Greenpeace Ship Sunk by French Secret Service 30 Years Ago Today

Standard

Greenpeace Ship Sunk by French Secret Service 30 Years Ago Today

Advertisements

Dr. Helen Caldicott Reveals Effects of Human Nuclear War

Standard
Stop Nuclear Reactors BEFORE They Stop Thyself

EVERY NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR IS A SLOW RELEASE ATOMIC BOMB WITH ALL THE SAME EXTREMELY DANGEROUS POISONOUS CONSEQUENCES

Dr. Helen Caldicott will talk about the UNHealthy Effects of Human Nuclear War

When:

2 p.m. Sunday 22 July 2012

Where:

University of Adelaide
Napier Building
Room 102

OPEN TO THE PUBLIC : FREE ENTRY FOR THIS VERY VALUABLE TALK

Note : Almost all of Dr. Helen Caldicott’s research, presentations and books are fully referenced with accurate citations, statistically credible studies and other factual evidence, in direct opposition and contravention to Scaremongering by the Human Nuclear Industry. which would poison Planet Earth with terrible toxins and Human Nuclear War, as demonstrated by the use of Atomic Weapons (highly radioactive depleted Uranium projectiles and dust) in Iraq, Afghanistan and other regions, to include the heartless Idiots’ terrorist testing sites on the sacred traditional ancestral shores around and aground in Australia, North America, etc.

References:
www.helencaldicott.com/2012/07/dr-caldicott-to-speak-in-adelaide

antinuclear.net/2012/07/06/an-opportunity-to-hear-dr-helen-caldicott-speaking-on-nuclear-power-in-adelaide

 

NUCLEAR RADIATION CAUTION

Dr. Helen Caldicott Reveals Effects of Human Nuclear War

Standard

At the invitation of MAPW SA
www.mapw.org.au/news/sa-branch-mapw-0

Dr. Helen Caldicott will talk about the UNHealthy Effects of Human Nuclear War

When:

12:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. Thursday 19 July 2012

Where:

12:30 p.m.
Flinders University Medical Centre
Grand Round Arena 
map : www.flinders.sa.gov.au/patients/pages/transport/

6 p.m.
University of Adelaide

Florey Lecture Theatre
Medical School North
Level 1
Frome Road

Topic:

UNHealthy Effects of Human Nuclear War

Reference:

MAPW SA : www.insight-health.org.au/promotion/helen-caldicott

Please contact amanda.ruler@MAPW.org.au for more details. Read the rest of this entry

Fukushima : Chernobyl’s Child

Standard

Fukushima : Chernobyl’s Child

After the events of 11 March 2011, we found it obvious that Fukushima Japan is just another example of the mistakes resulting from World Soviet nuclear policy that has led and bled the planet with its extremely misguided nuclear policies, since the masses of Soviet scientists frantically developed nuclear weaponry as a response to the uprisings in Central Europe and Japan, on the Eastern Front of the Supreme Soviet. Japan eventually capitulated to the influences of the Supreme Soviet, especially in New York City, and was tricked into dabbling with nuclear magic, the occult of Oppenheimer, and countless other Soviet scientists and financial elites of the New World Order

One year on, Fukushima is still spinning

The first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster is fast approaching and it promises to be another silly-season for Australia’s pro-nuclear zealots.

They have form. While the crisis was unfolding in March last year, Ziggy Switkowski advised that “the best place to be whenever there’s an earthquake is at the perimeter of a nuclear plant because they are designed so well.”

Switkowski wants dozens of nuclear power plants built in Australia – dozens of places to shelter from earthquakes.

Even as nuclear fuel meltdown was in full swing at Fukushima, Adelaide University’s Professor Barry Brook reassured us that:

“There is no credible risk of a serious accident… Those spreading FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] at the moment will be the ones left with egg on their faces. I am happy to be quoted forever after on the above if I am wrong … but I won’t be.”

Eggs, anyone?

John Borshoff, CEO of uranium miner Paladin, described the Fukushima crisis as a “sideshow”. A Fukushima farmer was equally succinct in his suicide note: “I wish there wasn’t a nuclear plant.”

Here are some of the arguments we will likely hear from nuclear boosters in the lead-up to the March 11 Fukushima anniversary.

Expect a barrage of personal attacks since the boosters will want to avoid discussion about the horrendous impacts of the nuclear disaster – and how the disaster could so easily have been prevented if plant operator TEPCO had taken straight-forward measures to properly protect back-up power generators from flooding.

Cameron England said in the week following the Fukushima meltdowns, fires and explosions that “some parts of the environmental movement will be quietly high-fiving each other this week”. There’s a nod in the direction of that offensive drivel in Barry Brook’s claim that I was “delighted” to hold him to account for his asinine statements as the nuclear disaster unfolded. Academic Allan Patience said “it appears that the opponents of nuclear energy are almost beside themselves with delight at the tragedy that is happening in Fukushima”.

No evidence for any of those claims, of course.

The nuclear lobby will attack critics for overstating the scale of the disaster. Any comparisons with Chernobyl will be howled down. True, radiation releases from Fukushima have fallen short of the radioactivity spewed into the environment from Chernobyl. But TEPCO itself drew the comparison a month after the disaster began:

“The radiation leak has not stopped completely and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl.”

And while they’re attacking nuclear critics for overstating the radiation releases, the boosters will be trivialising the problem or ignoring it altogether. Brook wrote an ABC opinion piece in December which states that “no-one was killed by radioactivity from the event” and is silent on the problem of long-term cancer deaths from exposure to radioactive fallout.

The boosters will repeatedly use this quote from a June 2011 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report:

“To date no confirmed long-term health effects to any person have been reported as a result of radiation exposure from the nuclear accident.”

How could long-term health effects be evident three months after the event? Cancers typically have a latency period measured in years. Perhaps it’s worth remembering that one of the IAEA’s objectives is to promote nuclear power.

To cut a long story short, on the basis of available evidence it’s difficult to see how the long-term cancer death toll from Fukushima could be lower than a few hundred deaths, and difficult to see how the number could exceed a few thousand. For comparison, the IAEA estimates 9,000 long-term cancer deaths from Chernobyl and other scientific studies put the figure 10 times higher.

The nuclear lobby is keen to point out that the earthquake and tsunami caused much greater damage (including human deaths) than the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Brook states:

“What has this earthquake taught us? That it’s much, much riskier to choose to live next to the ocean than it is to live next to a nuclear power station.”

But the impacts have been cumulative; one disaster doesn’t negate or excuse another. And areas affected by the nuclear disaster stretch inland, well beyond distances reached by the tsunami.

There’s a tired old argument about Chernobyl – the (false) claim that the death toll amounted to no more than about 50 people, whereas 200,000 unnecessary abortions were carried out across Europe as a result of radiophobia spread by greenies. Nuclear power: safe. Greenies: mass murderers.

Now we’re seeing variations of that argument in relation to Fukushima. Ted Rockwell, winner of the American Nuclear Society’s Lifetime Achievement Award, has been thinking laterally. He blames the “radiation police” who won’t “let the good people of Fukushima return home and get on with their lives”. No-one has received a life-altering injury from radiation at Fukushima, Rockwell claims, and the “atrocities” are caused by the application of excessively cautious international radiation standards.

It’s not entirely clear who the “radiation police” are in Rockwell’s diatribe but Andrew Bolt will have them wearing koala suits as the Fukushima anniversary approaches.

Nuclear boosters are unsure whether to defend TEPCO or to cut the company loose and portray it as a rogue operator. Toro Energy, an Australian uranium mining company, defends Toro:

“It was therefore a sequence of extraordinary forces unleashed by an unprecedented natural disaster which caused the accident at the reactors, not any operating failure, human error or design fault of the reactors themselves.”

Yet the Japanese government’s Investigation Committee found that TEPCO’s preparations for and protections against a disaster where “quite inadequate”. And every step of TEPCO’s response to the disaster was “a day late and a dollar short” according to a former vice-chairman of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission.

Peter Alford and Cameron Stewart, writing in The Australian, prefer to cut TEPCO loose:

“TEPCO may dwell in corporate infamy alongside Enron and BP…

“…The plodding utilities giant is a secretive nuclear behemoth that has been caught out for numerous safety violations

“…One of TEPCO’s more monstrous practices … is the routine employment of deeply unqualified day labourers”.

They could have pinched that language from media releases put out by Friends of the Earth over the years as TEPCO lurched from scandal to scandal and accident to accident.

A related strategy from the boosters is to blame outdated ‘Mark 1’ boiling water reactor technology and to contrast it with long-promised gee-whiz fail-safe ‘Generation 4’ reactor technology. A sceptical industry insider quipped: “We know that the paper-moderated, ink-cooled reactor is the safest of all. All kinds of unexpected problems may occur after a project has been launched.”

Lastly, we can expect the boosters to promote the message that lessons will be learnt, improvements made, and we need not therefore concern ourselves about nuclear safety. That is perhaps the most cynical of all the jiggery pokery from the boosters. If the nuclear industry had a track record of learning from past mistakes and accidents, the Fukushima disaster would not have happened in the first place. TEPCO only needed properly-protected back-up generators to maintain reactor cooling – that’s all.

References:

Dr. Caracrappa Russian Polytechnic Institute (NY) Load of Crap about Long Term Effects
IAEA Final Fukushima Mission Report

Australia’s Role in Japan’s Nuclear Disaster

Standard


Radiation clean-up workers. Pro-nuclear commentators in Australian have downplayed the crisis even as radiation monitors detected alarming jumps in radioactivity near the reactors and low levels of radiation as far away as Tokyo.


There’s every likelihood that radioactive by-products of Australian uranium have spewed into the atmosphere from the nuclear reactor plant at Fukushima in Japan.

BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto export uranium from Australia to Japanese nuclear company TEPCO from the Olympic Dam and Ranger mines.

Despite being a major uranium supplier to Japan, Australia has turned a blind eye to serious, protracted problems with Japan’s nuclear industry. It is time for a more responsible approach.

The earthquake on March 11 led to the automatic shutdown of the operating nuclear reactors at Fukushima.

However, TEPCO failed in its duty to maintain back-up electricity supply to run pumps to cool the intensely hot and radioactive nuclear cores. That, in turn, led to multiple fires, explosions and radiation releases.

Earthquakes have affected several nuclear plants in Japan. The most serious was the major 2007 earthquake that led to the shutdown of all of TEPCO’s reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata — not far from Fukushima, but on the west coast.

Radiation was released from two reactor buildings, from a pool containing spent nuclear fuel rods, and from 40 drums of nuclear waste that fell over and lost their lids.

There is a history of distrust surrounding TEPCO.

All of TEPCO’s reactors were involved in a 2002 safety data falsification scandal, which led to protracted reactor shutdowns for inspections and repairs.

The “malpractices” were revealed to have been many and varied — and to have been ongoing for up to 25 years.

There have been many other incidents of data falsification involving reactors in Japan since the 2002 scandal. There have been further revelations about past incidents such as TEPCO’s concealment of an emergency shutdown of one of the reactors at Fukushima in 1984.

Distrust of TEPCO grew as a result of the 2007 earthquake in Niigata. The company provided conflicting information over a period of several days,. It later acknowledged that the radiation releases would have been reduced if procedures were correctly followed.

Nuclear Engineering International reported:
“Japan’s nuclear industry has been suffering in the glare of negative publicity brought about by revelations that operators had covered up accidents and problems for decades.

“When it became public knowledge, it was hoped that the public relations disaster that companies were engineering for themselves might lead the wider industry to realise the potential benefits of being more open and honest when problems do crop up. That hope seems to have withered again in Niigata.”

A growing list of accidents are testament to the mismanagement of nuclear power in Japan. Some of the more serious accidents include:

· A sodium leak and fire at the Monju fast breeder plant in 1995.
· A reprocessing waste explosion at Tokai in 1997.
· Fifty tonnes of primary coolant leaked from a reactor at Tsuruga in 1999, leading to a sharp increase of radiation levels inside the reactor building.
· Following a criticality accident at a uranium conversion plant at Tokaimura in 1999, two people died and hundreds were irradiated.
· In 2001, a water pipe at Hamaoka-1 exploded, releasing radioactive steam into the containment building.
· In 2002, 16 workers were irradiated after a water pipe leak at Hamaoka-2.
· At the Mihama nuclear power plant in 2005, a pipe failed due to corrosion, resulting in the deaths of five workers and injuries to six others. The thickness of the failed pipe had not been checked since the plant went into operation in 1976.

A vicious cycle is evident. Mismanagement and slack regulation beget accidents and scandals. The authorities respond with denial and deceit, which later gives way to profuse apologies, resignation and solemn promises of improved performance in future.

Then it’s business as usual — mismanagement and slack regulation beget the next accident or scandal. And the cycle repeats.

The pattern of mismanagement, accidents and scandals is reflected in public opinion. A 2005 survey by the International Atomic Energy Agency found that just 21% of Japanese citizens support the construction of new reactors; 76% are opposed.

Of the 18 countries surveyed, only four were more strongly opposed to the construction of new nuclear reactors.

As a major uranium supplier, Australia could play a role in breaking this vicious cycle by making uranium exports conditional on improved management of nuclear plants and tighter regulation.

Indeed, Australia has a responsibility to either insist on better performance or to cease uranium exports to Japan. The business-as-usual option makes us complicit in the ongoing fiasco of Japan’s nuclear industry.

Australia is also complicit in fanning regional proliferation tensions by providing Japan with open-ended permission to separate and stockpile weapons-useable plutonium produced in power reactors from Australian uranium.

A 1993 US diplomatic cable posed these questions: “Can Japan expect that if it embarks on a massive plutonium recycling program that Korea and other nations would not press ahead with reprocessing programs?

“Would not the perception of Japan’s being awash in plutonium and possessing leading edge rocket technology create anxiety in the region?”

Since 1993, Japan’s plutonium stockpile has grown enormously and regional tensions are sharper than ever. Yet Australia continues to provide open-ended approval for Japan to stockpile plutonium.

It also continues to turn a blind eye to the pattern of accidents, scandals and cover-ups.


Scanned for radiation: a temporary scanning centre for residents living close to the quake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, March 2011.


NONUKESA Note:
In the above please translate “Australians” as Sovietopeans Down Under as the Australian People (“Aborigines”) never approved Australia for nuclear exploitation and danger to the planet.

Top Greenie Defects to Nukie Camp

Standard

Top Nuke Defects to Greenie Camp

Mike Rann, once a staff writer for The Adelaide Independent and member of GreenPeace executive, wrote an article entitled Top Nuke Defects to Greenie Camp.

So we now write article about Mike Rann:

Top Greenie Defects to Nukie Camp

Mike Rann, over the years has surrendered and submitted to his servile subservient place as house servant to the nuclear lobby, and has long been a prominent politician and puppet premier in South Australia, the acclaimed Saudi Arabia of Uranium.  Mike Rann has many accomplices in the sold-out Labor Party and inherently radioactive Liberal Party.

Here are some links to photocopies of the Adelaide Independent article for reference (page 6 July 1980):

https://nonukesa.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/column1-3-nuke-defects.jpg

https://nonukesa.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/column2-4-nuke-defects.jpg

Top Nuke Defects to Greenie Camp

Pauline Rigby Speaks Out

Standard

Listen to Pauline Rigby have her radical say ranging from the atomic testing at Maralinga South Australia in the 1950’s through to present day hosting of atomic weapons such as Depleted Uranium in Western Australia.

Click on the following link to obtain the sound recording from Uranium Weapons Conference 2003

http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/32422/audios/748947.mp3

Pauline Rigby’s impressive web site is at

http://www.mindseeds.com.au