohkuma inside the Fukushima exclusion zone with BBC reporter Rupert Wingfield-Hayes.Thomas was described as “one of Britain’s leading experts on the health effects of radiation”. She is of the opinion that there is no danger and the Japanese refugees can come back and live there in the “zone”. Her main concern seemed to be how untidy it all was: “Left to rack and ruin,” she complained, sadly.
At one point, Rupert pulled out his Geiger counter and read the dose: 3 microSieverts per hour. “How much radiation would it give in a year to people who came back here,” he asked. Thomas replied: “About an extra milliSievert a year, which is not much considering you get 2mSv a year from natural background”.
“The long term impact on your health would be absolutely nothing.”
Now anyone with a calculator can easily multiply 3 microSieverts (3 x 10-6 Sv) by 24 hours and 365 days. The answer comes out to be 26 mSv (0.026Sv), not “about 1mSv” as the “leading expert on the health effects of radiation” reported.
I must personally ask if Gerry Thomas is a reliable expert; her CV shows she has published almost nothing in the way of original research, so we must ask how it is the BBC has taken her seriously. Continue reading
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (181)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 