http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Atomic Fri, 24 May 2013 15:33:07 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Atomic Thu, 23 May 2013 02:15:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5be_1369289217 jason16 Experts commissioned by the operator of a Japanese nuclear plant that faces possible closure because of a suspected active seismic fault say a decision should wait, citing insufficient data. Operator Japan Atomic Power Co. disputes that view. The decision is being closely watched as the pro-nuclear government moves to restart plants suspended since the Fukushima nuclear crisis. The plant's owners plan to appeal the regulators' decision. Still, the development comes as a number of other plants are awaiting determination whether their sites contain active faults. The decision could also be viewed as a setback for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government, which took office in December. Mr. Abe's administration effectively wants to reverse a decision to eventually phase out nuclear power, a move taken by the previous government that was in office during the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident. For the company, which is jointly owned by Japan's major utilities, the closure of the Tsuruga plant would eliminate its only source of revenue and pose large-scale costs for a permanent decommissioning of the facility. ( http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/japan-nuclear-reactor-atop-active-fault-/684020.html ) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5be_1369289217 jason16 Nuclear Reactors more valuable than human lives? world news Mon, 20 May 2013 19:26:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1369091143 Detroit Iron The D-Wave Two is the most advanced commercially available quantum computer in the world. These almost unfathomably futuristic machines can run more calculations in an instant than there are atoms in the universe By Carmel Lobello 12:50pm EST The nonprofit Universities Space Research Association just splurged on a new toy: A $10 million D-Wave Two quantum computer. The machine is the most advanced commercially available quantum computer in the world. USRA installed the device, which should be online by the end of September, at the new Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab at the Ames Research Center in Silicon Valley, where researchers from USRA, NASA, and Google will put it use. What is a quantum computer? Think of it this way: Regular computers process information using bits, which can innately have only one of two values (zero or one, plus or minus, yes or no, etc). Quantum computers use qubits, which can simultaneously represent more than one value. In that sense, "quantum computing could herald a new era of number-crunching," said Robert McMillan at Wired , by breaking out of the "binary" system of computing. USA Today explains: A quantum computer takes advantage of a principle in physics that on the atomic scale particles can be in many places at once or have multiple properties such as magnetism or an electrical charge simultaneously. They would store data in these multiple positions at once, unlike conventional computers, which only store one value or data point in their circuits at a time. USA Today ] That means Qubits can multitask, which results in outstanding power. "A quantum computer with 300 qubits could run more calculations in an instant than there are atoms in the universe," says Technology Review . Considering there are between 10 to the 78th power and 10 to the 82nd power atoms in the universe, quantum computers sound unfathomably, maybe even unnecessarily, fast. The fastest supercomputer, the Titan Cray XK47 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, can already perform quadrillions of calculations per second. What function could possibly need more power than that? Apparently, something called machine learning, or "the way computers take note of patterns of information to improve their outputs," says Quentin Hardy at the New York Times . "Personalized Internet search and predictions of traffic congestion based on GPS data are examples of machine learning." Hardy goes on: "The field is particularly important for things like facial or voice recognition, biological behavior, or the management of very large and complex systems." You can see why this might be appealing to Google, right? As Hartmut Neven, Google's director of engineering, wrote : We believe quantum computing may help solve some of the most challenging computer science problems, particularly in machine learning. Machine learning is all about building better models of the world to make more accurate predictions. If we want to cure diseases, we need better models of how they develop. If we want to create effective environmental policies, we need better models of what's happening to our climate. And if we want to build a more useful search engine, we need to better understand spoken questions and what's on the web so you get the best answer. Google ] http://theweek.com/article/index/244423/what-is-a-quantum-computer--and-why-does-google-need-one http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06_1369091143 Detroit Iron What is a quantum computer - and why does Google need one? quantum computer, Universities Space Research Association Sat, 18 May 2013 20:46:59 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1368911093 Brandon Angel Produced by Time Out Multi Media Please See Our Sponsors: Temple University Apartments ^0 Vitality Caps ^0 Social Shopping Network Produced for DNA Super Science These are just a simple collection of you-have-have-to-look-for-it information regarding new 2012 DNA Breakthroughs that outline overwhelming Human potentials. We have driven the research to the atomic level in weapon making and war, but we have not unlocked much human molecular information at all. In fact for the last 40+ years we have regarded the portions of material (this represents 95% of the total DNA material even) that house the control switch-like abilities in Humans as Junk DNA !? Mainstream Education, Mainstream Science and Mainstream News have and continue to omit this information from it' public presentations. There is very little information, out and certain individuals have been attacked for speaking out about it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e2_1368911093 Brandon Angel DNA Super Science Current Headlines Regarding 2012 Breakthroughs dna, dna breakthroughs, 2012, 2013, dna super science, junk dna, dark matter, human potential, science cover-ups, cover-ups, science, human dna Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:38:55 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1366900337 2Crazy4U New version of the Nevada Test Site montage from the HD version of "Atomic Journeys" available for purchase download viewing through GoDigital. ATOMIC JOURNEYS explores the secret history of the over 900 Atomic and Hydrogen bomb tests detonated throughout the United States in previously unknown locations as diverse as Mississippi, Colorado, New Mexico and Alaska. Through the use of spectacular, never-before-seen nuclear test footage, ATOMIC JOURNEYS travels to former test sites and examines the physical changes to the environment, the history behind each test and what the test sites are like today. Finally, we will visit the Nevada Test Site, Located 65 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada, the Nevada Test Site has come to be known as the most bombed place on earth. Narrated by William Shatner, with music performed by the Moscow Symphony Orchestra. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=757_1366900337 2Crazy4U <span class="highlight">Atomic</span> Journeys - New &quot;Nevada Test Site&quot; montage -- HD Atomic Journeys - New &quot;Nevada Test Site&quot; montage -- HD Mon, 13 May 2013 21:13:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dab_1368493019 gubastek Documentary profiling the events which almost led to nuclear World War 3 back in 1983. 'Able Archer' Runtime - 1.5 hours. It's important to remember this event, regardless of which country you live in. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dab_1368493019 gubastek How Close We Came To WW3 In 1983 USSR, USA, Russia, America, CIA, KGB, Yuri Andropov, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, spies, spy, double agent, Able Archer, WW3, world war 3, 1983, nuclear war, atomic war, November 1983, Sun, 05 May 2013 07:14:15 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=99d_1367749694 TonyComix Part 1 of 2 - Nothing worse than a panzy behind the panel! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=99d_1367749694 TonyComix Fall Outtakes PT1 Fallout 3 (Video Game),Video Game (Industry),Bethesda,studio,fallout,three,1up,mushroom,island,videa gaym,Drama,Nuclear,Weapons,Total,Atomic,Action,Destruction,war,never,changes,Destroy,Power,Missile,Blast,cloud,Explosions,megaton,mass,Nuclear Weapon (Inv Thu, 16 May 2013 16:26:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=548_1368730209 Brandon Angel Video Produced by Time Out Multi Media Sponsored by Vitality Caps Originaly Produced for or &quot;Leaked&quot; in Infowars.com Operation Paul Revere Film Contest We can war at a molecular level and flip atomic switches in plutonium metal, although we have regarded our own molecular science as being 95% Junk. That's right every biologist and geneticist knows the phrase Junk DNA , and they have been trained to cut this DNA bi-product or insulation from the petri dish as they commence in doing their normal examinations of heredity and.... eye color. Following the ten years and four million in funding known as the Human Genome Project (2001-2010), essentially drawing a map of the human molecular structure and identifying it's points, other types of testing has been conducted. Miraculously 2012 proved to be the year that definitive results were had regarding behavioral actions and conscious decision making in relation to genetic level results and changes. To put this simply, that the choices we make in life, affect our genetics, and affect our kids genetics, as to make physical material changes in our physical life based on our rights and our wrongs and everything in between. A highly complex and calculated system of science that is a realization that instead of junk we are so much more complicated than the anatomy poster at the doctors office would have you think. In addition to this activity there are studies that present DNA storage capabilities. Philosophical ideas meet genetics as human and animal genetic testing shows us that we are born with a incredible amount of information as to knowing how to bury holes, eat food, find food and certain food types, and so much more. The signs point to realities in independent human progression based on conscious and good decision making, as biblical as that may sound. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=548_1368730209 Brandon Angel DNA SUPER SCIENCE - The Greatest Science to Man, and the astonishing 2012 breakthroughs dna science, behavioral science, book of mormon, dna, dna 2012, dna breakthroughs, new dna, dna super science Sun, 12 May 2013 07:32:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b09_1368357496 Shireen Said Was Syria 'nuked'? File photo shows damage caused by an Israeli airstrike near Damascus on May 5, 2013. Striking evidence of the use of American EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapons) nuclear weapons in Syria has come to light. Experts say the proof is irrefutable. Dramatic video footage from Syria has revealed startling evidence that counters Israel's claims of "surgical strikes" on weapons headed to Lebanon. What were said to be air strikes is now proven to have actually been artillery, something easily discernible to even an untrained observer. What happens next is shocking. While artillery shells rain down on Syrian army positions, mobile Israeli artillery in direct support and even accompanying rebel forces inside Syria, a huge explosion occurs. After analysis, it had become clear, Syria had come under attack by Israel using, not just nuclear weapons, but an American nuclear bunker buster bomb, one of several supplied to Israel to use against Iran, one of the last acts of the Bush/Cheney administration. Submitted for analysis, the footage was compared with tests of the 37,000-pound MOB (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), designed by Boeing to be used against Iran's underground facilities. There was no similarity whatsoever noted between the Syrian "event" and a conventional "bunker buster" including the GBU 57, the largest conventional weapon every to be used. More Proof Colonel James Hanke, former Defense Attach'e and Liaison between the Pentagon and Netanyahu's government , reviewed the footage. He indicated that the GBU 57 is considered too high a risk for use because of its danger to the earth's crust. The Syrian/African fault line spreads into Israel. Were it to be subjected to this kind of explosive power, the threat of an earthquake doing significant damage in Israel is a reality. The nuclear bunker busters have far less penetrating power and, I am not saying that this was a nuclear device, not until more evidence is in, but the 'event profile' shows striking similarities. The other problem with the GBU 57 is delivery. Only two aircraft are capable of delivering this weapon, the B-52 and B-2 Stealth Bomber. Israel does not have these aircraft. Collapse of UD Air Force Command Structure, Again Thus, if a MOP where used, it could have only been delivered by the United States Air Force, an organization reeling from recent disasters within its own ranks after a second lapse in nuclear weapons security in a five-year period was discovered at Minot Air Force Base in South Dakota. Seventeen officers have been removed, a "house cleaning" of unprecedented scale. Back in 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ordered a restructuring of America's nuclear security command after a 2007 incident at Minot. A B-52 was loaded with thermonuclear weapons and flown off the base, violating 84 separate authorization protocols. The plane was later recovered over 1500 miles away under circumstances that have never been adequately explained. What is also not clear is whether the entire nuclear payload was recovered, complete and intact. Nuclear Use in Iraq Proven The most important consideration is whether any command organization, be it Israeli, American or any other, would be willing to use nuclear weapons. There is little question that their use has been advocated by both political and military leaders. The prohibition has been the ability to conceal their use. Events in Iraq have proven such concealment to have worked effectively and when conclusive proof of nuclear weapons use was offered to the media and world scientific community, it was quickly "contained." On December 31, 2010, Dr. James Fetzer interviewed Dr. Chris Busby, a bio-medical studies professor at the University of Ulster, engaged in research on the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in relation to birth defects in Iraqi children. What Dr. Busby found was startling: The interesting thing about the uranium was that we were able to measure the isotopic ratio because we were interested to see whether it was, you know, natural uranium or was it DU, which is what we thought it would be. But in fact it turned out to be slightly enriched uranium , so, that is to say, it was manmade enriched uranium. Now enriched uranium is a material that should only be found in a nuclear power station or inside an atomic bomb. So to find it in the hair of the parents of these children with congenital malformations was really astonishing. So we then went to look to see how this could be, and to cut a long story short, we concluded from various patents from the US patent office that we received from physicists, that it was quite entirely likely that there was a new secret weapon being used, an anti-personnel weapon of some sort which contained enriched uranium or else generated enriched uranium. ...the alternative - which is sort of science fictional and which is entirely possible - I have to say, which is that they have developed a sort of neutron device which uses enriched uranium as part of its components to generate neutrons. And the way it does this is to dissolve tritium in uranium powder... What Dr. Busby is describing is an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (ERW) or Neutron Bomb. Other variations in America's secret nuclear arsenal included Minimal Residual Radiation (MRR) weapons. Evidence of use of "special weapons" has been found at the scenes of more than one terror attack, Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center (9/11), Bali and several others. The first hard evidence published by qualified scientists involved Fallujah. However, use of nuclear weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan, is said to be relatively common. Israel's Bomb Inventory Scandal One of the greatest "non-secrets" of recent years involves the placement of Israel's weapons inventory. In 1986, Israeli nuclear weapons technician, Modechai Vanunu, was kidnapped from Italy and taken to Israel where he has been held for over 25 years. His crime; reporting on Israeli's secret nuclear program at Dimona. Cables released by Wikileaks revealed that the United States had, in 2006, allowed Libya to build a new chemical weapons facility. What has not been "Wiki-leaked" is that, when the facility was discovered after the fall of the Gaddafi government, it was found to have been run by the Israeli government. Since those initial reports, nothing more has been mentioned. It is very likely that this illegal facility, inside Libya, is still in Israeli hands. In June 2010, the USS Grapple, an American naval vessel with an "unspecified" foreign crew, docked at the port of Poti, in Georgia. Ten Israeli torpedo boats, similar to those that attacked the USS Liberty, escorted it. The ship's cargo was bombs, including runway and area denial weapons along with the enhanced version of the BLU 113 "Super Penetrator," a conventional bunker buster weapon weighting 4700 pounds. Azerbaijani Ploy These munitions were then transferred to weapons bunkers at a former Soviet airfield inside Azerbaijan where Israel had managed to sequester a number of attack aircraft. These planes had flown on to Azerbaijan after taking part in joint operations between the Turkish and Israeli air forces. After their presence was discovered, we have been told the Israeli planes returned home but there is no evidence that the munitions had been repatriated to either Israel or to the United States, their place of origin. Conclusion We know and can prove that advanced nuclear weapons have been used in the United States. We have evidence of their use elsewhere in recent years. We also know that methodologies to conceal their use and manage press leaks have been very effective and have created a combat environment where the "nuclear option" is always "on the table." We also have film and photographs from Syria showing something we have no other explanation for. Would Israel use such weapons? Do they have the means? Do they have a motive? Have they had the opportunity? Do they have sufficient control of press organizations to encourage this kind of blatant recklessness? I think we all know the answer. GD/NN Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. More Press TV articles by Gordon Duff Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/10/302772/was-syria-nuked/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b09_1368357496 Shireen Said Was Syria 'nuked'? Syria, Nuked, Israel, Zionists, Nuclear Weapons, Use, In, Iraq, Already, Proven, Neutron Bomb, Gordon Duff Sat, 11 May 2013 03:26:24 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=864_1368257011 Salamander This is a well produced basic introduction to the issue of creating sustainable fusion energy. Currently, the only fusion possible is on a micro scale, or in a thermonuclear bomb. This video attempts to look at what it will take for clean fusion nuclear power in the future. "A school class in 2100: The futuristic lesson is backed up with documentary photos and animations and gives the viewer an entertaining survey of the principles, development and status of fusion research. Like the sun, a fusion power plant is to derive energy from fusion of atomic nuclei. To ignite the fusion fire one has to succeed in confining the fuel, a hydrogen plasma, in magnetic fields and heating it to temperatures of over 100 million degrees. The next step in world-wide fusion research on the way to this almost inexhaustible energy source is the ITER international test reactor." http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=864_1368257011 Salamander How will a fusion power plant work? fusion, nuclear, energy, environment Fri, 10 May 2013 10:32:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a6_1368196302 AntiPropagaanda Iraq, Iran : the lesson of sanctions International security Iran Iraq Middle East Sovereignty Les dossiers du CERI Auteur(s) : Francois Nicoullaud Date : 05/2013 In 1990, Saddam Hussein did not understand that the world had changed with the fall of the Wall. He thought that the USSR would protect him from America after the invasion of Kuwait, and paid dearly his mistake. Abandoned by the Soviets, Iraq had to bear the cost, first of a war lost, and second of international sanctions, on a scale and harshness still unmatched today. On the 6th of August, 1990, four days after the invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council adopted, with the approval of its five permanent members, Resolution 661 implementing an overall embargo on imports from, and exports to Iraq, and on all financial movements. It envisaged a kind of safety valve for the supply of humanitarian goods, but this provision did not come into effect until 1996, in the form of the "Oil for Food" program, because of Iraq's initial resistance to further controls. After the liberation of Kuwait, Resolution 687, adopted on the 3rd of April, 1991, again with the assent of the five Permanent Members, launched the search and destruction of all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and of missiles over a 150 kilometer range. Two days later, Resolution 688 condemned the repression of civilian populations, especially the Kurds, and opened the way to the famous "right of humanitarian intervention". Finally, moving beyond the decisions of the Security Council, the United States, Great-Britain and France set up two no-fly zones, one as soon as April 2011 in Northern Iraq, to protect the Kurds, the second in the South on the following year, to protect Shi'a populations. Over the years, the toll inflicted by the embargo on Iraqis' health and welfare raised growing questions in the international opinion. Humanitarian NGOs started producing reports detailing how sanctions were entailing hundreds of thousands deaths, especially among children. In 1997, the French president, Jacques Chirac, declared at an international Summit in Hanoi : "Our goal is to convince, not to compel. I have never seen a policy of sanctions producing anything positive." The year before, France had stopped contributing to the Northern no-fly zone. It withdrew from the Southern one in 1999. In the meantime, Iraq was bearing grudgingly the international inspections set up by Resolution 687. By December, 1998, the United States inflicted on the country a wave of targeted strikes, in principle to degrade its suspected WMD capacities, more likely to help topple Saddam Hussein's regime. But the Regime held on, and a new war had to be launched in 2003 to finally bring it down. How do sanctions against Iran compare to such a history? First, Russia, succeeding the USSR, and China, do not look at the world as in 1990, and have developed growing reservations regarding the use of sanctions. And the Iranian case, in its outset, did not carry a violation of international law as blatant as the Iraqi case, which saw the massive aggression of a UN member state by another member state. Russia and China have consequently refused to endorse an embargo expanding beyond the points of contention, i.e. nuclear, military and ballistic. These sanctions having produced but a feeble impression on the Iranian regime, the United States and the European Union have resolved to resort to their own additional sanctions, interrupting all oil-related business, and progressively drying up all financial flows with Iran. And to reinforce the efficiency of these sanctions, the United States set up "secondary sanctions", compelling third parties to join in. In the past, such a practice had been strongly opposed by the European Union. This time, it has quietly endorsed US pressures on a vast array of countries, especially in Asia, to convince them to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, and to interrupt their monetary transactions with Tehran, except for trade expressed in their national currencies. In spite of its unwavering support, the European Union has been submitted, like everyone else, to the pressures of the American Administration and Congress, for instance when the question arose to forbid to Iranians banks access to European automated banking services. But this new architecture of sanctions suffers from a lesser legitimacy than the Iraqi set of sanctions, which was placed entirely under the aegis of the United Nations. The great consumers of Iranian oil : China, Japan, India, South Korea... have reduced their purchases only in the proportion required to avoid punition by the United States. True, Iranian oil exports have been cut by half. But this oil is sold at a price fluctuating between 80 and 100 dollars per barrel, as the price of the barrel seldom went over 30 dollars from the beginning of the Islamic revolution, in 1979, to the election of Ahmadinejad as president, in 2005. Furthermore, an unknown share of the Iranian production is, in all likelihood, sold under a few other pavilions. And quite obviously, some banks exotic enough to be able to dodge American monitoring succeed, at the proper price, in managing exchanges between Iran and the outer world. True also, the Iranian riyal has lost about two thirds of its value in dollars, but it was until recently, as a matter of prestige, maintained at a grossly overrated level. Its present value is much closer to the economic truth. This correction has certainly encouraged inflation. But it offers margins of competitiveness quite unheard of to the Iranian industry, which was until now stifled by Asian productions. It offers an opportunity to raise the proportion of non-oil exports in the Iranian trade balance. This devaluation has therefore positive aspects. Of course, the Iranian population pays dearly for these sanctions, and also for the erratic management of the economy by the Iranian government, as was the case in Saddam's Iraq. In theory, imports of humanitarian products, like food and medicine, do not fall under the embargo. But the complexity of the system make such imports more or less impracticable, except for exceptional cases as when some giant of the food industry, like Cargill, deems it convenient to sell corn to Iran. All things considered, the shock created by sanctions is not as heavy as it was in Iraq. The sheer size of the Iranian population - 75 million inhabitants versus 20 million Iraqis at the turn of the century - acts as an absorber. And in spite of serious shortcomings, the level of self-sufficiency of the Iranian economy, in agriculture as well as in industry, is clearly higher than in Saddam's Iraq. Could the Iranians be less resigned than the Iraqis to be taken as hostages by their government in its quarrel with the outer world? If they were to rise from submission, would the Regime be ready to show itself as merciless as the former master of Baghdad, or the present master of Damascus? The Iranian civil society has already paid a heavy price for the upheavals entailed by the rigged elections of 2009. It is not in a position to challenge again the Regime. On the other hand, this Regime will probably hesitate to rig the upcoming presidential election as grossly as last time. All in all, one does not see coming from the horizon the internal crisis which could undermine the Islamic Republic to a point where it would have no other choice but to give up to the West. And the present nuclear showdown is here to last quite a while. The last round of negotiation in Almaty, at the beginning of April, has revealed a wide and enduring gap between the parties, even if there has been some progress in the quality of their exchanges. A breakthrough seems for the moment out of reach, all the more as Iran is going to be absorbed in the presidential election and the installation of its new president until the end of summer. In order to hasten the moment when Iran's economic collapse and political isolation would drive it to a full surrender, can we envisage to exert on the Regime even higher pressure? Francois Hollande, the French president, has been declaring at the beginning of March : "France will take its responsibilities in order to maintain pressure, to harden the sanctions, so as the Iranian rulers abide by their international commitments, by the Security Council's resolutions." But then, it becomes somehow difficult to see what kind of crushing sanctions could complement the present ones. Such sanctions will not be able to rely on the legitimacy of the United Nations. They will have to take into account the low motivation of most third countries to partake in such an escalation, as well as the growing ingenuity of Iran in dodging the embargo. One cannot therefore exclude that, as in the Iraqi case, sanctions will not be able to bring the desired outcome. Then, again as in the Iraqi case, comes the temptation to resort to force. But Tehran is taking great care to avoid offering to the United States the opportunity to intervene. It stays cautiously behind the red line defined by President Obama as the beginning of the production of a nuclear explosive device. It stays even behind the red line defined by Prime Minister Netanyahu as the possession of enough 20% enriched uranium to obtain in a matter of weeks, by further enrichment, enough highly enriched uranium for a first atomic bomb. And the US administration will not dare to build a case like the one which led to the invasion of Iraq. To show how times have changed, the US Intelligence Community, much to the chagrin of the neoconservatives eager to knock heads with Iran, reminds regularly since 2007 that the Islamic Republic has interrupted its clandestine nuclear program by the end of 2003, and has not, since then, taken the decision to produce nuclear weapons. There should be a third way to come out of the crisis, but it implies a deep change in the parameters of the negotiation. There is one idea, and only one, on which such a change could be built : the recognition of Iran's right to enrich, but enshrined in a system of controls powerful enough to practically forbid any access to the Bomb. Ali Khamenei, leader of the revolution, has recently supported such a formula in a public speech. Now, if there were an interest in exploring it, the initiative rather belongs to the West. It belongs in reality to Barack Obama, the sole Western leader in a position to boost the negotiation as the European leaders have chosen to stand back, for lack of imagination, lack of cohesion, and lack of political will. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a6_1368196302 AntiPropagaanda Iraq, Iran : the lesson of sanctions Iran, Iraq, /sanctions, Lies, Wars, Oil, Thu, 09 May 2013 13:25:07 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb2_1368119983 omniradar The Severity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster: Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima By Prof. Matthew Penney and Prof. Mark Selden Global Research, March 11, 2013 Asia Pacific Journal and Global Research 24 May 2011 Region: Asia Theme: Environment Originally published on May 24, 2011 On April 12, 2011 the Japanese government officially announced that the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster had reached level 7, the highest on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Before Fukushima, the only level 7 case was the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, whose 25th anniversary was marked on April 26. Two and a half months after the 3.11 catastrophe, the first to affect multiple reactors, TEPCO and the Japanese government continue to struggle to bring the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi under control. TEPCO estimates that the problems could be solved in six to nine months now appearing extraordinarily optimistic and plans have been announced to close nuclear power plants deemed of particularly high risk such as the Hamaoka facility. Fukushima explosion Following the upgrade to level 7, Japan's Prime Minister's Office released a statement comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl. ( Source ) The Japanese government argues that apart from children who contracted thyroid cancer from drinking contaminated milk, there have been no health effects among ordinary citizens as a result of Chernobyl radiation. Is this really the case? Given the Japanese government's precautions against thyroid cancer in children, is there reason to believe that the Fukushima accident will take no lives except those exposed to the highest dangers in the plant clean-up? ( Source ) On April 15, Kyodo, Japan's major news service, ran an English language piece by Russian scientist Alexey V. Yablokov ( source ). Yablokov's stern warnings about the threat of even low levels of radiation had been ignored by the major media but was reported in Japanese in the Nishi Nippon Shimbun . ( Source ) The English only Kyodo piece, however, ties Yablokov's extensive Chernobyl research with the unfolding Fukushima crisis. Under the headline "How to minimize consequences of the Fukushima catastrophe," Yablokov observed that The analysis of the health impact of radioactive land contamination by the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, made by Professor Chris Busby (the European Committee of Radiation Risk) based on official Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology data, has shown that over the next 50 years it would be possible to have around 400,000 additional cancer patients within a 200-kilometer radius of the plant. This number can be lower and can be even higher, depending on strategies to minimize the consequences. Underestimation is more dangerous for the people and for the country than overestimation. Based on the Chernobyl experience, he made the following recommendations: 1. Enlarge the exclusion zone to at least about a 50-km radius of the plant; 2. Distribute detailed instructions on effective ways to protect the health of individuals while avoiding the additional contamination of food. Organize regular measurements of all people by individual dose counters (for overall radionuclides) at least once a week. Distribute radioprotectors and decontaminants (substances which provide the body protection against harmful effects of radiation) of radionuclides. . . 3. Develop recommendations for safe agriculture on the contaminated territories: reprocessing of milk, decontamination of meat, turning agriculture into production of technical cultures (e.g. biofuels etc.). Such "radionuclide-resistant" agriculture will be costly (it may be up to 30-40 percent compared with conventional agriculture) and needs to be subsidized; 4. It is necessary to urgently improve existing medical centers - and possibly create new ones - to deal with the immediate and long-term consequences of the irradiated peoples (including medical-genetic consultations on the basis of chromosome analysis etc.); 5. The most effective way to help organize post-Fukushima life in the contaminated territories (from Chernobyl lessons) is to create a special powerful interagency state body (ministry or committee) to handle the problems of contaminated territories during the first most complicated years. Yablokov is one of the primary architects of the 2006 Greenpeace report "The Chernobyl Catastrophe: Consequences on Human Health" and an extensive 2010 follow-up study Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment published by the New York Academy of Sciences, which makes the startling claim that 985,000 deaths can be attributed to the 1986 disaster. This claim is startling because it differs so dramatically from a 600 page 2005 study by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the WHO, and the UN Development Programme, which claimed that fewer than 50 deaths can be attributed directly to Chernobyl and fewer than 4000 likely from Chernobyl-related cancers in the future. Indeed, the two works continue to frame much of the public controversy, with little progress toward resolution. Attempts to assess the consequences of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remain the subject of fierce debate over widely different estimates in both the scientific and policy communities. In the months since the Fukushima disaster, scores of reports have uncritically passed on the results of the IAEA/WHO or the Yablokov study published by the New York Academy of Sciences without seriously engaging the conflicting conclusions or moving the debate forward. Here we present the major findings of major studies across the divide that may help to clarify the likely outcomes of the Fukushima disaster. ( 1 , 2 ) Yablokov and colleagues assessed thousands of studies of the localities and people affected by the Chernobyl disaster in Russian and other Eastern European languages. They argue that these studies have been ignored by the Anglophone scientific community. Critics, such as the British science journalist George Monbiot, have criticized Yablokov and his colleagues for attributing any increase in cancer occurrence in regions affected by Chernobyl to the radiation released in the disaster. Emphasizing the multiplicity of factors that may affect cancer rates, Monbiot states, for example, that none of the hardest hit areas subjected to Chernobyl radiation,show as dramatic a cancer increase in the 1986-2000 period as does Japan. The impact of Chernobyl radiation in Japan was negligible, yet the cancer rate there has nearly doubled since the disaster. In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, at a time when many have moved to reject the nuclear power option, Monbiot announced that he had abandoned his former criticism to embrace nuclear power as a responsible component of a green energy policy. Japanese government statistics in fact show large increases in screening rates for cancer during this period and this is one possible explanation for the increase in the number of cases reported. ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) Monty Charles of the School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, reviewed Yablokov's work in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry (Volume 141, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 101-104) and found the statistical conclusions far from clear and even contradictory: Numerous facts and figures are given with a range of references but with little explanation and little critical evaluation. Apparently related tables, figures and statements, which refer to particular publications often disagree with one another. The section on oncological diseases (cancer) was of most interest to me. A section abstract indicated that on the basis of doses from 131I and137Cs; a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and less contaminated territories; and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, the predicted radiation-related cancer deaths in Europe would be 212 000-245 000 and 19 000 in the remainder of the world. I could not however find any specific discussion within the section to support these numbers. The section ends with an endorsement of the work of Malko who has estimated 10 000-40 000 additional deaths from thyroid cancer, 40 000-120 000 deaths from the other malignant tumours and 5000-14 000 deaths from leukaemia-a total of 55 000-174 000 deaths from 1986 to 2056 in the whole of Europe, including Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. These numbers confusingly, do not agree with a table (6.21) from the same author. The final section on overall mortality contains a table (7.11), which includes an estimate of 212 000 additional deaths in highly contaminated regions of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This figure is for the period of 1990-2004, and is based on an assumption that 3.8-4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories being due to the Chernobyl accident. One is left unsure about the meaning of many of these numbers and which is preferred. If his work has been subject to trenchant critiques, Yablokov has offered a few of his own concerning the WHO/IAEA study discussed above. Yablokov's work forms a major part of a document, "Health Effects of Chernobyl: 25 Years after the Reactor Catastrophe", released by the German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the occasion of an international conference on Chernobyl held in Berlin between April 8 - 10, 2011. ( Source ) The report contains a devastating critique of the low WHO and IAEA Chernobyl death toll estimates: Note on the unreliability of official data published by WHO and IAEA At the "Chernobyl Forum of the United Nations" organised in September 2005 by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation, the presentation of the results of work on the effects of Chernobyl showed serious inconsistencies. For example: the press release of the WHO and IAEA stated that in the future, at most, 4000 surplus fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia amongst the most severely affected groups of people might be expected. In the WHO report on which this was based however, the actual number of deaths is given as 8,930. These deaths were not mentioned in any newspaper articles. When one examines the source quoted in the WHO report, one arrives at a number betwen 10,000 and 25,000 additional fatalities due to cancer and leukaemia. Given this it can be rationally concluded that the official statements of the IAEA and the WHO have manipulated their own data. Their representation of the effects of Chernobyl has little to do with reality. The report continues: S. Pflugbeil pointed out already in 2005 that there were discrepancies between press releases, the WHO report and the source quoted in it (Cardis et al.). Up until now neither the Chernobyl Forum, IAEA nor the WHO have deemed it necessary to let the public know that, on the basis of their own analysis, a two to five-fold higher number of deaths due to cancer and leukaemia are to be expected as the figures they have published. Even in 2011 - some 5 years on - no official UN organisation has as yet corrected these figures. The latest UNSCEAR publication on the health effects of Chernobyl does not take into account any of the numerous results of research into the effects of Chernobyl from the three countries affected. Only one figure - that of 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer among children and juveniles, and leukaemia and cataracts in liquidators - was included in their recent information to the media. Thus, in 2011 the UNSCEAR committee declared: On the basis of studies carried out during the last 20 years, as well as of previous UNSCEAR reports, UNSCEAR has come to the conclusion that the large majority of the population has no reason to fear that serious health risks will arise from the Chernobyl accident. The only exception applies to those exposed to radioiodine during childhood or youth and to liquidators who were exposed to a high dose of radiation and therefore had to reckon with a higher radiation induced risk. Even if Yablokov's estimates for Chernobyl deaths are high, the WHO and IAEA numbers are almost certainly too low. One area of continuing debate is the fate of the "liquidators" at Chernobyl. A major difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is government handling of the aftermath. While the Japanese government can be criticized for the speed of evacuation and the limited evacuation radius, the seriousness of the issues was immediately recognized and efforts made to send people away from the stricken plant. In the case of Chernobyl, even as the state suppressed information about the catastrophe, between 600,000 and 1,000,000 people termed "liquidators" were sent to the most heavily irradiated zone to work to contain the effects of the meltdown, many with limited protection and unaware of the risks. Some research, such as the article "Thyroid Cancer among 'Liquidators' of the Chernobyl Accident" published in the British Journal of Radiology (70, 1997, pp. 937-941), suggests relatively limited health effects (fewer than 50 cases of thyroid cancer in a group of over 150,000 liquidators followed in the study). ( Source ) The article "Chernobyl Liquidators - The People and the Doses", published by the International Radiation Protection Association, likewise concludes that across the majority of the liquidator group, "The health consequences from these radiation doses are too small to be identifiable in any epidemiological study, which does not target specific sub-groups with potentially higher exposure." ( Source ) Support groups for liquidators, however, claim that 25,000 have died and over 70,000 are disabled. ( Source ) The issue cannot be limited to fatalities. The German Affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War "Health Effects of Chernobyl" report presents extensive evidence of widespread crippling disability among liquidators. As in the case of the Chernobyl death toll, the plight of liquidators is a hotly contested topic with radically different figures emerging from different quarters. Some commentators have presented data that suggests a way out of the deadlock over the health and death consequences of Chernobyl. Peter Karamoskos , a Nuclear Radiologist and public representative on the Radiation Health Committee of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency argues in "Do we know the Chernobyl death toll?" that despite uncertainties about the numbers, "The weight of scientific opinion holds that there is no threshold below which ionising radiation poses no risk and that the risk is proportional to the dose: the "linear no-threshold" (LNT) model." Drawing on the 2006 report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) of the US National Academy of Sciences. Karamoskos points out: "The ... view that low-level radiation is harmless, is restricted to a small number of scientists whose voice is greatly amplified by the nuclear industry (in much the same way as corporate greenhouse polluters amplify the voices of climate science sceptics)." He continues: There is general agreement that about 50 people died in the immediate aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. Beyond that, studies generally don't indicate a significant increase in cancer incidence in populations exposed to Chernobyl fallout. Nor would anyone expect them to because of the data gaps and methodological problems mentioned above, and because the main part of the problem concerns the exposure of millions of people to very low doses of radiation from Chernobyl fallout. For a few marginal scientists and nuclear industry spruikers, that's the end of the matter - the statistical evidence is lacking and thus the death toll from Chernobyl was just 50. Full stop. But for those of us who prefer mainstream science, we can still arrive at a scientifically defensible estimate of the Chernobyl death toll by using estimates of the total radiation exposure, and multiplying by a standard risk estimate. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates a total collective dose of 600,000 Sieverts over 50 years from Chernobyl fallout. A standard risk estimate from the International Commission on Radiological Protection is 0.05 fatal cancers per Sievert. Multiply those figures and we get an estimated 30,000 fatal cancers. A number of studies apply that basic method - based on collective radiation doses and risk estimates - and come up with estimates of the death toll varying from 9000 (in the most contaminated parts of the former Soviet Union) to 93,000 deaths (across Europe). Those are the credible estimates of the likely eventual death toll from Chernobyl. Claims that the death toll was just 50 should be rejected as dishonest spin from the nuclear industry and some of its most strident and scientifically-illiterate supporters. Karamaskos then turns to Fukushima, observing that Nuclear industry spruikers will insist that no-one is at risk from low-level radiation exposure from Fukushima. The rest of us will need to wait some months or years before we have a plausible estimate of total human radiation exposure upon which to base an estimate of the death toll. To date, radiation releases from Fukushima are estimated by the Japanese government to be 10 per cent of the total Chernobyl release. Needless to say, the view that low-level radiation is harmless is completely at odds with the current situation in Japan - the 20 km evacuation zone around the Fukushima nuclear plant, restrictions on food and water consumption in Japan and restrictions on the importation of food from Japan. ( Source ) A joint survey conducted by the Japanese and U.S. governments has produced a detailed map of ground surface radioactive contamination within an 80-kilometer radius of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Yablokov's Chernobyl research and the dire prediction of as many as 400,000 radiation-related cancers in the Fukushima region if wider evacuation is not considered, deserves consideration, scrutiny, and debate as the Japanese government deals with radiation releases from Fukushima Daiichi. The same is true of alternative methodologies, particularly as the "linear no-threshold model" described by Peter Karamoskos . Despite recent efforts to evacuate people from high radiation areas outside of the 20 km evacuation zone, however, Japanese newspapers reported on April 20 that at the same time, the Japanese government had increased the permissible hourly radiation dose at schools in Fukushima Prefecture to 3.8 microsieverts. The Mainichi describes this as "a level that would see students absorb the internationally recognized maximum of 20 millisieverts per year." See "Save the Children: Radiation Exposure of Fukushima Students," link . What are the risks of such doses? Thomas L. Slovis of the Society for Pediatric Radiology writes in Pediatr Radiol (2002:32:225-227) ... the risk of cancer from radiation is 5% per sievert... That's an average number; but an average is almost meaningless. If you are a mature, late middle-aged individual, it is maybe 1% per sievert. But if you are a child, it is maybe 15% per sievert, with a clear gender difference too at these early ages. So children are very, very sensitive compared to adults." For an adult the acceptable risk for any activity for emergency workers is 50 mSv. For a child the equivalent risk is (50 mSv /250 mSv)*66 mSv=13 mSv. The standard suggested by Japan for children is twice this value. The change in standard to 20 mSv corresponds to a change to 0.3% risk in cancer later on in life. Uncertainty about the long-term health effects of even low levels of radiation was further highlighted by David J. Brenner in the April 5 issue of Nature. ( Source ) In recent weeks, the issue of radiation and the 300,000 children of Fukushima has moved to the center of debate in assessing Japanese government handling of the Fukushima meltdown, even as the seriousness of radiation issues has grown with the belated disclosure by TEPCO of the multiple disasters experienced at the outset, and still far from under control, in Fukushima Daiichi. On April 28, Kosako Toshiso, a radiation specialist at Tokyo University, resigned his position as Special Advisor to the Cabinet. Kosako had earlier gained notoriety for his role in helping to deny the extension of benefits to some radiation victims of the atomic bombs in a 2003 court case. After Fukushima, however, Kosako made an impassioned and courageous stand against what he saw as a government taking the potential health effects of long-term radiation exposure too lightly. In a press conference, Kosako castigated the Kan cabinet for its decision to increase permissible radiation exposure for Fukushima children: At times of emergency, we cannot do without exceptions to standard rules and we are indeed capable of setting them up, but in any case, international common sense ought to be respected. It is wrong to forcibly push through conclusions that happen to be convenient only for the administrative authorities but which are utterly unacceptable by international standards. Such conclusions are bound to draw criticism from the international community. This time, upon discussing the acceptable level of radiation exposure for playgrounds in primary schools in Fukushima, they have calculated, guided and determined a level of "3.8 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb2_1368119983 omniradar Fukushima Disaster Severity Being Underplayed By Mainstream Media !! Possible ELE ! Tue, 07 May 2013 11:52:29 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe2_1367939904 BloodyPeasant One of the Air Force's most remarkable, if problematic, capabilities during the Cold War's middle years was keeping nuclear-armed B-52 bombers continuously airborne so they could head to their targets if war broke out. Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove was, in part, about the actions of an airborne alert crew commanded by Colonel King Kong (memorably played by Slim Pickens). This film, most likely produced for senior leadership in the Air Force or the Pentagon, documents the Air Force Strategic Air Command's first airborne alert test, "Head Start." For top commanders like Commander-in-Chief Strategic Air Command Thomas Power, airborne alert would meet significant strategic needs; once the Soviets had an ICBM capability, keeping some nuclear-armed bombers in the air would be insurance in the event of an attack on SAC bomber bases. Moreover, Power believed that airborne alert would strengthen the U.S. diplomatic position during peace as well as during crises, when a small alert operation could be expanded. Finally, airborne alert was consistent with having a preemptive attack option; bombers would be in the air and closer to their targets ("Head Start"). Conducted during September 15-December 15, 1958 by the 45th Air Division (8th Air Division) at Loring (Maine) Air Force Base, "Head Start" kept nuclear-armed B-52 bombers continuously in the air on a route over Canadian and then Danish air space in Greenland (as shown on a map in the film). Refueled in the air at designated locations, the crews would be in radio contact with SAC Headquarters through frequent "no answer required" Foxtrot messages. By contrast, a "no test" Foxtrot message would "commit the crew to combat." This was consistent with SAC's "Positive Control" system designed to keep alert aircraft in their orbits unless they received "go-code" orders instructing them to head toward Soviet territory. Not mentioned in this film is that "Head Start" was the first exercise using high-yield "sealed-pit" nuclear weapons, which were "war ready," unlike the previous generation of weapons, which required insertion of the nuclear components. The new weapons had special safety features that minimized risk of accidental nuclear detonation, but Atomic Energy Commissioner John McCone wanted the alert test confined to Loring AFB. If bombers crashed on take-off or landing and the high explosives in the bombs detonated scattering radioactive material, it would happen at only one base instead of several. Perhaps because of safety concerns, President Eisenhower did not give permission for "Head Start" B-52s to carry nuclear weapons until mid-October, after the exercise had gone on for a few weeks. This short film provides a largely positive assessment of "Head Start I", with the narrator asserting that it was a conclusive demonstration "that airborne alert can be maintained successfully." Declassified documents suggest, however, that Air Force leaders were skeptical, returning SAC's original report on "Head Start" so that it could be redone. While SAC's final report concluded that the test demonstrated airborne alert's feasibility, some objectives were not achieved, such as determining the Command's "maximum capability to ... provide airborne alert sorties," and other problems remained unsolved, such as the physical impact of airborne alert operations on the B-52 fleet. To answer such questions, SAC undertook "Headstart II," but it took a few more years before airborne alert became a routine operation. The program would end in disaster when B-52s crashed in Spain (1966) and Greenland (1968), with one bomb nearly lost off the Spanish coast and radioactive debris spilled on both Spanish and Danish territory. Visit http://declassified.liveleak.com for similar videos. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fe2_1367939904 BloodyPeasant (Declassified) Operation Headstart 1959 Strategic Air Command film operation headstart, sac, nuclear war, declassified, history