Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 08:43 AM Mar 2013

EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater



EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater

Jeff McMahon
Forbes March 28, 2011

The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday reported finding elevated levels of iodine-131, a product of nuclear fission, in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The levels exceed the maximum contaminant level (MCL) permitted in drinking water, but EPA continues to assure the public there is no need for alarm:

“It is important to note that the corresponding MCL for iodine-131 was calculated based on long-term chronic exposures over the course of a lifetime – 70 years. The levels seen in rainwater are expected to be relatively short in duration,” the agency states in a FAQ that accompanied yesterday’s brief news release.

“In both cases these are levels above the normal background levels historically reported in these areas.”

EPA said it is receiving “verbal reports” of higher levels of radiation in rainwater samples from other states as well, and that Americans should continue to expect short-term contamination of rainwater as radioactive isotopes spread through the atmosphere from Japan.

“We continue to expect similar reports from state agencies and others across the nation given the nature and duration of the Japanese nuclear incident.”

CONTINUED...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/03/28/epa-expect-more-radiation-in-rainwater/

Question: Anyone see this on the tee vee or read about it in the local newspaper?
36 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
EPA: Expect More Radiation in Rainwater (Original Post) Octafish Mar 2013 OP
When I went to the link, the article is dated 3/28/2011 PearliePoo2 Mar 2013 #1
Thank you. It IS. My mistake. Octafish Mar 2013 #2
Just one of those things dipsydoodle Mar 2013 #4
Thanks. I like running a Public Service Announcement on Plutonium... Octafish Mar 2013 #5
Associated links are 2011 too. dipsydoodle Mar 2013 #3
i was wondering why excess radiation from japan would just be showing up *now*. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #25
Even though the article was written in 2011 Oilwellian Mar 2013 #6
More old news: Audit Confirms EPA Radiation Monitors Broken During Fukushima Crisis Octafish Mar 2013 #7
I wondered why we had stopped monitoring so soon. This may explain that. Overseas Mar 2013 #30
As pointed out, the article is dated nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #8
Right. marions ghost Mar 2013 #10
Radiation within 80 km of No. 1 plant said down by half Octafish Mar 2013 #14
Iirc two week ago we had a story of fish nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #16
Many people mistakenly believe since Fukushima is not on the tee vee, the 'problem' is solved. Octafish Mar 2013 #18
Patches are hyper local papers nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #19
5 Easy Ways to Spot a B.S. News Story on the Internet SidDithers Mar 2013 #9
So what? 'CRACKED' is a second-rate 'MAD' magazine. Octafish Mar 2013 #12
Just wondering why you tried to misrepresent the contributor's blog as a Forbes article...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #13
Thanks for your concern. It was on a Forbes website. Octafish Mar 2013 #15
Sid, I want to see your journal! zappaman Mar 2013 #21
What scares BFEE most is people learning about them. Octafish Mar 2013 #22
Yes! zappaman Mar 2013 #24
It's rhetorical. Do you ever post anything that adds to what we know about the BFEE, zappaman? Octafish Mar 2013 #26
K&R. More news that I missed. Overseas Mar 2013 #29
That's one thing about I like about GD, we can talk about important stuff. Octafish Mar 2013 #32
...and more will soon be on the way from N Korea. n/t L0oniX Mar 2013 #11
I pray not. Warmongers on both sides believe nuclear war is winnable. Octafish Mar 2013 #17
K&R Kurovski Mar 2013 #20
It's the strangest thing, getting mocked on account of the BFEE. Octafish Mar 2013 #23
I heard about that on Prison Planet. That's some mundo scary stuff there. freshwest Mar 2013 #34
I see that you realized one mistake. FBaggins Mar 2013 #27
Like, really. Compared to three meltdowns and exposed spent fuel pools, I did a bad. Octafish Mar 2013 #31
No I didn't catch the story on my local news. Overseas Mar 2013 #28
Here's something about nuclear war no one at Easter dinner knew about... Octafish Mar 2013 #33
How many years is Fukushima expected to keep releasing radiation? Trillo Apr 2013 #35
Four decades is as good a guess as any I've found. Octafish Apr 2013 #36

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
2. Thank you. It IS. My mistake.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:10 AM
Mar 2013

Using a cell phone makes it hard to copy-n-paste. I grabbed the text and wrote the by line from memory. I will correct.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
4. Just one of those things
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:19 AM
Mar 2013

I don't know to to do on my Galaxy Note or tablet either.

Its the thought that counts. i

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
5. Thanks. I like running a Public Service Announcement on Plutonium...
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:38 AM
Mar 2013


What everyone should know:



DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities


EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many
potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) The one characteristic that many believe is unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area.

SOURCE (PDF file format): http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/standard/DOE-STD-1128-2008.pdf



Some science news that may missed, with major attention shining upon Kim Kardashian and everything...



J Environ Radioact. 2011 Dec 27. (Epub ahead of print)

Radionuclides from the Fukushima accident in the air over Lithuania: measurement and modelling approaches.

Lujanienė G, Byčenkienė S, Povinec PP, Gera M.

Source

Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Savanoriu 231, 02300 Vilnius, Lithuania.
Abstract

Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs ranged from 12 ?Bq/m(3) and 1.4 ?Bq/m(3) to 3700 ?Bq/m(3) and 1040 ?Bq/m(3), respectively. The activity concentration of (239,240)Pu in one aerosol sample collected from 23 March to 15 April, 2011 was found to be 44.5 nBq/m(3). The two maxima found in radionuclide concentrations were related to complicated long-range air mass transport from Japan across the Pacific, the North America and the Atlantic Ocean to Central Europe as indicated by modelling. HYSPLIT backward trajectories and meteorological data were applied for interpretation of activity variations of measured radionuclides observed at the site of investigation. (7)Be and (212)Pb activity concentrations and their ratios were used as tracers of vertical transport of air masses. Fukushima data were compared with the data obtained during the Chernobyl accident and in the post Chernobyl period. The activity concentrations of (131)I and (137)Cs were found to be by 4 orders of magnitude lower as compared to the Chernobyl accident. The activity ratio of (134)Cs/(137)Cs was around 1 with small variations only. The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.

SOURCE: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700



And what a little bird told no one in particular...



Plutonium bioaccumulation in seabirds

Dagmara I. Strumińska-Parulska, Bogdan Skwarzec, Jacek Fabisiak

University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Chemistry, Analytics and Environmental Radiochemistry Chair, Sobieskiego 18, 80-952 Gdańsk, Poland

Received 7 April 2011. Revised 5 July 2011. Accepted 16 July 2011. Available online 23 August 2011.

The aim of the paper was plutonium (238Pu and 239+240Pu) determination in seabirds, permanently or temporarily living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea coast. Together 11 marine birds species were examined: 3 species permanently residing in the southern Baltic, 4 species of wintering birds and 3 species of migrating birds. The obtained results indicated plutonium is non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of analyzed seabirds. The highest plutonium content was found in the digestion organs and feathers, the smallest in skin and muscles. The plutonium concentration was lower in analyzed species which feed on fish and much higher in herbivorous species. The main source of plutonium in analyzed marine birds was global atmospheric fallout.
Highlights

► We determined 239+240Pu in seabirds living in northern Poland at the Baltic Sea. ► We noticed plutonium was non-uniformly distributed in organs and tissues of seabirds. ► We found the highest plutonium content in the digestion organs and feathers. ► We found Pu content was lower in birds feeding on fish and higher in herbivorous.

SOURCE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X11001676



Old repost, but still important information missing from Corporate McPravda's sordid coverage of Fukushima.

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
3. Associated links are 2011 too.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:17 AM
Mar 2013

That might explain why its not being reported elsewhere now. Whilst on that subject - your media also makes little or no mention of the fact that the US has the highest CO2 / capita of all developed nations.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
6. Even though the article was written in 2011
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 10:22 AM
Mar 2013

What has changed about Fukushima since then? Have the thousands of radioactive spent rods been secured and are no longer leaking radiation into the Pacific Ocean? The last I read a few months ago, it was still critical.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
7. More old news: Audit Confirms EPA Radiation Monitors Broken During Fukushima Crisis
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:11 PM
Mar 2013

Other than DU and the Internets, not much info on any of this in my noosepaper and television screen.



Audit Confirms EPA Radiation Monitors Broken During Fukushima Crisis

April 23, 2012
By Douglas P. Guarino
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON – An internal audit has confirmed observers’ concerns that many of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation monitors were out of service at the height of the 2011 Fukushima power plant meltdown in Japan, a finding one critic said raises “serious questions” about the federal government’s ability to respond to nuclear emergencies and to alert the public of their consequences (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2011).

The April 19 report by the EPA Inspector General’s Office also casts further doubt on the agency’s already controversial claims that radiation from Fukushima did not pose any public health threat on U.S. soil, said Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy lecturer at the University of California (Santa Cruz) and president of Committee to Bridge the Gap.

SNIP...

The report details problems with the agency’s “RadNet” monitoring system. The web of detectors is intended “to monitor environmental radioactivity in the United States to provide high-quality data for assessing public exposure and environmental impacts resulting from nuclear emergencies, and to provide baseline data during routine conditions,” the report notes.

RadNet consists of 124 stations scattered throughout U.S. territories and 40 deployable air monitors that can be sent to take readings anywhere, according to the IG report. Monitoring stations collect air, precipitation, drinking water and milk samples for analysis of radioactivity, although the audit focused on the stationary air monitors.

SNIP...

Agency contractors, meanwhile, are responsible for maintaining the monitors and repairing them when they are broken. However, according to the report, EPA has not managed those contracts as high priorities, despite having identified the monitors as “critical infrastructure” under the 2001 Patriot Act. As a result, there have been numerous delays in repairing broken monitors.

CONTINUED...

http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/audit-confirms-epa-radiation-monitors-broken-during-fukushima-crisis/



Oh, well. Things must be A-OK if EPA didn't use all their USA PATRIOT Act cash to upgrade the monitoring equipment in 2001. (I'd do the "sarcasm" thingy, but there is nothing funny about any of this.)


Overseas

(12,121 posts)
30. I wondered why we had stopped monitoring so soon. This may explain that.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 02:06 PM
Mar 2013

I'm so tired of the US default option being information management to protect dangerous industries.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
8. As pointed out, the article is dated
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:16 PM
Mar 2013

Now here is the relevant question...iodine is way past half life...what is the cesium level?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
14. Radiation within 80 km of No. 1 plant said down by half
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:49 PM
Mar 2013

Which sounds good, until one reads that it's only for Cesium-134, with a half-life of 2.5 years.

One of the few articles on the subject:



Radiation within 80 km of No. 1 plant said down by half

KYODO
MAR 12, 2013

Radiation levels in areas within 80 km of the crippled Fukushima No. 1 power plant fell by nearly half over the 20-month period between April 2011 and last November, a government-affiliated body said.

The level is declining more quickly than anticipated thanks to rain and the two-year half-life of cesium-134, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency said Sunday. The rain apparently washed the fallout produced by the three reactor core meltdowns triggered by the March 2011 quake and tsunami to other areas via the regional drainage system. The decline was particularly rapid in areas with many buildings and asphalt roads, the agency said.

The agency analyzed radiation readings taken 1 meter aboveground, using data collected by the Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Ministry. According to the estimates, radiation levels fell 30 percent from April 2011 to November 2011, and had dropped to half by November 2012.

The agency believes most of the drop is due to the elements, not government decontamination efforts. [font color="green"]Where the tainted rainwater ends up, however, is another matter.[/font color]

In November, the fall slowed after the radiation from cesium-134, which has a half-life of two years, fell to half, the agency said. [font color="green"]But the energy from the more prevalent cesium-137, whose half-life is 30 years, hasn’t changed.[/font color]

SOURCE: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/03/12/national/radiation-within-80-km-radius-of-fukushima-plant-fallen-by-half/#.UVckixcp92A



Of course, no mention anywhere about plutonium, americium, strontium...

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
18. Many people mistakenly believe since Fukushima is not on the tee vee, the 'problem' is solved.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 02:08 PM
Mar 2013

That is a great story, nadinsita. We're finding that when it comes to radiation, even the Pacific Ocean ain't big enough.

Oh well, there's the bright side. That Stanford researcher found the nuclear tuna helps us better track their migration, which is good.



NUCLEAR TUNA

Traces of Fukushima radiation help scientists track Pacific bluefin migration.

By Kera Abraham
Thursday, March 14, 2013

Pacific bluefin tuna that swam off the Japanese coast after the 2011 nuclear meltdown carry radioactive memorabilia of the Fukushima disaster. That’s the splashy news out of Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove.


But fear of nuclear seafood is not the point, according to doctoral student and study lead Daniel Madigan; the radiation level is so low it’s not really a health concern. More importantly, the glimmers of cesium-137 and cesium-134 in bluefin flesh help scientists map their movement. And that could be key to more sustainable management.


Pacific bluefin are down about 96 percent from their historic population levels, according to a December stock assessment. “It’s still on our ‘avoid’ list,” says Alison Barratt, spokeswoman for the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program. “The stock is doing really badly.” 


Madigan sampled young bluefin bycatch a few months after the meltdowns of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors. Because Pacific bluefin only spawn near Japan, he wondered if these 1 – to 2-year-old fish carried contaminants from the accident. Madigan sent 15 samples to a marine radioactivity expert at Stony Brook University.


“He called me after the first (sample) and was like, ‘You’re not going to believe it, but they’re carrying the cesium from Fukushima,’” Madigan recalls.


CONTINUED...

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/2013/mar/14/nuclear-tuna/



Don't want to meltdown anybody's personal copy of CRACKED, but blogger-fueled Palo Alto Patch had the new a week earlier.

Hmmm. Maybe it's because the Montery County Weekly is a...weekly!

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
9. 5 Easy Ways to Spot a B.S. News Story on the Internet
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:21 PM
Mar 2013
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

Oh, and do you still recognize Forbes as the highbrow magazine for investor types? Because guess what: Their website now hosts hundreds of unedited blogs from random, often unpaid writers off the street (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/173743/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ ).

Seriously, you can write for them if you want (http://blogs.forbes.com/help/how-do-i-become-a-contributor/ ). So now any time you see a Forbes.com story and the URL has "sites/(some dude's name here)" in the middle, you're not reading a news story from professional Forbes reporters/editors, you're reading a blog post from some random person.

That's why you can see a "Forbes" article claiming that a majority of scientists doubt global warming (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/ ) -- in reality, it's a press release written by a shill for the Heartland Institute, an oil-industry-funded group that ran billboards comparing environmentalists to serial killers (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509 ).

Remember, there's a lot of money to be made from bullshit -- that traffic pays the same as any, and they're getting very good at tricking us into doing their promotional work for them. And that goes double if ...


The OP would have you believe that the author of the blog is writer for Forbes:

Jeff McMahon
Forbes March 28, 2011


When, in fact, they're nothing more than a "contributor", which you or I could also be if we wanted to be.

Sid

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
12. So what? 'CRACKED' is a second-rate 'MAD' magazine.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:43 PM
Mar 2013

So, what do YOU have you got to say about Fukushima, radiation and rainfall? Anything to add?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
15. Thanks for your concern. It was on a Forbes website.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:50 PM
Mar 2013

Always wondering. Never contributing. Why is that, siddithers?

zappaman

(20,606 posts)
21. Sid, I want to see your journal!
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:32 PM
Mar 2013

And the BFEE is not happy with you right now!
You better believe it!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
22. What scares BFEE most is people learning about them.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 11:30 PM
Mar 2013

That's why the BFEE own the media.

Here's something the media don't bring up, yet you and siddithers like to mock:



The story connects a few dots from the present day back to World War II.



War crime, Yakuza, Secret Government. Why not?



Japan’s Nuclear Industry: The CIA Link.

By Eleanor Warnock
June 1, 2012, 10:18 AM JST.
Wall Street Journal Blog

Tetsuo Arima, a researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo, told JRT he discovered in the U.S. National Archives a trove of declassified CIA files that showed how one man, Matsutaro Shoriki, was instrumental in jumpstarting Japan’s nascent nuclear industry.

Mr. Shoriki was many things: a Class A war criminal, the head of the Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan’s biggest-selling and most influential newspaper) and the founder of both the country’s first commercial broadcaster and the Tokyo Giants baseball team. Less well known, according to Mr. Arima, was that the media mogul worked with the CIA to promote nuclear power.

SNIP...

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

SNIP…

Mr. Shoriki, backed by the CIA, used his influence to publish articles in the Yomiuri that extolled the virtues of nuclear power, according to the documents found by Mr. Arima. Keen on remilitarizing Japan, Mr. Shoriki endorsed nuclear power in hopes its development would one day arm the country with the ability to make its own nuclear weapons, according to Mr. Arima. Mr. Shoriki’s behind-the-scenes push created a chain reaction in other media that eventually changed public opinion.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2012/06/01/japans-nuclear-industry-the-cia-link/



After President Carter was out of office, it was pretty much full-steam ahead for the Japanese bomb during the Pruneface Ronnie-Poppy Bush years. Hence, Fukushima Daiichi Number 3 and other select Japanese reactors were set up to process plutonium uranium fuels.



United States Circumvented Laws To Help Japan Accumulate Tons of Plutonium

By Joseph Trento
on April 9th, 2012
National Security News Service

The United States deliberately allowed Japan access to the United States’ most secret nuclear weapons facilities while it transferred tens of billions of dollars worth of American tax paid research that has allowed Japan to amass 70 tons of weapons grade plutonium since the 1980s, a National Security News Service investigation reveals. These activities repeatedly violated U.S. laws regarding controls of sensitive nuclear materials that could be diverted to weapons programs in Japan. The NSNS investigation found that the United States has known about a secret nuclear weapons program in Japan since the 1960s, according to CIA reports.

The diversion of U.S. classified technology began during the Reagan administration after it allowed a $10 billion reactor sale to China. Japan protested that sensitive technology was being sold to a potential nuclear adversary. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations permitted sensitive technology and nuclear materials to be transferred to Japan despite laws and treaties preventing such transfers. Highly sensitive technology on plutonium separation from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site and Hanford nuclear weapons complex, as well as tens of billions of dollars worth of breeder reactor research was turned over to Japan with almost no safeguards against proliferation. Japanese scientist and technicians were given access to both Hanford and Savannah River as part of the transfer process.

SNIP...

A year ago a natural disaster combined with a man-made tragedy decimated Northern Japan and came close to making Tokyo, a city of 30 million people, uninhabitable. Nuclear tragedies plague Japan’s modern history. It is the only nation in the world attacked with nuclear weapons. In March 2011, after a tsunami swept on shore, hydrogen explosions and the subsequent meltdowns of three reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant spewed radiation across the region. Like the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan will face the aftermath for generations. A twelve-mile area around the site is considered uninhabitable. It is a national sacrifice zone.

How Japan ended up in this nuclear nightmare is a subject the National Security News Service has been investigating since 1991. We learned that Japan had a dual use nuclear program. The public program was to develop and provide unlimited energy for the country. But there was also a secret component, an undeclared nuclear weapons program that would allow Japan to amass enough nuclear material and technology to become a major nuclear power on short notice.

CONTINUED...

http://www.dcbureau.org/201204097128/national-security-news-service/united-states-circumvented-laws-to-help-japan-accumulate-tons-of-plutonium.html



Those of who have seen The World at War series on the tee vee are familiar with the black and white footage and great narrative chronicling the main events and figures of World War II. One of those episodes was entitled "The Bomb" and featured an interview with John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War to President Roosevelt and President Truman.



Here's part of what Mr. McCloy said about the Atomic Bomb – the use of which he counseled only as a last resort, after warning Japan to surrender (around 7:30 mark of Part 2):

“Besides that, we’ve got a new force, a new type of energy that will revolutionize warfare, destructive beyond any contemplation. I’d said, I’d mention the bomb. Mentioning the bomb, even at that late date, in that select group, was like, it was like they were all shocked. Because it was such a closely guarded secret. It was comparable to mentioning Skull and Bones at Yale – which you’re not supposed to do.”

After the war, McCloy was the United States High Commissioner to Germany, administering the U.S. zone of occupation, making him one of the front-line leaders of the Cold War. In that capacity, one of the questionable things he did was to forgive several NAZI industrialists and war criminals.

The great cartoonist Herb Block, HERBLOCK, depicted McCloy holding open a prison door for a NAZI, while in the background Stalin took a photo (if anyone has a copy or link to the cartoon, I’d be much obliged). About 15 years later, Mr. McCloy served the nation as a member of the Warren Commission.

While he wasn’t a member of Skull and Bones, McCloy certainly worked closely with a bunch of them, including Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush. As a Wall Street and Washington insider, "Mr. Establishment" he was called, Mr. McCloy used the offices of government to centralize power and wealth. That is most un-democratic.

Mother Jones goes into detail:



The Nuclear Weapons Industry's Money Bombs

How millions in campaign cash and revolving-door lobbying have kept America's atomic arsenal off the chopping block.

— By R. Jeffrey Smith, Center for Public Integrity
Mother Jones
Wed Jun. 6, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

Employees of private companies that produce the main pieces of the US nuclear arsenal have invested more than $18 million in the election campaigns of lawmakers that oversee related federal spending, and the companies also employ more than 95 former members of Congress or Capitol Hill staff to lobby for government funding, according to a new report.

The Center for International Policy, a nonprofit group that supports the "demilitarization" of US foreign policy, released the report on Wednesday to highlight what it described as the heavy influence of campaign donations and pork-barrel politics on a part of the defense budget not usually associated with large profits or contractor power: nuclear arms.

As Congress deliberated this spring on nuclear weapons-related projects, including funding for the development of more modern submarines and bombers, the top 14 contractors gave nearly $3 million to the 2012 reelection campaigns of lawmakers whose support they needed for these and other projects, the report disclosed.

Half of that sum went to members of the four key committees or subcommittees that must approve all spending for nuclear arms—the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Energy and Water or Defense appropriations subcommittees, according to data the Center compiled from the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. The rest went to lawmakers who are active on nuclear weapons issues because they have related factories or laboratories in their states or districts.

Members of the House Armed Services Committee this year have sought to erect legislative roadblocks to further reductions in nuclear arms, and also demanded more spending for related facilities than the Obama administration sought, including $100 million in unrequested funds for a new plant that will make plutonium cores for nuclear warheads, and $374 million for a new ballistic missile-firing submarine. The House has approved those requests, but the Senate has not held a similar vote on the 2013 defense bill.

CONTINUED...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/nuclear-bombs-congress-elections-campaign-donations



It isn't ironic or coincidental. It is the Establishment, the in-group, the Elite, the One-Percent that’s pretty much gotten the lion’s share of the wealth created over the last 50 years. The same group that’s pretty much had their fingers on the atomic button ever since the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as profited from the development of nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and the almost continuous state of war since then. For lack of a better term, I call them the BFEE, or War Party.



Why do you make fun of me for trying to do what the media won't do, zappaman?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
26. It's rhetorical. Do you ever post anything that adds to what we know about the BFEE, zappaman?
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 11:05 AM
Mar 2013

If so, I'd like to read it. As far as I can tell, though, it doesn't exist, does it? Why is that?

PS: The reason they fear the truth, the BFEE fear spending their lives in jail and having to give back their loot.

PPS: No thanks to you.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
32. That's one thing about I like about GD, we can talk about important stuff.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 10:36 PM
Mar 2013

Why that's news to so many is interesting. Here's something else I almost never see addressed in the news media about nuclear power:



Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons

...birds of the feather...

Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: Making the Connections


There is an increasing number of people in the United States today who are standing up and speaking out against the dangers of nuclear weapons. At the same time a large number of these people are in favor of the use of nuclear power as a means of generating electricity. They believe, perhaps correctly, that the threat from the former is greater and more imminent, and further, that there is no connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The facts, however, seem to point to a different conclusion.

"Atoms For Peace"

For as long as there has been federal control of nuclear research and materials, there has been an interest in using commercial nuclear reactors as a source of materia- ls to make weapons. In the early 1950's it was recognized that the weapons program would require more plutonium than could be furnished by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). One suggestion, made by Dr. Charles A. Thomas, then executive vice-president of Monsanto Chemical Company, was to create a dual purpose plutonium reactor, on which could produce plutonium for weapons, and electricity for commercial use.3

A 1951 study undertaken by the AEC concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity; they would be, however, if they also produced plutonium which could be sold. Utilities themselves were only mildly intrigued with the notion of being able to produce "too cheap to meter electricity," and only so long as someone else took over the responsibility for the waste products, and indemnified them against catastrophic nuclear plant accidents. The 1952 Annual Report for Commonwealth Edison is instructive on the former point:

"In last year's report, we announced that our com- panies, as one of four non-governmental groups, had entered into an agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission to study the practicability of applying nuclear energy to the production of power. The first year's study has been completed and a report has been completed and a report has been made to the Commission. Included in the report were preliminary designs of two dual-purpose reactor plants. By "dual-purpose" we mean that the plants would be primarily for the production of power but would also would produce plutonium for military purposes as a by-product. In our judgment, these plants...would be justified from an economic standpoint only if a substantial value were as- signed to the plutonium produced."7

It was this fact which interested utilities in getting involved with nuclear reactors. This point was again made by the AEC's director of reactor development, Lawrence R. Hafsted, who in 1951 said it was the multi-purpose reactor, "rather than the imminence of cheap civilian power which lies behind the increased interest on the part of industry in certain phases of the atomic energy business." 3

In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower, for whatever motives one wishes to ascribe to him, announced his "Atoms for Peace" program, by which the destructive force of the atom was to be harnessed for "peaceful" purposes. It was also at this time that the U.S. began offering nuclear technology and training to the rest of the world.

In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would received uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors. The plutonium was to be shipped to Rocky Flats in Colorad- o, where the federal government made plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.

In retrospect it is a simple matter to see that there never was an intention to separate nuclear weapons produc- tion from the use of commercial nuclear power. In a document from the Los Alamos National Laboratory dated August, 1981, one finds this statement:

CONTINUED...

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm



Thank you for noticing these things, Overseas. Readers are Leaders.




Octafish

(55,745 posts)
17. I pray not. Warmongers on both sides believe nuclear war is winnable.
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 01:59 PM
Mar 2013
Reagan Officials on Winnable Nuclear War

" . . . it is possible for any society to survive [a nuclear war] . . . nuclear war is a destructive thing but still in large part a physics problem." -- Charles Kupperman Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA)

Senator Pell: "My question is, in a full nuclear exchange, would a country survive?"

Eugene Rostov (ACDA): "The human race is very resilient, Senator Pell."

"You have a survivability of command and control, survivability of industrial potential, protection of a percentage of your citizens, and you have a capability that inflicts more damage on the opposition than it can inflict on you." -- Vice-President George Bush on how to win a nuclear war

"Everybody's going to make it if there are enough shovels to go around. Dig a hole, cover it with a couple of doors and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's the dirt that does it." -- T. K. Jones Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

"The United States must possess the ability to wage nuclear war rationally." -- Colin Gray Arms Control Adviser

"It would be a terrible mess, but it wouldn't be unmanageable." -- Louis Giuffrida Federal Emergency Management Agency

Question: Would democracy and other institutions survive nucear war?

"I think they would eventually, yeah. As I say, the ants eventually build another anthill." -- William Chipman Federal Emergency Management Agency

SOURCE: http://legalienate.blogspot.com/2011/02/reagan-officials-on-winnable-nuclear.html

FWIW: Robert Scheer covered the subject in "With Enough Shovels." A heck of an eye-opener regarding the intelligence of our elected and selected representatives.

Kurovski

(34,655 posts)
20. K&R
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 09:27 PM
Mar 2013

No, no TEEVEE report, my good man.

What? Me worry? Nothing to be done. Gotta die of something, etc. etc.

--By now, I know you know I'm kidding.




Octafish

(55,745 posts)
23. It's the strangest thing, getting mocked on account of the BFEE.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 12:27 AM
Mar 2013

They're the atomic warmongers and banksters and traitors gone wild that their mass media never mention, so must not exist.

Yet, they do.

Know your BFEE: American Children Used in Radiation Experiments

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3312956

Thanks for standing up to them, Kurovski.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
34. I heard about that on Prison Planet. That's some mundo scary stuff there.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 11:38 PM
Mar 2013
Today I read that Bill Hicks is not really dead, but that Alex Jones took his place.

I'm not poking fun at you, but at times it's hard to tell what is true or not. Don't stop telling us what you believe is important.

For myself, I have accepted that there is no escape from some of these things. Some people are living underground as we speak for fear of it.

Whatever the truth is, things have all gotten out of control and even the government is not in change the situation one way or the other. Climate change can be addressed, but not fixed, pollutants in the air, food and water can be reduced, but not eliminated.

Yet there are ecosystems on this planet that are thriving, peoples that are doing well, even in this country. They are living as close to clean nature as they can and enjoying their lives.

The internet makes things much more intense than they appear generally, and we can be happy.

JMHO.

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)
27. I see that you realized one mistake.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 11:43 AM
Mar 2013

The question I have is how the text itself wasn't a dead givaway for you?

Though I suppose if you think that the lack of plutonium mention in the news is because of some coverup... I shouldn't be surprised?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
31. Like, really. Compared to three meltdowns and exposed spent fuel pools, I did a bad.
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 07:47 PM
Mar 2013

Glad you're on the case, FBaggins.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
33. Here's something about nuclear war no one at Easter dinner knew about...
Sun Mar 31, 2013, 10:58 PM
Mar 2013

...our military and CIA leadership thought the best time to launch a pre-emptive nuclear war on the Soviet Union would be Fall 1963. President Kennedy thought the idea insane and ordered it shelved. Here are the details:



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=did_the_us_military_plan_a_nuclear_first_strike_for_1963



Nowadays people don't find it odd to live in a time when pre-emptive war is a normal thing for the USA.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
35. How many years is Fukushima expected to keep releasing radiation?
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 12:22 AM
Apr 2013

With such information, one might be able to better define the EPA's phrase "relatively short in duration" in relation to how long rainwater radiation is expected to continue increasing. "Relative" to what?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
36. Four decades is as good a guess as any I've found.
Mon Apr 1, 2013, 11:16 PM
Apr 2013

What a nice non-industry thinker found is that radioactivity will continue to spew until then:



Fukushima: Living With the Consequences

BY GAR SMITH – MARCH 11, 2013


An excerpt from Nuclear Roulette: The Truth about the Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth

This time no one dropped a bomb on us. . . . We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.

—Haruki Murakami, Japanese novelist


EXCERPT...

Tokyo spent $3 billion on decontamination work in 2011 and expected to spend twice that amount in 2012. The cost for decontaminating the area around the damaged reactors is projected to exceed $13 billion and take 40 years. Professor Tatsuhiko Kodama of the University of Tokyo’s Radioisotope Center projects that a responsible cleanup all the land poisoned by TEPCO’s fallout could cost nearly $10 trillion.

Although the government utterly failed to accurately inform the public about the radioactivity contained in food and certain consumer goods, Tokyo’s leaders now insist that it is safe for some refugees to leave their relocation squats and begin returning home. To justify this, Tokyo has determined that radiation levels 10 times greater than pre-accident background radiation can now be considered “safe.” Fukushima governor Yuhei Sato urged displaced residents to return to their homes and even offered returning evacuees the promise of job opportunities. These include “decontamination jobs.”

Fallout in the Waves

While the ocean’s impact on Fukushima was sudden and specific, Fukushima's environmental impacts on the ocean will be widespread and long lasting. In the first, desperate days of the reactor calamity, the failure of emergency cooling systems on the General Electric Mark I reactors forced TEPCO to cool the seething reactor cores with seawater. With no place to store the irradiated coolant, TEPCO dumped a million gallons (11,500 tons) of seawater back into the Pacific Ocean—with radiation levels 7.5 million times the legal limit. TEPCO told the public that no more than 15,000 terabecquerels had been released into the ocean, but the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN) subsequently placed the estimate closer to 27,000 terabecquerels.

China’s State Oceanic Administration reported finding nearly 100,000 square miles of the Pacific tainted with radioactive iodine, strontium, and cesium at levels 300 times above normal. (Cesium-137 is absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton, and kelp that are ingested by fish, marine mammals, and humans.) On December 1, 2011, the IRSN reported that the Fukushima disaster had caused the worst ocean contamination in world history—100 times greater that Chernobyl’s pollution of the Black Sea.

In the first days following the accident, nearly 13,500 terabecquerels of seaborne cesium-137 were expected to pass the Philippines before turning north and heading east along the Kuroshio current.Computer models indicated that the huge swirl of radioactive water was heading for Hawaii and could reach the West Coast of North America by early 2013. But it took only a month for airborne radioactive iodine-131 to show up in kelp beds off the West Coast; California State University scientists found levels 250 times normal in kelp sampled in the waters off southern California.

CONTINUED...

http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/fukushima_living_with_the_consequences/



I'd feel a lot better if Japan, the United States, China and whoever else has info would open it up for all to see and think about. As it stands, like in Voodoo Economics, we have to rely on trickle-down science.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»EPA: Expect More Radiatio...