Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.
As
Egyptians of all factions prepare to demonstrate in mass against the
Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi’s rule on June 30, the latter has
been trying to reduce their numbers, which some predict will be in the
millions and eclipse the Tahrir protests that earlier ousted
Mubarak. Among other influential Egyptians, Morsi recently called on
Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II to urge his flock, Egypt’s millions of
Christians, not to join the June 30 protests.
While that may be expected, more troubling is that the U.S.
ambassador to Egypt is also trying to prevent Egyptians from
protesting—including the Copts. The June 18th edition of Sadi al-Balad reports
that lawyer Ramses Naggar, the Coptic Church’s legal counsel, said that
during Patterson’s June 17 meeting with Pope Tawadros, she “asked him
to urge the Copts not to participate” in the demonstrations
against Morsi and the Brotherhood.
The Pope politely informed her that his spiritual authority over the Copts does not extend to political matters.
Regardless, many Egyptian activists are condemning Patterson for
flagrantly behaving like the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge. Leading
opposition activist Shady el-Ghazali Harb said Patterson showed “blatant
bias” in favor of Morsi and the Brotherhood, adding that her remarks
had earned the U.S. administration “the enmity of the Egyptian people.”
Coptic activists like George Ishaq openly told Patterson to “shut up and
mind your own business.” And Christian business tycoon Naguib
Sawiris—no stranger to Islamist hostility—posted a message on his
Twitter account addressed to the ambassador saying “Bless us with your
silence.”
Indeed, the U.S. ambassador’s position as the Brotherhood’s lackey is
disturbing—and revealing—on several levels. First, all throughout the
Middle East, the U.S. has been supporting anyone and everyone opposing
their leaders—in Libya against Gaddafi, in Egypt itself against 30-year
U.S. ally Mubarak, and now in Syria against Assad. In all these cases,
the U.S. has presented its support in the name of the human rights and
freedoms of the people against dictatorial leaders.
So why is the Obama administration now asking Christians not to
oppose their rulers—in this case, Islamists—who have daily proven
themselves corrupt and worse, to the point that millions of Egyptians,
most of them Muslims, are trying to oust them?
What’s worse is that the human rights abuses Egypt’s Coptic
Christians have been suffering under Muslim Brotherhood rule are
significantly worse than the human rights abuses that the average
Egyptian suffered under Mubarak—making the Copts’ right to protest even
more legitimate, and, if anything, more worthy of U.S support.
Among other things, under Morsi’s rule, the persecution of Copts has
practically been legalized, as unprecedented numbers of Christians—men,
women, and children—have been arrested, often receiving more than
double the maximum prison sentence, under the accusation that they “blasphemed” Islam and/or its prophet. It
was also under Morsi’s reign that another unprecedented scandal
occurred: the St. Mark Cathedral—holiest site of Coptic Christianity and
headquarters to the Pope Tawadros himself—was besieged in broad daylight by Islamic rioters. When security came, they too joined in the attack on the cathedral. And the targeting of Christian children—for
abduction, ransom, rape, and/or forced conversion—has also reached
unprecedented levels under Morsi. (For more on the plight of the Copts
under Morsi’s rule, see my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.)
Yet despite the fact that if anyone in Egypt has a legitimate human
rights concern against the current Egyptian government, it most
certainly is the Christian Copts, here is the U.S., in the person of Ms.
Patterson, asking them not to join the planned protests.
In other words, and consistent with Obama administration’s doctrine,
when Islamists—including rapists and cannibals—wage jihad on secular
leaders, the U.S. supports them; when Christians protest Islamist rulers
who are making their lives a living hell, the administration asks them
to “know their place” and behave like dhimmis, Islam’s
appellation for non-Muslim “infidels” who must live as third class
“citizens” and never complain about their inferior status.
(by R&S, Exposing the Realities) -- Newly declassified FBI documents prove that the government knew Hitler was alive and well, and living in the Andes Mountains long after World War II.
On
April 30 1945, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his underground
bunker. His body was later discovered and identified by the Soviets
before being rushed back to Russia. Is it really possible that the
Soviets have been lying all this time, and that history has purposely
been rewritten?
No one
thought so until the release of the FBI documents. It seems that it is
possible that the most hated man in history escaped war torn Germany and
lived a bucolic and peaceful life in the beautiful foothills of the
Andes Mountains.
The Intelligence Community Knew.
Recently released FBI documents are beginning to show that not only was Hitler and Eva Braun’s suicide faked, the infamous pair might have had help from the Swiss Director of the United States OSS himself, Allen Dulles.
In
one FBI document from Los Angles, it is revealed that the agency was
well aware of a mysterious submarine making its way up the Argentinian
coast dropping off high level Nazi officials. What is even more
astonishing is the fact that the FBI knew he was in fact living in the
foothills of the Andes.
Who is the Mysterious Informant?
In
a Los Angeles letter to the Bureau in August of 1945, an unidentified
informant agreed to exchange information for political asylum. What he
told agents was stunning.
The
informant not only knew Hitler was in Argentina, he was one of the
confirmed four men who had met the German submarine. Apparently, two
submarines had landed on the Argentinian coast, and Hitler with Eva
Braun was on board the second.
The
Argentinian government not only welcomed the former German dictator,
but also aided in his hiding. The informant went on to not only give
detailed directions to the villages that Hitler and his party had passed
through, but also credible physical details concerning Hitler.
While for obvious reasons the informant is never named in the FBI papers, he was credible enough to be believed by some agents.
The FBI Tried to Hide Hitler’s Whereabouts.
Even
with a detailed physical description and directions the FBI still did
not follow up on these new leads. Even with evidence placing the German
sub U-530 on the Argentinian coast shortly before finally surrounding,
and plenty of eye witness accounts of German official being dropped off,
no one investigated.
Click on image to download PDF or review directly on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's website fbi.gov
Even More Evidence is Found:
Along
with the FBI documents detailing an eye witness account of Hitler’s
whereabouts in Argentina, more evidence is coming to light to help prove
that Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun did not die in that bunker.
Perhaps
the most damming evidence that Hitler did survive the fall of Germany
lies in Russia. With the Soviet occupation of Germany, Hitler’s supposed
remains were quickly hidden and sent off to Russia, never to be seen
again. That is until 2009, when an archeologist from Connecticut State,
Nicholas Bellatoni was allowed to perform DNA testing on one of the
skull fragments recovered.
What
he discovered set off a reaction through the intelligence and scholarly
communities. Not only did the DNA not match any recorded samples
thought to be Hitler’s, they did not match Eva Braun’s familiar DNA
either. So the question is, what did the Soviets discover in the bunker,
and where is Hitler?
It
was not only General Eisenhower who was concerned over Hitler’s compete
disappearance, Stalin also expressed his concerns. In 1945, the Stars
and Stripes newspaper quoted then General Eisenhower as believing that
the real possibility existed of Hitler living safely and comfortably in
Argentina.
Is it Possible?
With
all of the new found evidence coming to light, it is possible and even
likely that not only did Hitler escape from Germany; he had the help of
the international intelligence community. Released FBI documents prove
that they were not only aware of Hitler’s presence in Argentina; they
were also helping to cover it up.
Edward Snowden speaks via video link to the SXSW conference on March 10, 2014
Image credit: IDG News Service/Martyn Williams
Encryption technologies can be a powerful tool against government
surveillance, but the most effective techniques are still largely out of
reach to the average Internet user, Edward Snowden said Monday.
"Encryption does work," Snowden said,
speaking via satellite video from Russia at the South by Southwest
Interactive technology festival in Austin, Texas. "We need to think of
encryption not as an arcane black art, but as a basic protection in the
digital realm," the former U.S. National Security Agency contractor
said.
Snowden chose to speak at SXSW rather than before a legislative or
policy group because it's the technology community that can really fix
security and digital rights, he said. "This is something we should not
only implement, but actively research and improve on an academic level,"
he said.
But now, the best encryption, like end-to-end encryption, often does
not find its way into mainstream product and is not always employed by
major Internet companies that depend on advertising.
Ideally, more companies would make strong encryption a default part
of their services, without requiring action from the consumer, or
burying the option several menus deep. It may be difficult, however, for
companies like Google and Facebook to adopt the strongest encryption
protocols like end-to-end encryption, Snowden said during a discussion
about security with two representatives from the American Civil
Liberties Union. Those companies gather lots of data about their users
and use it for advertising. It's harder to gather that data when the
endpoints are encrypted, the speakers said.
Since the disclosures began last June from documents leaked to
reporters by Snowden, "companies have improved their security," said
Chris Soghoian, a senior policy analyst with the ACLU Speech, Privacy
and Technology Project. There is security, for instance, between user's
computers and Google's servers, he said.
But it's difficult for major Internet companies providing a free
service to offer end-to-end encryption because it conflicts with their
business model, he said. And. unfortunately, the tools that offer
secure, end-to-end online communications are not polished or easy to
use, speakers said. "The tools designed with security as a first goal
are often developed by independent developers, activists and hobbyists,"
he said.
After previously classified documents were leaked by Snowden, a
number of large technology companies, including Google, Microsoft and
Yahoo announced new protocols for encrypting users' data. But the
problem is that one of the most commonly used encryption technologies,
known as TLS (Transport Layer Security) is not all that strong against
the intelligence gathering community, Snowden said.
TSL encryption, which is used by services owned by Google and Skype,
encrypts communications at the point of transport and then the companies
de-crypt and re-encrypt it, Snowden said. End-to-end encryption, on the
other hand, forces intelligence-gathering groups to target individual
computers, which are much harder to crack.
"I think that's the way to do it," Snowden said, speaking on the value of end-to-end encryption.
Some of the most advanced encryption technologies are difficult to
use and they're not always free. Still, Snowden identified several steps
Internet users can take to protect their data from surveillance.
There's disk encryption, which protects data stored on hardware; there
are browser security plug-ins like NoScript; and apps like Ghostery for Web cookie tracking, Snowden said. He also recommended Tor, which is designed to conceal online activity by routing Internet traffic through a networked relay system.
If people take those steps to encrypt their hardware and network
communications, their online data would be better protected from massive
government surveillance. But targeted surveillance is still harder to
evade.
Snowden did not say that companies like Google and Facebook should
not collect any data about their users. Rather, companies should not
store data for long periods of time.
"You can do these things in a responsible way where people can still
get value of the services ... without putting users at risk," he said.
The appropriate length of time that companies should retain user data was not, however, addressed during the talk. Zach Miners covers social networking, search and general technology news for IDG News Service. Follow Zach on Twitter at @zachminers. Zach's e-mail address is zach_miners@idg.com
U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted
By Bill Dedman
In
the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the
Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down
the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants,
according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.
The
emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the
campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry came as
the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and
scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the
meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.
At the end of that long
first weekend of the crisis three years ago, NRC Public Affairs Director
Eliot Brenner thanked his staff for sticking to the talking points that
the team had been distributing to senior officials and the public.
"While we know more than these say," Brenner wrote, "we're sticking to this story for now."
There
are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or
concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated
by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and
cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of
radioactive material:
Trying
to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager
told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in
the NRC's operations center in Maryland.
If asked whether the
Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the
same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to
reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for
whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're
not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one
email.
When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded
news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at
U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New
York City.
And when asked to help reporters explain what would
happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the
agency declined to address the questions.
As
the third anniversary of Fukushima on Tuesday approaches, the emails
pull back the curtain on the agency’s efforts to protect the industry it
is supposed to regulate. The NRC officials didn't lie, but they didn't
always tell the whole truth either. When someone asked about a topic
that might reflect negatively on the industry, they changed the subject.
NBC
News requested in late March 2011 all of the emails sent and received
by certain NRC staffers during the first week of the crisis. Other news
organizations and watchdogs filed similar requests. The NRC has now been
posting thousands of emails in its public reading room over the past
two years.
The
NRC declined to discuss specific emails or communications. But Brenner
provided an emailed statement: "The NRC Office of Public Affairs strives
to be as open and transparent as possible, providing the public
accurate information in the proper context. We take our communication
mission seriously. We did then and we do now. The frustration displayed
in the chosen e-mails reflects more on the extreme stress our team was
under at the time to assure accuracy in a context in which information
from Japan was scarce to nonexistent. These e-mails fall well short of
an accurate picture of our communications with the American public
immediately after the event and during the past three years."
Dating
back to the Three Mile Island nuclear crisis in 1979, many nuclear
watchdogs and critics have said that the NRC acts first to protect the
industry, and its own reputation. One critic said these emails solidify
that perception.
"The NRC knew a
lot more about what was going on than it wanted to tell the American
people," said Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the nuclear watchdog
group Union of Concerned Scientists and co-author of the new book "Fukushima: The Story of a Nuclear Disaster,"
which relied on some of the same emails. "They immediately put out
information that implied that U.S. reactors were in a better position to
withstand Fukushima type events than Fukushima reactors were, but it
was clear that the what the NRC knew internally was not nearly as
positive."
'We all need to say a prayer'
From
the earliest hours of the crisis, the emails among NRC staff show deep
concern about the developing crisis in Japan, particularly among the
technical experts.
The first word that the
powerful earthquake and tsunami waves had devastated the Fukushima plant
came early morning (Eastern time) on March 11, 2011. Throughout the
day, staff at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., struggled to learn
what was going on in Japan. The chief of the NRC Component Integrity
Branch, senior engineer David Rudland, was asked by a colleague if he
had any new information. [The emails excerpted in this article are shown in full in a PDF file.]
From: Rudland, David Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 10:54 AM
No, at this point all we know is that they are struggling to shut down the plant.
We all need to say a prayer.…
By
that afternoon, the news was worse. An officer in NRC research passed
on to his colleagues a status update from the Japanese electrical
company.
From: Nosek, Andrew Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:46 PM
There was a triple SBO.
SBO
is nuclear jargon for a station blackout. The earthquake had cut
electrical power to the plant, and the tsunami had damaged the backup
diesel generators.
NRC operations officer Daniel Mills had an emotional reaction:
From: Mills, Daniel (NRC operations officer) Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 4:49 PM
BBC is reporting radiation levels at reactor are 1000x normal. I feel like crying.
The NRC staff recognized
immediately the public-relations nightmare that Fukushima presented for
nuclear power in the United States. More than 30 of America's 100
nuclear power reactors have the same brand of General Electric reactors
or containment system used in Fukushima.
American
nuclear reactors are well into middle age. The median age of an
operating reactor in the U.S. is 34 years, placing start-up in midst of
the Carter administration. The oldest -- the Ginna plant near Rochester,
N.Y. -- was licensed in 1969, the year Neil Armstrong walked on the
moon. Only four of the 100 reactors have begun generating power since
1990. The newest, at Watts Bar in Tennessee, was licensed in 1996, when
many of this year's high school seniors were born.
The
unfolding disaster in Japan triggered immediate alarm inside the NRC
about plans to announce regulatory actions. Seeing the video from Japan,
NRC engineer Richard Barkley pointed out that the NRC staff that week
to recommend extending for 20 years the license for reactors a nuclear
power plant in New England called Vermont Yankee. He warned colleagues,
"That was a very scary picture to myself, much less the public,
especially since the machine is a GE designed BWR (boiled-water reactor)
not radically different in size, age and design than some high
visibility plants in my region. I can see the cards and letters coming
to my in-box by Monday." (Ultimately, the NRC delayed the Vermont Yankee
re-licensing only briefly, approving it on March 21. This year the
plant's owner plans to close it, a victim of the competition from
falling prices for natural gas.)
Three
decades after the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear
plant in Pennsylvania, nuclear power companies saw hope for a
renaissance, with the first new reactors in years being planned. But
public opinion was fragile: If the Fukushima reactors, built by American
companies, could be overwhelmed by natural disasters, could the public
trust that American power plants were safe?
'We are not talking about that'
In
the NRC's Office of Public Affairs, the first talking points had been
written and distributed by 10:25 a.m. on Friday, less than 10 hours
after the quake. NRC technical experts were cautioned repeatedly not to
make any public statements. All information had to come from Public
Affairs.
In an email sent at 2:56
p.m., the updated talking points were unequivocally reassuring: "The
NRC has regulations in place that require licensees to design their
plants to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes ...
based on historical data from the area's maximum credible earthquake,
with an additional margin added."
But privately, the NRC was aware of uncertainties.
An
hour before that email was sent, Brenner, the public affairs director,
sent a "great work so far" memo to his staff at HQ and around the U.S.
His third bullet point highlighted he NRC's role in helping Japanese
engineers deal with the problems at Fukushima -- a fact not mentioned in
the NRC's press releases that day. The emails indicate that the Obama
administration and the NRC were keen to keep up the appearance that they
were merely observing the Japanese nuclear crisis and had no
responsibility for helping resolve it.
From: Brenner, Eliot Date: Friday, March 11, 2011, 1:54:57 PM
While
one reporter knows or has guessed that there are Japanese here in our
Ops center in communication with their home authorities, we will NOT
make the[m] available and we will NOT volunteer their presence. If
anyone knows they are here and wants to talk with them, they will have
to make the request through the embassy to have it relayed to these
folks.
The memo also
instructed staff to evade any questions about efforts by the NRC's
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to model the effects of
similar earthquakes and tsunamis on California plants:
“NRR
is getting tasked with making an overlay of the Japanese conditions …
to see how west coast plants stack up against it,” it said. “We think
preliminarily Diablo would have had no trouble with a wave that size.
[For an earthquake of about] 8.9 we're not so sure about, but again we
are not talking about that.”
In
congressional testimony and interviews in that first week, NRC Chairman
Gregory Jaczko was quick to say that the NRC could learn lessons from
Fukushima.
"We're going to take a
good solid look at everything that comes out of Japan, and if we need
to make modifications to our facilities in this country, then we'll do
that," he told NBC News on March 16. He did not disclose that the NRC
technical staff had already been reassessing, before Fukushima,
increased risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, dam failures and power
blackouts.
The
talking points written during the emergency for NRC commissioners and
other officials were divided into two sections: "public answer" and
"additional technical, non-public information." Often the two parts
didn't quite match.
One topic the NRC avoided in the talking points, even when responding to a direct question: meltdown.
"Q. What happens when/if a plant 'melts down'?
"Public
Answer: In short, nuclear power plants in the United States are
designed to be safe. To prevent the release of radioactive material,
there are multiple barriers between the radioactive material and the
environment, including the fuel cladding, the heavy steel reactor vessel
itself and the containment building, usually a heavily reinforced
structure of concrete and steel several feet thick.
"Additional,
non-technical, non-public information: The melted core may melt through
the bottom of the vessel and flow onto the concrete containment floor.
The core may melt through the containment liner and release radioactive
material to the environment."
The
Japanese public television network, NHK, asked if the NRC could provide
a graphic depicting what happens during a meltdown of a nuclear
reactor.
From: McIntyre, David Date: Friday, March 18, 2011, 9:02 AM
NRC would not have such a graphic. I suspect any number of anti-nuclear power organizations might.
When
reporters asked if the Japanese emergency could affect licensing of new
reactors in the U.S., the public answer was "It is not appropriate to
hypothesize on such a future scenario at this point."
The
non-public information was more direct: This event could potentially
call into question the NRC's seismic requirements, which could require
the staff to re-evaluate the staff's approval of the AP1000 and ESBWR
(the newest reactor designs from Westinghouse and General Electric)
design and certifications."
On the subject of
tsunamis, the public assurances omitted the "non-public " nuances that
might have given the public reasons to doubt nuclear power safety:
Design standards varied significantly from plant to plant in the U.S.
The
experience in Japan had taught the NRC that it needed to study the
dangerous effects of “drawdown,” the powerful receding of ocean water
near the shore that can precede a tsunami's arrival.
And although the U.S. was developing new tsunami standards, those wouldn't be in draft form for another year.
'It was a hydrogen explosion'
The
NRC spokespeople sometimes had trouble following the public debate,
because for days their computers were blocked by security rules from
accessing Twitter and YouTube. And they often had incomplete information
about events in Japan.
From: McIntyre, David Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:02 PM
Just
saw an incoherent discussion on cnn by Bill Nye the science guy who
apparently knows zilcho about reactors and an idiot weatherman who said
Hydrogen explosion? Pfft. I'm not buying it.
His
boss sent back the following reply, correcting the staffer and
explaining plans to ask the Obama administration to help blunt critical
news coverage.
From: Brenner, Eliot Date: Saturday, March 12, 2011, 10:07 PM
1:
There is a good chance it was a hydrogen explosion that took the roof
off that building, though we are not saying that publicly.
2: I
have just reached out to CNN and asked them to call (former NRC Chairman
Nils) Diaz, and reached out to push the white house yet again to start
talking on background or getting out in front of some of this crap.
On March 20, when Energy Secretary Steven Chu hesitated on CNN when asked if U.S. plants could withstand a 9.0 earthquake?
McIntyre, one of the agency’s spokesmen, suggested to his bosses what Chu should have said:
From: McIntyre, David Date: Sunday, March 20, 2011, 10:01:00 AM
He should just say "Yes, it can." Worry about being wrong when it doesn't.
Sorry if I sound cynical.
The
public affairs staff showed disdain in the emails for nuclear watchdog
groups, including the Union of Concerned Scientists and also the Nuclear
Control Institute.
When the UCS
raised concerns about diesel backup power and batteries being
inadequate, as at Fukushima, spokesman McIntyre dismissed it as
"bleating" from nuclear power foes.
When
Steven Dolley, research director of the NCI, asked McIntyre for a
nuclear containment expert to speak to a reporter, the NRC asked if he
had contacted the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute.
Dolley
asked, "So, should I say NRC is deferring inquiries to NEI?" suggesting
that the NRC was deferring to the industry it is supposed to regulate.
McIntyre shared this exchange with his bosses, adding the comment, "F---ing a-hole."
There is NO SUCH NRC REPORT!
The
NRC's Public Affairs staff attempted to discredit news reports that
raised questions about nuclear plants, even when they were based on NRC
data.
A story by this reporter for msnbc.com (now NBCNews.com) reported that the NRC had published a study
six months earlier with new estimates of the risk that an earthquake
could cause damage to the core of U.S. nuclear power plants. The plants
were listed in alphabetical order, along with the NRC's risk estimates.
The
msnbc.com story, published on March 16, ranked the U.S. nuclear plants
by those NRC estimates. Surprisingly, the highest risk was not on the
Pacific Coast, where plants are designed and built with severe
earthquakes in mind, but in the Central and Eastern states, where
scientists have raised their estimate of the earthquake risk since the
plants were designed and built. The story said that the NRC still
described the plants as safe, but also said the margin of error had
shrunk.
We had checked our
understanding of the report with NRC earthquake experts, but NRC
spokesman Scott Burnell responded to the story by asking the same staff
to find fault with it.
From: Burnell, Scott Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 6:22 AM
I
know you're going to have a cow over this - somewhat inevitable when a
reporter new to the subject tries to summarize things. Apart from
"you're totally off-base," what specific technical corrections can we
ask for??
OPA (Office of Public Affairs) - this is likely to spark
a lot of follow-up. The immediate response would be "that's a very
incomplete look at the overall research and we continue to believe U.S.
reactors are capable of withstanding the strongest earthquake their
sites could experience." I'll share whatever we get from the experts.
Senior officials at the
industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute, sent emails
asking the NRC for help rebutting the story. Burnell urgently asked
again for errors in the article.
From: Burnell, Scott Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 11:11 AM
Folks, the expected calls are coming in -- We need a better response ASAP!
But the NRC experts found nothing to correct.
From: Beasley, Benjamin Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 12:31 PM
I have received no concerns or corrections regarding the MSNBC article.
From: McIntyre, David Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 2:20 PM
I
just filed this request for correction with The Huffington Post, which
has a report of Cuomo wanting to shut IP based on the MSNBC report:
There
is NO SUCH NRC REPORT! The NRC does not rank nuclear power plants
according to their vulnerability to earthquakes. This "ranking" was
developed by an MSNBC reporter using partial information and an even
more partial understanding of how we evaluate plants for seismic risk.
Each plant is evaluated individually according to the geology of its
site, not by a "one-size-fits-all" model - therefore such rankings or
comparisons are highly misleading. Please correct this report.
His colleague in
Atlanta, spokesman Joey Ledford, replied, "Great talking point, Dave. I
wish I had it during my 10 or so calls today trying to debunk this
thing."
The New York Times,
which was reporting a story about Indian Point, was dissuaded from using
the NRC's risk estimates. We asked the New York Times reporter, Peter
Applebome, why he ignored the NRC data. He replied in an email, "Burnell
said it wasn't accurate and included rankings the NRC never made. I
have no idea if that's correct, but I was writing a column on deadline
and figured I did not have the ability to figure out who was right in
the time I had."
In his piece,
Applebome quoted the NRC downplaying the risk: "Officials with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission say the site is safe and that its
earthquake threat is on the lower end nationally and in the Northeast."
The NRC's recent study with a different picture was ignored.
The NRC followed up with a blog post
from Brenner, the public affairs chief, cautioning the public, “Don't
Believe Everything You Read.” Brenner called the msnbc.com report
"highly misleading."
He didn't mention that its figures came from the NRC.
March 11 marks the third anniversary of the earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
In Koriyama, a short drive from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant,
the city recommended children up to two years old not spend more than 15
minutes outside each day. Those aged 3 to 5 should limit their outdoor
time to 30 minutes or less.
In
the above photo, Nao Watanabe, 2, plays in a ball pit at an indoor
playground which was built for children and parents who refrain from
playing outside because of concerns about nuclear radiation.
The limits were lifted
last year, but many kindergartens and nursery schools continue to obey
them even now in line with the wishes of worried parents.
Toru Hanai / Reuters
A child walks past a geiger
counter, measuring a radiation level of 0.162 microsievert per hour, at a
square in front of Koriyama, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 1.
Toru Hanai / Reuters
A doctor conducts a thyroid
examination on five-year-old girl as her older brother and a nurse take
care of her at a clinic in temporary housing complex in Nihonmatsu, west
of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant,
Fukushima prefecture on Feb. 27.
Toru Hanai / Reuters
Two-year-old Sakuya Zui plays at
an indoor playground which was built for children and parents who
refrain from playing outside because of concerns about nuclear radiation
in Koriyama, west of the tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant on Feb. 27.
An annual survey by the
Fukushima prefecture Board of Education found that children in
Fukushima weighed more than the national average in virtually every age
group. The cause seems to be a lack of exercise and outdoor activity.
A girl wearing a mask sits in a
school bus heading to the Emporium kindergarten in Koriyama, west of the
tsunami-crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on Feb. 28.
A new report on the nuclear crisis that started to
unfold in Fukushima, Japan almost three years ago suggests that American
troops who assisted with disaster relief efforts were exposed to
unheard of radiation levels while on assignment.
Kyle Cleveland, a sociology professor at Temple University Japan,
makes a case for that argument in an academic paper published in the Asia-Pacific Journal
this week titled Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear
Crisis and the Politics of Uncertainty.
According to Cleveland, transcripts from a March 2011 conference
call obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows
that United States servicemen on the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft
carrier experienced radiation levels 30-times above normal during
relief operations that week.
During that March 13 phone call, Cleveland wrote, Troy Mueller —
the deputy administrator for naval reactors at the US Department
of Energy — said the radiation was the equivalent of “about
30 times what you would detect just on a normal air sample out at
sea.”
“So it's much greater than what we had thought,” Mueller
reportedly warned other American officials after taking samples
on the Reagan. “We didn't think we would detect anything at
100 miles.”
After Mueller made that remark, according to Cleveland’s
transcript, Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman asked him
if those levels were “significantly higher than anything you
would have expected.” He responded yes.
When Poneman later asked Mueller, “how do the levels detected
compare with what is permissible,” Mueller said those on the
scene could suffer irreversible harm from the radiation within
hours.
“If it were a member of the general public, it would take --
well, it would take about 10 hours to reach a limit,” he
said. At that point, Mueller added, “it’s a thyroid dose
issue.”
If people are exposed to levels beyond the Protective Action
Guideline threshold released by the Energy Department, Cleveland
acknowledged in his report, radiation could have ravaged their
thyroid glands.
When approached for comment by reporters at the website NextGov, however, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr.
Sarah Flaherty said in an email that the crewmembers aboard the
USS Reagan were never at danger of such exposure.
“Potentially contaminated personnel were surveyed with
sensitive instruments and, if necessary, decontaminated. The low
levels of radioactivity from the Fukushima nuclear power plant
identified on US Navy ships, their aircraft, and their personnel
were easily within the capability of ship's force to
remedy,” Flaherty said
The latest report, NextGov’s Bob Brewin wrote, comes only days
after the attorneys representing 79 USS Reagan crewmember filed
an amended lawsuit in California against Tokyo Electric Power
Co., or TEPCO., which has been accused of negligent with regards
to maintain the Fukushima nuclear facility ahead of the March
2011 earthquake and tsunami that started the emergency.Attorneys
for those servicemen are asking TEPCO for $1 billion in damages,
and say that the infant child born of one of the crewmembers
since the incident has a rare genetic disorder likely brought on
by radiation exposure.
Attorneys in that suit say that “up to 70,000 US citizens
[were] potentially affected by the radiation,” and might be
able to join in their suit.
Pa. has six reactors similar to those at Fukushima, and while
regulators and reactor operators insist they are safe, a close scrutiny
raises serious questions.
Clouds of condensed water vapor leave the cooling towers of the
Limerick nuclear power plant in Pottstown Monday, November 18, 2013.
CLEM MURRAY / Staff Photographer
Three years
ago this week, the world watched a nuclear accident unfold. Although
Fukushima Daiichi sits halfway around the globe, there are chilling
similarities between what happened in Japan and what could happen here.
Pennsylvania has six reactors that are of similar designs to those at
Fukushima, two each at the Limerick, Susquehanna, and Peach Bottom
nuclear plants. New Jersey has one each at the Hope Creek and Oyster
Creek facilities. In addition to a shared technology, U.S. and Japanese
regulatory systems have much in common.
But the most important thread that ties nuclear safety in this
country with a nuclear disaster in Japan is a common mindset: that
severe accidents are so unlikely they need not be rigorously considered
in design, regulations, or emergency planning.
Even after the cascading crises at Fukushima stunned the world - and
continue to grab headlines today - U.S. regulators and reactor operators
insist that a similar event can't happen in this country. The existing
nuclear safety net is adequate, they say.
But on close scrutiny those claims stretch credulity. Consider just
one component of that safety net, emergency planning at Peach Bottom,
south of Harrisburg.
In the aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi, Peach Bottom's owner, Exelon
Corp., which owns 17 reactors, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission its voluntary plan for responding to a severe accident, such
as a flood or earthquake. Such events could destroy the reactors'
electrical systems, making it impossible to cool the cores and spent
reactor fuel, as happened at Fukushima.
At Fukushima Daiichi, all six reactors lost power, a situation called
"station blackout." Despite the heroic efforts of workers, time ran
out. Three meltdowns followed, along with hydrogen explosions and the
release of massive amounts of radiation. It took nine days to restore
full power.
Peach Bottom is adding portable generators to supply backup power in
the event of such a crisis. But Exelon has proposed storing the
equipment below flood level with the assumption that workers would have
plenty of time to move the equipment and get it operating, an assumption
consistent with nuclear-industry guidelines. Peach Bottom sits
alongside the notoriously flood-prone Susquehanna and below a large dam.
A dam breach or ice jam could create a destructive wall of water, akin
to a tsunami.
Under Exelon's scenario, the disaster would leave electrical systems
unscathed, the floodwaters or earthquake somehow miraculously sparing
wiring that was not designed to withstand such events.
If that backup isn't enough, the utility is relying on additional
emergency equipment - stored in Tennessee. Getting that equipment to the
site in time to save the day after a disaster that disrupted
transportation seems a rather high-stakes gamble. If by some chance the
plant lost power during routine refueling, when the entire core is
removed and placed in a spent fuel pool, there would be just eight hours
before the pool began to boil dry and the fuel at risk of catching
fire.
And what about evacuations in the event of a severe accident?
Central Pennsylvania is the only place in the United States that has
actually experienced a nuclear evacuation - 35 years ago during the
Three Mile Island accident. Then, the state recommended that pregnant
women and children living within five miles of the plant leave. Instead,
about 150,000 people took it upon themselves to flee, and the exodus
was far from smooth.
During Fukushima, the NRC recommended that Americans living within 50
miles of the plant evacuate, a wise call based on a dangerous radiation
plume that spread about 30 miles northwest of the reactors. Despite
that experience, the NRC today remains steadfast in its belief that the
existing 10-mile emergency evacuation zone around U.S. nuclear plants is
adequate and that there would be plenty of time to expand that zone if
conditions warranted. (In the case of the Limerick reactor, a 50-mile
zone would include much of metropolitan Philadelphia.)
More than 10 million Pennsylvanians (80 percent of the state) live
within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. That statistic prompted Sen. Robert
Casey (D., Pa.) in 2012 to ask the NRC to reevaluate the adequacy of the
10-mile evacuation zone. The 10-mile zone remains in effect.
Three years after Fukushima Daiichi, the NRC and the nuclear industry
continue to repeat a familiar mantra: The likelihood of a severe
accident is so low there is no need to plan for it. That was what the
Japanese said, too.
Susan Q.
Stranahan is co-author of the new book "Fukushima: The Story of a
Nuclear Accident," written with David Lochbaum and Edwin Lyman of the
Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member of the Inquirer team
awarded a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Three Mile Island
accident susan.stranahan@gmail.com
By Marie-Louise Gumuchian. Jason Hanna and Kellie Morgan, CNN
updated 2:04 PM EDT, Mon March 10, 2014
People shout slogans during a
pro-Russia rally in Donetsk, Ukraine, on Sunday, March 9. Pro-Russian
forces have taken control of Ukraine's autonomous Crimean region,
prompting criticism from Western nations and the Ukrainian interim
government. The standoff has revived concerns of a return to Cold War
relations.
HIDE CAPTION
Crisis in Ukraine
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Ukrainian military base commander in Crimea denies switching allegiance
Russia says far-right groups "conniving" with new authorities in Kiev
Ukrainian prime minister expected to arrive in the United States on Wednesday
Simferopol, Ukraine (CNN) -- Russia accused
far-right groups Monday of "conniving" with the new authorities in
Ukraine, as pro-Moscow forces consolidated their hold on their
neighbor's Black Sea peninsula.
In a statement, the
Russian Foreign Ministry condemned "lawlessness" in eastern Ukraine and
accused the West of being silent over violence and detentions taking
place against Russian citizens, such as one incident last week when it
said masked gunmen fired on and injured peaceful protesters.
The statement came a day
after German Chancellor Angela Merkel bluntly told Russian President
Vladimir Putin by phone the Moscow-backed referendum on whether Crimea
should join Russia is illegal and would violate Ukraine's constitution
if it goes ahead on March 16.
Putin has defended
breakaway moves by pro-Russian leaders in Crimea, where Russian forces
have been tightening their grip on a region that has been the epicenter
of a battle for influence among Moscow, Kiev and the West since
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's ouster last month.
Pro-Russian forces last
week pushed into the autonomous region in a bloodless siege, prompting
criticism from Western nations and Ukraine's interim government.
Will Putin stop at Crimea?
Ukraine: 30,000 Russian troops in Crimea
Ripple effect of Ukraine crisis
Moscow has denounced the
events that led to Yanukovych's ouster as an illegitimate coup and has
refused to recognize the new Ukrainian authorities, putting the two
countries on a collision course over control of Crimea, which has
longstanding ties to Russia and has thousands of Russian troops
stationed there.
Putin has said Russia has the right to protect Russians living in the former Soviet republic.
As tensions mount,
Ukraine's armed forces carried out training exercises to test their
readiness, the country's Defense Ministry said. Citing televised
comments made by Defense Minister Ihor Tenyukh on Sunday, it said the
army however was not calling for full mobilization, as diplomacy was
still the preferred method to resolve the crisis.
Earlier, Ukraine's
Defense Ministry said a group of about 20 pro-Russian activists from the
so-called Crimea self-defense squads had broken into the military
hospital in the region's main administrative city, Simferopol, and
thrown out its chief.
In a later statement, it
said the hospital chief was back at work after negotiations but added
the premises were being blockaded by the activists.
However a CNN team that
traveled to the hospital found it very quiet, with no one around. A
guard on duty said he had not heard or seen anything unusual and that
there was no senior official to speak with as Monday was a public
holiday.
In the course of the
rapidly changing events of the past week, a propaganda war over Ukraine
has quickly developed as each side seeks to strengthen its stance.
Scenes of
balaclava-wearing men without insignia patrolling streets or other
premises have now become a familiar sight in the region.
On Monday, conflicting
accounts cast doubt as to which side was in charge of a Ukrainian
military base in Bakhchisaray, Crimea, with a Ukrainian commander
denying accusations that he had defected.
Ukraine's military said
the commander, Vladimir Sadovnik, initially appeared to have been
abducted from the base by pro-Russian self-defense fighters on Sunday. A
CNN team visited the base Monday morning, and the deputy commander said
Sadovnik was being held by pro-Russian forces. The base still appeared
to be in Ukrainian military hands.
But later Monday,
Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman Vladislav Seleznyov said Sadovnik
-- apparently having switched allegiance -- returned to the base with
pro-Russian fighters and persuaded some of the Ukrainian troops there to
join him.
Sadovnik and the men who
joined him loaded trucks with fuel, radios and other goods to take away
from the base, according to Seleznyov.
When a CNN team visited
the base Monday afternoon, armed masked men appeared in control of the
base. The Ukrainian flag that had been flying there was gone.
CNN then reached
Sadovnik by phone, and he denied Seleznyov's account. He said he was
kidnapped Sunday but eventually was allowed to return to the base. He
said he still was on the base and still was loyal to Ukraine.
He said pro-Russian
forces did ask Ukrainian troops there to change sides Monday, but that
he did no such thing. CNN couldn't immediately verify his location.
Reports of
confrontations weren't limited to Crimea. In the eastern mainland
Ukrainian city of Lugansk, just a few kilometers west of the Russian
border, 50 to 60 people burst into an IRTA TV station building on
Monday, editor-in-chief Katerina Rakova said.
The intruders initially
threatened to burn the building if they weren't allowed to broadcast.
But they eventually left, warning that they would return if they are
dissatisfied with the station's news broadcasts, Rakova said.
On Monday afternoon, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "increasingly alarmed" by developments in Ukraine.
"Recent events in Crimea
in particular have only served to deepen the crisis. As tensions and
mistrust are growing, I urge all sides to refrain from hasty actions and
provocative rhetoric," he said.
Singing Soviet songs
On Sunday in Simferopol,
demonstrators waving Crimean and Russian flags clapped along to
Soviet-era songs as dancers from Russia's Black Sea fleet entertained
the crowd.
Because of language and history, one man at the rally told CNN, Russia and Crimea are already "brothers."
But not all Crimeans are
convinced. Across town, beneath a statue of Ukraine's most celebrated
poet, another crowd was much smaller and the mood much more somber.
Asked what he thought about the possibility of Crimea becoming part of Russia, one demonstrator shook his head.
"It will be very
complicated because of economics, and a lot of different nations live
here, not only Russians. ... Not all of the people want to be part of
Russia," he said. "It's kind of a show. Putin's show."
Elsewhere, in the
Crimean port of Sevastopol, another Ukrainian rally came under attack by
pro-Russian gangs who whipped and beat demonstrators.
Ukrainian PM to U.S.
Washington has warned
Moscow that any moves to annex Crimea would close the door to diplomacy.
On Saturday, U.S. President Barack Obama rounded up world leaders to
demand Russia "de-escalate the situation."
Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk will fly to the United States this week to discuss the crisis in Crimea.
On Tuesday, Yanukovych
will speak from the Russian town of Rostov, Russia's state-run Itar-Tass
news agency reported, citing sources close to Yanukovych.
Putin earlier this month
secured permission from his parliament to use military force to protect
Russian citizens in Ukraine. The move came within days after
Yanukovych's flight from the country. Yanukovych was ousted after three
months of protests against his decision to spurn a free trade deal with
the European Union and turn toward closer ties with Moscow.
The referendum on
whether the Crimean Peninsula should join Russia has become the focus of
the Ukraine crisis. Yatsenyuk has called it "an illegitimate decision."
"If there is an
annexation of Crimea, if there is a referendum that moves Crimea from
Ukraine to Russia, we won't recognize it, nor will most of the world,"
U.S. deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken said on CNN's "State
of the Union" on Sunday.
"So I think you'd see,
if there are further steps in the direction of annexing Crimea, a very
strong, coordinated international response."
As
Egyptians of all factions prepare to demonstrate in mass against the
Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi’s rule on June 30, the latter has
been trying to reduce their numbers, which some predict will be in the
millions and eclipse the Tahrir protests that earlier ousted
Mubarak. Among other influential Egyptians, Morsi recently called on
Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II to urge his flock, Egypt’s millions of
Christians, not to join the June 30 protests.
Air Photo Service via Reuters file
NBC News
NBC News
Toru Hanai / Reuters
Toru Hanai / Reuters
Toru Hanai / Reuters
Toru Hanai / Reuters
People shout slogans during a
pro-Russia rally in Donetsk, Ukraine, on Sunday, March 9. Pro-Russian
forces have taken control of Ukraine's autonomous Crimean region,
prompting criticism from Western nations and the Ukrainian interim
government. The standoff has revived concerns of a return to Cold War
relations.
