Category Archives: no nukes

The Nuclear Industry In Japan Is ____ – Well you pick the word

Posted on by
Reply

Stupid, Criminal, Out of control. Whatever. But first some sensible facts. The reactors SCRAMMED. OK 3 Mile Island was operator error that involved an online reactor. You know where fission is occurring.  Chernobyl was an operating plant with no containment where fission was occurring. There is no fission at Fukushima. So while they may irradiate 2 -300 miles of Japan, which is a bad bad thing. There will be no China Syndrom. There will be no massive explosion. Things will just get hot. And think about what they faced.

http://gizmodo.com/#!5781566/this-is-the-scariest-first+person-video-of-the-japan-tsunami-yet

Gizmodo
856,940 views, Mar 13, 2011 10:58 PM

This Is the Scariest First-Person Video of the Japan Tsunami Yet

Jesus Diaz — This Is the Scariest First-Person Video of the Japan Tsunami Yet This first-person view is the most terrifying and astonishing video I’ve seen of the Japan tsunami. Initially everything seems ok, just a mild wave coming towards the camera. But keep watching—the sea goes Godzilla and destroys everything.

By the end of it, the raging water is taking entire buildings off the streets of Kesennuma, in the Miyagi Prefecture, Japan. It’s horrible. Almost unreal. This is the exact point where this video was taken, before the catastrophe.

To watch more first person videos of the tsunami, click here.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power Plants Explode – Gas Prices Explode

Posted on by
Reply

I may have crafted the perfect google whore headline. So which do you think is more important? The nukes or the pocketbook? I vote for the nukes. But which source to cite? God what a beautiful day. Actually it is cold and rainy here but I just meant it at a philosophical level. First the ground rules: 1. None of these nukes will create a China syndrome, 2. They will be messy to clean up but produce no widespread radiation meaning spreading any further than 100 miles, 3. They will not kill off the nuclear power movement worldwide.

First the bad news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0314/Second-explosion-at-nuclear-power-plant-in-Japan

Second explosion at nuclear power plant in Japan

Monday’s blast destroyed the containment building but the reactor is still intact. Japanese officials also said cooling systems have failed at a third reactor

By Jenna Fisher, Staff writer / March 14, 2011

A new explosion hit Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on Monday, two days after an explosion at a different reactor housing unit at the power plant. Japanese officials said cooling systems have also failed at a third reactor as a result of Friday’s earthquake and tsunami that knocked out electricity to much of the region

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said 11 people were injured in the blast, which authorities said was probably a hydrogen explosion causing the roof and walls of the building to blow away, reported Japan Today.

Today’s explosion has increased concern about a possible release of radiation, such as the fallout from Chernobyl that devastated Ukraine in 1986. However, a number of American and European scientists, as well as Japan’s nuclear safety agency, have downplayed that risk.

IN PICTURES: Japan’s 8.9 earthquake

Despite Saturday’s explosion at reactor No. 1 and Monday’s blast at reactor No. 3, Japan’s nuclear safety agency has said there is “absolutely no possibility of a Chernobyl” style accident at the Fukushima I plant, according to the national strategy minister, reports The Daily Telegraph. While the explosions blew the roof off each of the reactor containment buildings, officials said the reactors themselves remained intact.

“Everything I’ve seen says that the containment structure is operating as it’s designed to operate. It’s keeping the radiation in and it’s holding everything in, which is the good news,” Murray Jennex, of San Diego State University, told the Telegraph.

“This is nothing like a Chernobyl,” he added. “At Chernobyl you had no containment structure – when it blew, it blew everything straight out into the atmosphere.”

:}

For a better discussion of why I mandated guidelines, please see the below related article. The bottom line is they will probably have to pump sea water into at least three reactors, making them pretty much a total economic loss. It will take at least a month for them too cool down. But they were 40 years old and this is what you get when you put your hand in the nuclear cookie jar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0313/Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-and-Chernobyl-key-differences

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Howard Dean And Energy Policy – This is an old piece

Posted on by
Reply

But it doesn’t matter because Howard is pretty left. He is actually kind of the beginning of the left in the world but in the US that is pretty leftwing. I am only going to put up so much of this interview because it is really long.

http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Howard Dean on Energy & Oil

Former VT Governor; Former Democratic Candidate for President

Raise CAFE standard from 27.5 mpg to 37.5, including SUVs

Q: Would you increase the required automobile fleet average of 27.5 mpg; and SUVs and pickups averaging 20.7 mpg?

A: I support an across-the-board corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard of 37.5 mpg by 2015. This would apply to all passenger vehicles, and would require a closing of the SUV loophole.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, “Fuel Efficiency” Jan 25, 2004

Global warming is most important enviro problem we face

Q: As Governor you signed a regional pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Should the nation adopt the same goals?

A: We should find a way to sign Kyoto. It is not perfect and we must include the developing nations, such as Brazil & China, and require them to reduce greenhouse gasses as well. But in the end global warming is the most important environmental problem we face. We can’t follow the head-in-the-sand view of the Bush administration on global warming. We have to deal with it.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

No new nuclear plants until waste disposal is safe

Q: Should we build more nuclear power plants?

A: We can not build any new nuclear power plants until we have a satisfactory way of disposing of the waste. At present, significant questions have been raised about the safety of Yucca Mountain, the disposal site in Nevada. Unless those safety questions are resolved Yucca cannot be opened and new plants must not be built.

Source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 6, 2003

Help developing countries reduce greenhouse gases

Instead of rejecting the Kyoto agreement, renegotiate it so China and other developing countries have more time to reduce greenhouse gases or enlist the G-8 countries to help with the costs of environmental cleanup. Source: New America Foundation/Atlantic Monthly Public Policy Forum Jan 14, 2003

Our energy policy is one of our biggest security threats

One of our biggest security threats is our energy policy. The money which helped finance Osama bin Laden’s attacks was our money. Because of our dependence on Middle East oil, the US sent money to Saudi Arabia, which was used in part to fund the fundamentalist Islamic schools in Pakistan and elsewhere which teach hatred of Christians, Jews and Americans. These schools have become fertile recruiting territory for Al Qaeda.

In Vermont, we have the highest rate of energy conservation in the US America needs an energy policy which stresses conservation and renewables, including wind, biomass, ethanol and solar. Not only is renewable energy good for the environment, it is a core pice of a smarter foreign policy.

Source: Campaign web site, DeanForAmerica.com, “On the Issues” Nov 30, 2002

Voluntary partnerships reduce greenhouse gases economically.

Dean adopted the National Governors Association policy:

    Considering the evidence and the risks of both overreaction and underreaction, the Governors recommend that the federal government continue its climate research, including regional climate research, to improve scientific understanding of global climate change. The Governors also recommend taking steps that are cost-effective and offer other social and economic benefits beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, the Governors support voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while achieving other economic and environmental goals.
  • The Governors are committed to working in partnership with the federal government, businesses, environmental groups, and others to develop and implement voluntary programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in conjunction with conserving energy, protecting the environment, and strengthening the economy.
  • The Governors urge that those who have successfully achieved reductions of greenhouse emissions receive appropriate credit for their early actions. The Governors strongly encourage these kinds of voluntary efforts.
  • The Governors believe that federally required implementation of any treaty provisions, including those that mandate limits or reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, must not occur before the U.S. Senate ratifies an international agreement and Congress passes enabling legislation.
  • The Governors support continued federal funding for research and development technology in this area. They also believe it is essential to engage the private sector by fostering technology partnerships between industry and government. Public-private partnerships serve to achieve desired environmental goals, speed the introduction of new technologies to the marketplace, and meet consumer needs and product affordability goals, while avoiding market distortions and job losses.

Source: NGA policy NR-11, Global Climate Change Domestic Policy 00-NGA3 on Aug 15, 2000

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Cynthia Tucker And Energy Policy – Nukes are too expensive

Posted on by
1

This was supposed to be a post about Rick Sanchez. I have been using a list of “leftie” journalists and Sanchez’s was the next name on the list. But he poses an interesting problem, he spent most of his time on television so I could find nothing about him in print. He does have a book out but I do not have a copy of it and could find no one who actually quoted extensively from it on any subject. I even tried Youtube and Bing hoping to get video of him talking about the environment. After an hour and 1/2 I gave up. So here is Cynthia Tucker whom I like alot.

http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/02/23/why-do-savannah-nuke-plants-deserve-taxpayer-money/

Why do Augusta nuke plants deserve taxpayer money?

12:44 pm February 23, 2010, by ctucker

UPDATE: As some of you have pointed out, the nuke plants are near Augusta. Thanks for the correction.

Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss were happy to claim credit for the Obama administration’s announcement that it was guaranteeing loans that would help build nuclear reactors on Georgia’s coast. But it’s an odd thing for the two Republicans, who usually argue that the government ought to stay out of private industry.

In fact, economists might argue that the huge government subsidies are little different from the bank bail-outs and bail-outs for the automotive industry.Liberals and conservatives have argued against the federal guarantees. From the WaPo:

Nuclear power plants “are simply not economically competitive now, and therefore they can’t be privately financed,” said Peter Bradford, an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School and a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “There are many cheaper ways to displace carbon, and there are many cheaper ways to provide for electric power supply.”

Jack Spencer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a supporter of nuclear power, warned: “Loan guarantees do not a nuclear renaissance make.” He said the guarantees would “perpetuate the problems that have plagued nuclear energy for 30 years: the regulatory structure and nuclear waste [disposal] and too much government dependence.”

William O’Keefe, who heads a science-related think tank in Washington, doesn’t think the loans are such a good idea. From the WaPo:

If private companies are unwilling to risk their capital on new nuclear plants, why should the taxpayer take on part of that risk? The answer is: We shouldn’t.

The U.S. taxpayer has been subsidizing nuclear power since its inception, and it has yet to achieve its potential. Some of this is the fault of government policy, but some of it is just plain economics. The cost of a new nuclear plant has been estimated to be on the order of $4 billion, with some estimates being over $10 billion when cost overruns are taken into account. That makes the cost of nuclear-produced electricity very high.

The Obama administration is promoting nuclear power because it does not involve CO2 emissions. But that is only one criterion, and it should be judged on a cost-benefit basis. How much would new plants coming online over the next two decades reduce the climate change risk? And are there more-cost-effective alternatives for reducing that risk? There is growing evidence that the risk of climate change has been exaggerated, and that certainly weakens the case of the administration.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

Hendrik Hertzberg And Energy Policy – Seems pretty neutral to me

Posted on by
Reply

What struck me the most about the posts and the material the right wing columnists produced was how consistently it was industry biased and really right wing sentiment. What is striking about the left wingers is how balanced they appear. Of course as far as I am concerned Ted Rall is the biggest lefty around in print and he made NEITHER list that I have been using. Never actually heard of this guy but then I don’t get out much.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/03/22/100322taco_talk_hertzberg

Some Nukes

by Hendrik Hertzberg March 22, 2010

(dot dot dot)

There has always been something intuitively disproportionate about nuclear power plants, which, like coal-fired ones, use steam turbines to generate electricity. Converting mass to energy by atomic fission in order to achieve temperatures normally found only on the surface of stars like the sun and then using that extraterrestrial heat to boil water—well, it smacks of (to borrow a term from the nuclear dark side) overkill. To be fair, boiling water by burning black rocks made of petrified vegetable matter from the age of the dinosaurs is a little strange, too. And nuclear power plants have one great advantage over the fossil-fuel kind: they do not emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is hastening the world toward climatic disruption and disaster.

President Obama, in his State of the Union address, after talking up innovations in battery technology and solar panels, said, “To create more of these clean-energy jobs we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Last month, he backed that up with a federal loan guarantee of $8.3 billion to build two new reactors near Waynesboro, Georgia. And in his budget request for 2011 he has asked for $46 billion more. The applause

for his State of the Union line was louder on the Republican side of the aisle than on the Democratic, and his words and actions have prompted loud grumbling from environmental organizations. But global warming has punched some holes in the green wall. Such founding fathers of the environmental movement as Stewart Brand, the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, and Patrick Moore, an early stalwart of Greenpeace, now support nukes. James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a climate-change prophet, favors the so-called fourth-generation nuclear systems, which would substantially reduce the amount of nuclear waste. Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, is another supporter. So, within limits, are liberal senators like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. And so is President Obama.

“We were hopeful last year—he was saying all the right things,” Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth, said after Obama’s loan-guarantee announcement. “But now he has become a full-blown nuclear-power proponent—a startling change over the past few months.” Actually, Obama has been a nuclear-power proponent ever since he was a state legislator, but in the context of an energy regime that underwrites conservation, promotes renewables like wind and solar, and, crucially, puts a price on carbon. Nuclear power plants are unbelievably expensive to build, but once they are up and running the electricity they generate is cheap to produce. In the United States, coal plants (there are six hundred of them, as against a hundred nuclear ones) get a kind of subsidy, too, and it’s huge: the right to dispose of their most dangerous waste by sending it up the chimney, free of charge.
:}

Please see the rest of article for a great summary of the past and a largely noncommital ending. More tomorrow.

:}

Morris and Gann On Energy Policy – Obama bad McCain good

Posted on by
Reply

What a difference the evaporation of 5 $$$ gasoline and 2 years makes. Obama is President and one of the greenest Presidents we have ever had. McCain is not. Gasoline, though rising, is at 3.25 $$$ a gallon. Electric cars have just rolled out of two car companies, one of which Obama saved through a bailout. The electrics are popular and have waiting lists. The new normal for cars is 40 miles to the gallon. Of course I have the advantage of hindsight but I was pointing out that Obama had the superior energy policy back then so I can crow alittle.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_scores_with_offshore_dr.html

June 19, 2008

McCain Scores With Offshore Drilling Proposal

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama’s victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling — and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress – puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain’s argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.

For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.

Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.

The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket.

:}

Just so we are clear here, the Greedy Saudi’s had nothing to do with the gasoline prices, speculators and greedy refinery owners did. But then they are these guys friends so they couldn’t possibly see that. More tomorrow.

:}

Nuclear Power Too Cheap To Meter – Forty years later

Posted on by
Reply

Why in the world would you want to fuel up a 40 year old reactor. Because it is a religious dictatorship and the ayatollahs can order it to be done. It is Allah’s will. Allah definitely has a sense of humor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-20101027,0,1194581.storyIran begins fueling nuclear reactor

Iran begins fueling nuclear reactor

The start of the weeks-long process brings the controversial Bushehr plant another step closer to operation. Iran says the facility will generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity, but Western nations fear it is to be used to produce atomic weapons.

Nuclear power plantIran’s controversial nuclear plant near the southern Iranian city of Bushehr. The country has begun a weeks-long process to fuel its reactor. (Majid Asgaripour / AFP Getty Images)
By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles TimesOctober 26, 2010|6:53 a.m.
Reporting from Dubai, United Arab Emirates —

Iran began loading nuclear fuel rods into the core of its first nuclear power plant Tuesday, bringing the facility a step closer to producing electricity, Iranian state television reported.

The start of the weeks-long process lends credence to Iranian claims that a high-profile computer virus attack earlier this year did not significantly postpone the launch of the nuclear plant near the southern Iranian city of Bushehr. After years of delay, the plant, built in part by Russian engineers, is scheduled to produce electricity early next year, after all 163 of its fuel rods are moved into the reactor core and undergo tests.

“We hope that nuclear electricity would enter the national grid within the next three months,” said Ali Akbar Salehi, chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

The Smirking Monkey Is Going Out Of Business – Please help out

Posted on by
Reply

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

Here is a web site that suffered from lack of support, has 4 no 3 no 2 days left, and a point to make:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25006

Nuclear promises safe, cheap energy, but the truth is less enticing

by Pierre Tristam

| November 17, 2009 – 11:04am

Energy independence is the new creationism; nuclear power its deity. As the head glow for nuclear’s new dawn, you can’t do better than Aris Candris. He’s president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric, the company aiming to build 14 of 25 new nuclear reactors planned in the United States. Candris also sums up everything that’s wrong with the nuclear power industry’s orchestrated revival — the deceptions, the manipulated numbers, the false promises and the sheer swindle of taxpayer dollars for a technology with a lethal past and an unproven future. Candris’ Nov. 9 tribute to nuclear in The Wall Street Journal tells the tall tale.

:}

You can read all of those lies here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

He pretty much says the same thing no matter where he speaks – More Nukes..More Nukes

Nukes Good – Renewables Bad

:}

Aris says: Only nukes can supply the huge electrical demand. My source is bigger than your source.

Pierre says:

Actually, that’s more true of nuclear, far less so of renewable. Not a single nuclear power plant has been approved and built in the United States since the 1970s. The newest one, Watts Bar in Tennessee, began construction in 1973 and went online in 1996 — a 23-year span that multiplied its initial costs, to $7 billion. Candris gives the impression that a slew of plants are about to be built. Not so. A slew of plants applied for licenses, but only because the federal government is offering up to $1 billion in tax credits per new nuclear plant (once electricity production begins), as long as the application was in by the end of 2008.

:}

Aris says: Nukes planned will come in starting in 2016. My source is faster than your source.

Pierre says:

Look for pigs flying around Turkey Point, too, because Westinghouse’s claims are identical to those of Areva, a French company building what was supposed to be a next-generation nuclear plant in Finland — quick, safe, cheap. The plant, Europe’s first in 30 years, was supposed to open last summer. Finns will be lucky if it’s open by 2012. It was to cost $3.5 billion. The cost is now creeping close to $7 billion and counting.

:}

Aris says: Renewables, conservation, efficiency weak. Look at France.

Pierre says:

But French electricity consumption is 7,200 kilowatts per person per year, 44 percent less than the American consumption of 12,900 kilowatts per person. France is a model — of conservation. (Candris is wrong about France’s independence: it imports all of its oil and natural gas.)In the United States between 1995 and 2008, electricity consumption increased by 22 percent, more than the projected increase over the next 21 years. The country coped without gobs of nuclear power — and can cope again as renewables like wind and solar increase their share of electricity generation, from 5 percent today (compared with nuclear’s 20 percent) faster and safer. Imagine if renewables had the kind of obscene tax subsidies the nuclear industry is receiving.

:}

Aris says: ALL those wimpy girlie technologies  are expensive and US manly Nukes are cheap.

Pierre says:

In fact, nuclear energy is more expensive than solar or wind energy. Take Florida Power & Light’s plan to build two new nuclear reactors sometime over the next 12 years (it’s not clear when, though the company is already socking it to customers by making them pay for construction today. No other state but Georgia allows that con). The projected cost of the two reactors is $18 billion. It’ll certainly go up well beyond that by the time they’re done, but go with the $18 billion figure. The two reactors will produce 2,234 megawatts of electricity. That comes out to $8 million per megawatt at the opening bell. FPL just started operating a 25-megawatt solar-power plant in DeSoto County. Cost: $152 million, or $6 million per megawatt — $2 million cheaper than the projected cost of the nuclear reactors. With wind, it’s even cheaper. A Chinese-American consortium on Oct. 29 announced plans for a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas. Cost: $1.5 billion, or $2.5 million per megawatt. Cheap nuclear power? Demonstrably not.

Keep in mind that wind and solar farms require zero raw materials to operate, and minimal security. Terrorists aren’t about to crash planes into wind turbines or solar panels. Operating a nuclear plant is said to be cheaper than operating gas- or coal-fired plants — but not when security, liability and potential catastrophes are figured into the equation. And for all the safety advances of the past 30 years, the current fleet of about 100 reactors has a projected Chernobyl- or Three Mile Island-like severe accident rate of one every 100 years. Would you like to live near those odds?

The nuclear power industry can’t even persuade its own investors to bet on it, so it’s going after tax dollars and captive customers to pay for its dreamed-up expansion. Simple solution: If nuclear power can make it on its own, fine. But it’s far too dangerous, too uncertain, too costly and too tempting to terrorists to be subsidized by taxpayers and unwilling customers. So far, the nuclear power industry is betting equally and exclusively on public dollars and gullibility. Don’t let it get away with it.
:}

Pierre is right and Aris is wrong. Please support him.

:}

Mafia Sinks Nuclear Waste – Some stories defy catergorization

Posted on by
Reply

So I was preparing another post on weatherization and I was searching through Digg and Peak Oil for such stories…probably on window replacement or maybe weather stripping and I came across this WTF story that I just had to post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8257912.stm

Mafia ‘sank ships of toxic waste’

By Duncan Kennedy
BBC News, Italy


A shipwreck apparently containing toxic waste is being investigated by authorities in Italy amid claims that it was deliberately sunk by the mafia.

An informant from the Calabrian mafia said the ship was one of a number he blew up as part of an illegal operation to bypass laws on toxic waste disposal.

The sunken vessel has been found 30km (18 miles) off the south-west of Italy.

The informant said it contained “nuclear” material. Officials said it would be tested for radioactivity.

Murky pictures taken by a robot camera show the vessel intact and alongside it are a number of yellow barrels.

Labels on them say the contents are toxic.

The informant said the mafia had muscled in on the lucrative business of radioactive waste disposal.

But he said that instead of getting rid of the material safely, he blew up the vessel out at sea, off the Calabrian coast.

He also says he was responsible for sinking two other ships containing toxic waste.

Experts are now examining samples taken from the wreck.

Other vessels

An official said that if the samples proved to be radioactive then a search for up to 30 other sunken vessels believed scuttled by the mafia would begin immediately.

:}

Tree Hugger and the New York Times adds this:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/toxic-waste-ship-sunk-mafia-found-italy.php

!

calabria coast photo
Somewhere out there are more toxic waste ships waiting to be found. Photo: Peter Rohleder via flickr.

This may sound like a pretty good TV crime show plot, but this is non-fiction: Reuters reports that Italian authorities have discovered a ship containing 180 barrels of toxic waste (some of which may be radioactive), which was purposely sunk by the Mafia, off Italy’s southern coast. What’s more, it’s suspected there are 32 more vessels waiting to be found:

The ship was discovered after a former member of the ‘Ndrangheta organized crime organization tipped off police — the informant was personally responsible for sinking this ship and two others.

The 360′-long vessel is about 18 miles off the coast of Calabria, in 1600′ of water. Based on TV images, at least one barrel has fallen off the ship and it now empty on the sea floor.

Since tighter environmental regulations in the 1980s, illegal dumping of toxic waste has been embraced by the Mafia as another lucrative income stream.

Mafia Has Used Somalia As Dumping Ground for 20 Years
Here’s the broader connection here: Since the 1990s the Mafia have been known to dump toxic waste in the waters off Somalia — where the utter lack of government means it costs one-tenth that of dumping in Europe. In 2004, toxic and radioactive waste washed up on Somali beaches, causing illness in local people. This toxic waste dumping is also cited by local fisherman as contributing to declining fish stocks in the region, thereby pushing people to piracy.

:}

The New York Times and the Associated Press adds this:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/15/world/AP-EU-Italy-Toxic-Mafia.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=mafia%20sink%20ships&st=cse

Giordano said the former mobster, Francesco Fonti, from the Calabria-based ‘ndrangheta crime syndicate, has claimed the mob sank ”hundreds” of barrels of illegally disposed of waste.

The prosecutor, based in Paola, Calabria, has promised that if analyses do turn up toxic substances, the hunt would be on for more sunken ships.

Fonti claims mobsters made millions of dollars illegally dumping radioactive and other toxic wastes for northern Italian businesses. Fonti has said he himself has been involved in the alleged sinking of three vessels, including the ship the robotic diver is now filming.

In recent interviews, Fonti’s face was blackened out to protect his identity, since he is under state protection.

Fonti claims the ship being filmed was carrying 120 barrels of radioactive waste when he alleged he used explosives to sink it some 20 miles (32 kilombers) off the Calabrian coast in 1992.

Investigators have long looked into claims that Italy’s southern-based crime syndicates, including the Naples-area Camorra and the ‘ndrangheta ran illegal rackets disposing of toxic wastes, including in clandestine land dumps.

The plot of the Italian hit movie ”Gomorrah” revolved around a Camorra racket that dumped toxic refuse in farmland near Naples.

Greenpeace and the Italian environmental group Lega Ambiente have been compiling lists over the last few decades of ships that have disappeared off Italy and Greece as they pursue reports of boats laden with toxic substances being sunk.

A Greenpeace official, Alessandro Gianni, told Associated Press Television News in an interview Tuesday that in the ’90s, his organization tried to learn the fate of ships that might have been involved in toxic dumping.

:}

So that is the story of Somalian Piracy…Since the various organized crime families are world wide now how much of this has been going on. The Russians sank a Chinese Ship in January. Another Russian Ship went “astray” in July. Has the Mafia turned the high seas into their personal toxic dumping ground? Better question to ask is, did Big Businesses like the Nuclear Power Plants of the world turn to the Mafia to dump their toxic waste…hmmmmm?

:}

Bataan Nuclear Power Plant And Earthquakes – Shake, Rattle and Roll

Posted on by
Reply

(it’s jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20Feq_Nt3nM )

This maybe the longest list of Qualifiers I have ever published and I have to start by eating crow to boot. I made a missssstaaake yesterday. The piece that I was quoting yesterday was actually a piece on seismic activity, but I thought what it said was more applicable to Volcanic eruptions. I said that the Natib Caldera had erupted 3,000 years ago, but the actual article said that a major fault shift had occurred every 2,000 years. The last major fault shift was 3,000 years ago so a major Earth Quake was overdue. The caldera last blew 14 to 18,000 years ago and not enough is known about its activity to say what its periocity is. Whew, I feel so much better…A major earthquake in the area is overdue.

( I know that Shake Rattle and Roll isn’t really a jam song but what the heck it’s Friday)

As was noted in one of the comments in the seismic piece, the Philippines is not alone in either being on the Ring Of Fire nor is it the only Earth Quake prone zone in the world.  Japan and America are both very sophisticated places technologically and also have extensive infrastructures to handle disasters in general. The Philippines is neither. Plus where are you going to evacuate too? It is an island. Not only that but the Japanese and the Americans have released a lot of radiation over the years. Look the big deal is Bataan is not fueled. Once it is fueld you might as well run it because everything is radioactive anyway. Drago in the US is just as much a threat.  I bitched about it for years while it was being built and submitted written protest to the Nuclear Regulatory Agency in DC when it was Licensed.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpT8Sd9wRlQ&feature=related )

:}

So having said all that, the Philippines really shakes:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=7.8686,126.8434(M5.7+-+Mindanao,+Philippines+-+2009+May+21+05%3A53%3A59+UTC)&t=h&z=7

Everyday. Why because the Philippines sits on the edge of a Techtonic Plate. So really BIG things can happen:

( Elvis shake those hips http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCBT7PfAEgc&feature=related )

http://www.drj.com/drworld/content/w1_116.htm

Earthquake Devastates Philippines

By Cathy Clark and Jim Taylor

On July 16, 1990 at 4:26 p.m. local time, a severe earthquake registering 7.7 on the Richter scale struck the northern Philippines. The earthquake caused damage over a region of about 7700 square miles, extending northwest from Manila through the densely populated Central Plains of Luzon and into the mountains of the Cordillera Central.
Over 5,000 people were reported dead or injured, and in excess of 2300 infrastructures were either destroyed or seriously damaged. While the quake was devastating, it was not an unusual occurrence in the Philippines; since 1950 alone there have been six major earthquakes at various locations in the archipelago, having magnitudes ranging from 7.3 to 8.3.

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

Buildings were decimated by ground shaking, soil failure and liquefication (causing them to settle into the ground), and landslides.
Nearly all multistory buildings in the Philippines are constructed of reinforced concrete frames, supporting slab floors. Short-column failure was evident in many buildings observed to have the classic diagonal cracking where the column was acting as a short shear wall and could not carry the loads. Many unreinforced masonry infilled walls separated from the concrete frames and collapsed.
In the heavily shaken regions, two general types of disastrous failure to multistory, larger reinforced concrete buildings were observed–failed first stories and total building collapse.

First-story (or Soft-story) Failures

The ground floor of a building is frequently the weakest part of the structure. It is seldom enclosed on all four sides by walls capable of resisting shear forces, and it is also generally taller than upper floors. Ground floor shops, stores, lobbies, or garages normally allot most of their front wall area to doors or plate glass, leaving one side of the building with no shear resistance. Bending and shear forces induced by strong ground shaking are therefore concentrated in the ground-floor columns. As a result, the building may fail by collapse of only its first story, with the stronger upper section of the building remaining intact.

Multistory Failures

Many multistory building failures or “pancake” collapses (typically with structures of six to ten stories) were observed in the city of Baguio. One such collapse included a nine-story hotel which killed over a dozen occupants on the ground floor. This type of damage has been observed repeatedly in numerous earthquakes throughout the world where design and construction deficiencies exist.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_SOmE5tfNo&feature=related )

Not only that but it appears to happen about once every 20 years or so:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/1968_Casiguran_earthquake

Ph Locator Aurora Casiguran

 The 1968 Casiguran earthquake occurred on August 2, 1968 at a magnitude of 7.3 on the Richter scale. The earthquake’s epicenter was located in Casiguran
Casiguran is a 3rd class Philippine municipality in the northern part of the Philippine province of Aurora province, Philippines. It is located 121 km from Baler, Aurora, the provincial capital…. Quezon

Quezon is a Provinces of the Philippines of the Philippines located in the CALABARZON Regions of the Philippines in Luzon. The province was named after Manuel L….(now part of Aurora province).The city of Manila, or simply ‘Manila’, is the Capital of the Philippines and one of the 17 cities and municipalities that make up Metro Manila…. was the hardest hit with 268 people were killed and 261 more were injured. Many structures that suffered severe damage were built near the mouth of the Pasig River

The Pasig River is a river in the Philippines and connects Laguna de Bay into Manila Bay. It stretches for and divides Metro Manila into two….on huge alluvial deposits. A number of buildings were damaged beyond repair while others only suffered cosmetic damage. Two hundred and sixty people died during the collapse of the 6-story Ruby Tower, located in the district of Binondo. The entire building, save for a portion of the first and second floors at its northern end, was destroyed. Allegations of poor design and construction, as well as use of low-quality building materials, arose. In the District of Santa Ana is a district of the City of Manila in the Philippines, located at the southeast banks of the Pasig River, bounded on the northeast by Mandaluyong City, Makati City to the east, southwest is the Manila district of Paco, Manila, and to the west, Pandacan, Manila…. one person was injured by debris from a damaged apartment building.
Two more people from Aurora sub province and Pampanga  is a Provinces of the Philippines of the Philippines located in the Central Luzon Regions of the Philippines. Its capital is the City of San Fernando, Pampanga….
died as a direct result of the quake. Around the town of Casiguran, there were several reports of landslides, the most destructive one at Casiguran Bay.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t61oJT-d900&feature=related  )

So let’s put our thinking caps on here. The Luzon Earth Quake happened in 1990 and Pinatubo happened in 1991. What if the Luzon earthquake had hit Manila like the Casiguran. I don’t think I would have wanted to have had to worry about a Nuclear Reactor popping off. Guess what it has been about 20 years…

:}