~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The ongoing fixation with man-made climate change serves to divert attention from the real danger to all life on earth from the nuclear industry and from EMP events. Well-meaning environmentalists have fallen for this ruse quite unaware of how they are being manipulated.
- Clean, safe nuclear energy is nothing but a hoax. There is no safe way to dispose of highly toxic nuclear waste, as it continues to accumulate.
Nuclear power plants have a relatively short life (a few decades at the most) and their decommissioning is extremely expensive. - A number of catastrophes can certainly precipitate the meltdown of all nuclear power plants (NPP) in an affected area.
- For example, a major solar flare directed towards the USA and Canada would fry all electronics and destroy the electric grid. It's not a matter of if, but when.
- NPPs need electric power to function. Without it they would go into meltdown in a matter of days, contaminating large swathes of the country, killing millions of people, and leaving survivors to starve in a world reduced to the stone age.
A terror attack with one or more nuclear bombs strategically detonated in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a major solar flare.
- Those bombs would produce an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that would destroy the grid, unleashing a chain of events bringing chaos, famine, and savagery.
- The real perpetrator (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) could give the technology to jihadis, manipulate them into claiming responsibility, and thus save itself from American retaliation.
- There is no plan for the short-term repair of a fried electric grid. It is no exaggeration to say that it would result in the collapse of our civilization.
- Add to that natural catastrophes such as major earthquakes and tsunamis, that would render NPPs inoperable and vulnerable to meltdown.
- The experiences with Katrina and other similar disasters prove that governments at all levels are incapable of dealing with major catastrophes, even when they claim to have plans in place.
- The United States has NO CONTINGENCY PLAN in place to deal with the loss of the electric grid, or the social chaos that would ensue. None whatsoever, although the government knows that millions would die.
There have been a small number of politicians and activists trying to call attention to the danger of EMPs, but Congress has chosen not to act. The majority would rather listen to climate change hysterics, in spite of proven scientific manipulation of data for political reasons, including by the much cited government agency NOAA.
Climate does change naturally over the years, centuries, and millions of years. The fascinating science of geology gives evidence of continuous environmental change, some gradual, some abrupt and disastrous - all of it natural. However, infinitely worse than man-made CO2 is the creation of the nuclear industry, which could wipe out civilization in a matter of days.
On this page read excerpts of articles explaining the danger of EMPs, nuclear industry pollution, and on how a whistleblower exposed blatant manipulation of scientific data to push the climate change danger agenda.
How to bring the USA to its knees
with the push of a button
LIVE SCIENCE - One way to create a widespread and damaging electromagnetic pulse (EMP) would be to detonate a large nuclear weapon over the central United States, at an altitude of 25 miles to 500 miles (40 kilometers to 800 kilometers), according to the Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. from EMP Attack, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in July 2008.
At this height, a nuclear blast could interact with the ionosphere, the shell of electrons and electrically charged particles surrounding Earth, to create a series of electromagnetic pulses that could reach across a continent, according to the commission. Once a burst of atmospheric radiation hits the ground, it could induce strong currents in telephone and electrical cables, which can short out transformers, said Daniel Baker, a physicist at the University of Colorado.
Transformers take high voltage current and "transform" it into low voltage current that can be used by households. But an EMP could derail this process, creating currents that overheat transformers and cause them to fail, Baker said. An electromagnetic surge from a solar storm is a more likely threat for an EMP.
Continue reading this and related articles
At this height, a nuclear blast could interact with the ionosphere, the shell of electrons and electrically charged particles surrounding Earth, to create a series of electromagnetic pulses that could reach across a continent, according to the commission. Once a burst of atmospheric radiation hits the ground, it could induce strong currents in telephone and electrical cables, which can short out transformers, said Daniel Baker, a physicist at the University of Colorado.
Transformers take high voltage current and "transform" it into low voltage current that can be used by households. But an EMP could derail this process, creating currents that overheat transformers and cause them to fail, Baker said. An electromagnetic surge from a solar storm is a more likely threat for an EMP.
Continue reading this and related articles
The last time one hit the planet was during the Carrington event, when particles from a powerful coronal mass ejection overloaded telegraph wires and set paper messages on fire in 1859. (Technology was still primitive then. Now we rely on computers for everything.)
A coronal mass ejection is an enormous sun eruption of super-hot plasma that spews charged particles across the solar system.
Solar storms work by sending "blobs" of energized particles toward the Earth, carrying their own magnetic field.
This missile-like group of particles can "open a gate" in Earth's magnetic field, allowing energetic particles to enter the high atmosphere and send currents all the way down to the planet's surface.
These can induce currents in the electrical grid, overheating transformers and causing them to fail. And these things can take months or years to replace.
Source
Enemies of the USA have the means to destroy the country without having to go to war
China, Russia and North Korea have electromagnetic-pulse, or EMP, weapons with the ability to cause mass casualties and catastrophic damage to the U.S. power grid, but defending against such an attack is not a defense priority, warned an expert who testified to Congress.
There’s a “clear and present danger to the U.S.” posed by an EMP weapon in the hands of an enemy nation, Peter Vincent Pry of EMPact America told the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies.
China’s military doctrine openly describes an EMP attack as the ultimate asymmetric weapon, striking the foundation of the U.S. infrastructure. The doctrine says that a surprise EMP attack “could be regarded as the ‘Pearl Harbor Incident’ of the 21st century” if carried out against “the enemy’s crucial information systems.” “Even a superpower such as the United States … cannot guarantee immunity.”
Source
http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/expert-to-congress-emp-clear-and-present-danger/
Scientists Warn Corrupt US Nuclear Industry Sitting On A Nightmare Worse Than Fukushima
A catastrophe far worse than Fukushima lurks in the United States, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission used faulty data to estimate potentially ruinous risks of a nuclear-waste fire — one which could occur at any one of dozens of sites across the country.
“Published by researchers from Princeton University and the Union of Concerned Scientists,” the latter organization reports, “the article [in the May 26 issue of the journal Science] argues that NRC inaction leaves the public at high risk from fires in spent-nuclear-fuel cooling pools at reactor sites.
The pools — water-filled basins that store and cool used radioactive fuel rods — are so densely packed with nuclear waste that a fire could release enough radioactive material to contaminate an area twice the size of New Jersey. On average, radioactivity from such an accident could force approximately 8 million people to relocate and result in $2 trillion in damages
Researchers warn darkly that the NRC’s recalcitrant refusal to enact crucial safety measures — including the use of dry casks to house contaminated waste — could have cataclysmic consequences for millions of people living near reactor sites.
And the NRC — a government entity tasked with ensuring “the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment” — managed to shirk civic, environmental, and, arguably, ethical safety precautions by flatly dismissing viable potentialities.
“Using a biased regulatory analysis,” the Union of Concerned Scientists continues, “the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant. Failing to account for these and other factors led the NRC to significantly underestimate the destruction such a disaster could cause.”
Unsurprisingly — and nonetheless a damning testimony to egregiously skewed priorities — this inexcusable negligence through omission comes down to penny-pinching from the NRC’s slavish devotion to the nuclear power industry.
“The NRC has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to low-ball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants,” paper co-author Frank von Hippel lamented, as quoted by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security (SGS) at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, sharply admonished the public not to ignore these potential nuclear holocausts-in-waiting, adding,
Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry’s wishes.
Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and study co-author, noted the NRC has fecklessly permitted plant owners and operators “to pack spent fuel into cooling pools at much higher densities than they were originally designed to handle. This has greatly increased the risk to the public should a large earthquake or terrorist attack breach the liner of a spent fuel pool, causing the pool to rapidly lose its cooling water.
In such a scenario the spent fuel could heat up and catch fire within hours, releasing a large fraction of its highly radioactive contents. Since spent fuel pools are not enclosed in high-strength, leak-tight containment buildings, unlike the reactors themselves, much of this radioactive material could be readily discharged into the environment.
Sufficient supply of cooling water is, of course, imperative to prevent truly calamitous consequences from a meltdown, as happened in 2011 at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, when electronic systems operating reactor cooling systems failed.
But even that disaster would have been exponentially worse, had cooling water slipped low enough to expose reactor cores to the air — which very nearly occurred in Unit 4.
Fukushima experienced core meltdowns in three of six reactors, birthing a pernicious nuclear morass which scientists now estimate could take at least another four decades to resolve. A lesson for the world, the Fukushima disaster also forced the entire industry to examine safety programs and regulations with a fine-toothed comb.
Tellingly, the NRC indeed deliberated mandating several indispensable reforms — such as requiring plant owners to transfer waste from spent fuel pools to dry casks after five years, or prohibiting packing cooling pools as densely as in the past — but, in cost-benefit analysis, decided against any of the proposals.
In fact, researchers point out that in the NRC analysis, the impotent government agency also surmised “there would be no consequences from radioactive contamination beyond 50 miles of a fire. It also assumed that all contaminated areas could be effectively cleaned up within a year. Both of these assumptions are inconsistent with experience after the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.”
Lyman excoriated the NRC for its refusal to mandate relatively modest improvements — around $50 million per reactor pool — as well as the industry for rebuffing any suggestion of voluntary compliance with reforms found necessary in the study of the Fukushima fiasco.
“The consequences of a fire could be truly disastrous at densely packed pools, which typically contains much more cesium-137 — a long-lived, extremely hazardous radioactive isotope — than is present in reactor cores,” Lyman wrote.
My Princeton University co-authors have calculated, using sophisticated computer models, that a spent fuel pool fire at the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in Pennsylvania could heavily contaminate over 30,000 square miles with long-lived radioactivity and require the long-term relocation of nearly 20 million people, for average weather conditions. Depending on the wind direction and other factors, the plume could reach anywhere from Maine to Georgia.My co-authors estimate the financial impact on the American economy of such contamination could reach $2 trillion: ten times the estimated $200 billion in damages caused by the release of radioactivity from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Worse, many nuclear power plants in the United States have not aged well, some stand in disrepair or in desperate need of improvements to bring them in line with advancements made over decades, while others — like perpetually-troubled Indian Point Energy Center, thirty miles from the heart of New York City — must simply be shut down.
Von Hippel, Lyman, and Michael Schoeppner, a former postdoctoral researcher at Princeton’s SGS and third co-author of the paper, portend utterly disastrous consequences from the NRC’s astoundingly toothless — if not eminently reckless — stance with the nuclear power industry.
“In far too many instances, the NRC has used flawed analysis to justify inaction, leaving millions of Americans at risk of a radiological release that could contaminate their homes and destroy their livelihoods,” Lyman opined.
“It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decisionmaking process.”
Claire Bernish began writing as an independent, investigative journalist in 2015, with works published and republished around the world. Not one to hold back, Claire’s particular areas of interest include U.S. foreign policy, analysis of international affairs, and everything pertaining to transparency and thwarting censorship. To keep up with the latest uncensored news, follow her on Facebook or Twitter: @Subversive_Pen. This article first appeared here at The Free Thought Project.
28 nuclear reactors in the United States could suddenly fail due to earthquakes… most are located along the East Coast
(Natural News) The Fukushima disaster that occurred six years ago last month continues to plague Japan and the rest of the world to this day. Heavily damaged by a massive tsunami caused by an equally destructive earthquake, radioactive problems persist without any relief in sight.
In fact, as noted by Fukushima Watch, the world’s worst nuclear disaster since the 1986 Chernobyl plant meltdown in Ukraine could get even worse if the plant’s fuel rod storage pool collapses:
…[A] former nuclear engineer, Arnie Gundersen, believes the worst is yet to come, as workers at the plant get closer to the reactors.
“As they get in [the containment vessel at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2], they’re finding that combination of hot steam – these are not just radioactive chemicals, but it’s a toxic mix of chemicals that are going to react with the steel,” he said in an interview with the BBC. “So there’s rust and hunks of nuclear fuel lying around, and steam, and it’s raining all the time because of the condensation.
“I think it’s about as close to hell as I could imagine,” he added, noting that the contamination will continue for thousands of years.
Could something like that happen in the United States? Could a massive earthquake severely damage domestic nuclear plants? That depends on who you ask. (RELATED: Media blackout over “unimaginable” radiation levels detected at Fukushima… MOX fuel melts through reactor floor… half-life of 24,000 years)
Stay informed about the nuclear power industry at Nuclear.news.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
FukushimaWatch.com
NRC.gov
CBSNews.com
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
Sources
http://www.activistpost.com/2017/05/scientists-warn-corrupt-us-nuclear-industry-sitting-nightmare-worse-fukushima.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-04-11-28-nuclear-reactors-in-the-united-states-could-fail-due-to-earthquakes-most-are-located-along-the-east-coast.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
SCIENTIST SAYS CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH THAT A MAJOR SOLAR FLARE HITTING EARTH WILL WIPE OUT ALL TECHNOLOGY AND CIVILIZATION
- Starvation and social chaos will ensue
- Nuclear power plants will go into meltdown
- The similar effects from an EMP weapon
WATCH NASA Magnificent Solar Eruption:
Continue reading, including suggestions for individual preparedness
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2016/11/scientist-says-chances-are-very-high.html
A new interactive chart created by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is really a database of U.S. nuclear reactors and safety issues associated with them, shows a higher-than-average concentration of nuclear plants along the nation’s East Coast that are at risk of being damaged or destroyed by an earthquake.
They include: St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 at Hutchison Island, Fla.; North Anna Units 1, 2 & 3 at Mineral, Va.; Peach Bottom Units 1, 2 & 3, Delta, Pennsylvania; Limerick Units 1 & 2, Pottstown, Pa., Indian Point Units 1, 2 & 3, Buchanan, N.Y., and Seabrook Unit 1, Seabrook, New Hampshire.
Further inland, there are other nuclear plants at risk, though they are not as concentrated as those on the East Coast, and many have only a single nuclear reactor. They include plants in Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, Alabam, South Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Kansas.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, American nuclear plants are supposedly built to withstand earthquakes and other “environmental hazards.”
“Even those plants that are located outside of areas with extensive seismic activity are designed for safety in the event of such a natural disaster. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires all of its licensees to take seismic activity into account when designing and maintaining its nuclear power plants,” the federal agency says on its website.
But the Fukushima Daiichi plant was built to similar specifications. And yet they suffered major damage. Why? (RELATED: Nuclear Engineer Says Fukushima Is “As Close To Hell As I Can Imagine,” Contamination Will Linger For Decades)
An after-action report by an independent Japanese investigatory body found that the accident was entirely foreseeable – and perhaps even preventable – but the plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) failed to meet basic safety regulations like performing risk assessments and preparing for the containment of collateral damage. Also, the company scrimped on evacuation plans.
In 2014, a senior federal nuclear expert recommended a nuclear plant in California be shuttered due to its risk of suffering major damage in an earthquake, CBS News reported.
Michael Peck, who was Diablo Canyon’s chief on-site inspector for five years, said in a 42-page confidential report at the time that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was failing to apply “the safety rules it set out for the plant’s operation,” the news network reported.
Sound familiar?
Stay informed about the nuclear power industry at Nuclear.news.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
NRC.gov
CBSNews.com
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
- The Mail on Sunday reveals a landmark paper on exaggerated global warming
- It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
- America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
- The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
On the right: Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’.
Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
http://www.activistpost.com/2017/05/scientists-warn-corrupt-us-nuclear-industry-sitting-nightmare-worse-fukushima.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-04-11-28-nuclear-reactors-in-the-united-states-could-fail-due-to-earthquakes-most-are-located-along-the-east-coast.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
RELATED
SCIENTIST SAYS CHANCES ARE VERY HIGH THAT A MAJOR SOLAR FLARE HITTING EARTH WILL WIPE OUT ALL TECHNOLOGY AND CIVILIZATION
- Starvation and social chaos will ensue
- Nuclear power plants will go into meltdown
- The similar effects from an EMP weapon
WATCH NASA Magnificent Solar Eruption:
- Scientist says chances of a catastrophic effects from a major solar flare hitting Earth are very high.
- It would wipe out the electric grid and all electronics
- This would result in the end of civilization as we know it.
All electronics would be fried: from computers to bank machines to medical devices to satellites.
- Transportation, food processing and distribution, water treatment, just about everything we take for granted would be permanently and severely disrupted.
- Starvation would turn civilized people into savages, fighting for every morsel of food available. Armed criminal gangs would roam the cities and the countryside.
- The worst and more lasting effects would be when nuclear power plants would go into meltdown, since they require outside electricity to function. The radioactive poisoning of large areas of the continent would kill all life, including humans.
- The United States has NO CONTINGENCY PLAN in place to deal with either the immediate effects of a major solar flare, such as the loss of the electric grid, or the social chaos that would ensue. None whatsoever, although the government knows that millions would die.
- A major solar flare could hit Earth any day. The Carrington Event in 1859 caused hardly a ripple because civilization did not depend on electronics yet. Life went on as usual.
- Many major solar flares occur all the time and so far they have been directed away from Earth. But our luck won't last forever, and we are not prepared.
- Similar to a solar flare in its effects would be a nuclear bomb detonated above the United States, which would also fry the electric grid and all electronics.
- Solar flares and a nuclear attack of that sort are called electromagnetic pulse events, or EMPs.
Continue reading, including suggestions for individual preparedness
http://ottersandsciencenews.blogspot.ca/2016/11/scientist-says-chances-are-very-high.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for visiting my blog. Your comments are always appreciated, but please do not include links.