First Nations Blockade Camp Standing In The Path of Northern Gateway

The blockade you never heard of has been ongoing for years!

In light of Northern Gateway pipeline recommendation, Unist’ot’en blockade camp ups the ante

First Nations blockade camp standing in the path of Northern Gateway gets an influx of volunteer applications in preparation for the fight against oil and gas companies

Unist'ot'en Camp sign
The sign at the entrance to the camp after a makeshift explosive was set off in October. Photo courtesy of the Unist’ot’en Facebook page.

With the announcement of the National Energy Board’s ruling in favour of Enbridge’s Northern pipeline, and the fall of yet another government environmental safeguard, the organizers of the anti-pipeline blockade camp in Northern BC are more committed than ever to holding their ground. Along with partner Forest Action Network (FAN), they’ve put out a call for more volunteers, and FAN director Zoe Blunt says they’ve received a flood of applications in the past week from people eager to travel to the camp and help out.

Blunt, who has been to the camp several times, said she had been involved in fighting tankers on the coast when she realized she needed to start higher up the chain. If there are no pipelines, she said, there can be no tankers.

“We’ve found kind of a choke point here in the Morice River Valley, and if we can slow it down, close it off, stall it, it’s buying time for another kind of outcome.” That could mean decisions made by the courts or by the commodities markets. “If the economy contracts again, these pipelines are a lot less likely to go through.”

The Unist’ot’en clan of the Wet’suwet’en people have put themselves in the path of multiple pipelines, including the already-approved Pacific Trails liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline and the Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline. Surveyors and oil and gas company employees who have been found in the territory have been escorted out of Unist’ot’en lands.

The camp has existed for the past four years, first as a “soft blockade,” keeping people out of the territory, and has steadily grown to include permanent buildings and permaculture gardens. Volunteers are currently working to build pit houses on site and collect supplies for the rest of the winter. The camp garnered some media attention in October when an unidentified intruder set off a homemade bomb at the entrance to the territory. No one was injured and damage was minimal.

Camp organizer and member of the Unist’ot’en Freda Huson has just returned to her village after a year of living at the camp with her husband, Unist’ot’en hereditary chief Dini Ze Toghetiy, their children and dogs.

Apart from the incident with the explosive, Huson says the camp has received minimal attention outside independent and social media, and even making use of some of those outlets have proved challenging. She said her posts on Facebook concerning pipelines and the camp’s oppositions to them are often removed, or she finds herself kicked off the platform before items can be posted at all.

“We pretty much know that media is owned by government and industry. It’s not really free,” she said. “The only time we get a lot of media attention is if it’s going to be negative against indigenous people.” But regardless of the response, she said the Unist’ot’en have no intention of leaving, even if the oil industry trucks start rolling in.

“For myself, I believe it’s the only way you can get anybody to see your viewpoint. You have to blockade and you have to make your views known through the methods we’re using.” The Unist’ot’en say they have never been consulted about the projects expected to run through their territory, and Husan said they’ve tried talking to those in power, but have been let down.

Enbridge spokesperson Ivan Giesbrecht said via email that the company has actively engaged with First Nations and Metis groups to incorporate feedback into the project design, and Enbridge is still hopeful that it can address First Nations’ concerns “in a mutual spirit of cooperation and collaboration.” He said the company is aware of the blockade, but refused to comment further.

Huson is currently working Moricetown, a Wet’suwet’en village near Smithers, promoting economic development that focuses on tourism. She said there’s a distinct difference between what she calls economic development and what companies like Enbridge do.

“It should be sustainable and should also protect our environment. It’s not economic development if you’re developing projects that are destroying water and land.”

Many of the volunteers who have travelled to the camp are recent university grads who became disillusioned with their jobs and wanted to find better ways to protect the environment. They’re also hoping to boost local support.

“Most of our support is on the Lower Mainland,” she said. “Locally, people are all opposing the pipelines but nobody is stepping up to help. Even financially, most of our support is from the cities.”

The camp needs people who can help with construction, hauling firewood and keeping a lookout for intruders on the territory. Husan said they’ll need more resources and more support on the land if they’re going to succeed to keeping the oil and gas companies out.

Husan said the outcome of the Joint Review Panel hearings has caused some worry.

“It’s getting prepared and having enough resources available because we know we’re going to be up against industry trying to push their way through. We need more people up there.”

The Minster of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources, and the Minister for the Environment did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

When You Carry A Life In You, You Feel Fear

Under the Dome: Trying To Save This Whole System We Call Home

Giving new breadth to the term “viral,” last weekend up to 200 million people in China watched “Under the Dome,” a new, deeply personal, meticulously researched, self-funded for just $160,000 documentary about China’s calamitous pollution problem, which on its worst “airpocalypse” days is said to resemble an airport smoking lounge. The film by former news anchor and environmental journalist Chai Jing has been called “one of the most important pieces of public awareness of all time” for China, and in its potential impact has been compared to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in this country and, later, Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” It was released on the eve of China’s annual meeting of the National People’s Congress in Beijing, which will set government policies on a range of issues.

Jing, 39, began working on the film for personal reasons: She was pregnant with her first child, who was found to have a tumor. Though she had never before been afraid of the pollution around her in smog-blanketed Beijing or her native coal-choked region, she says, “when you carry a life in you, you feel the fear.” She went on to do extensive research, assembling statistics on the estimated 600 million people suffering from asthma, heart disease, strokes and other ailments likely caused by environmental factors, travelling around the country to interview experts, workers, doctors – filming, at one point, the removal of a cancerous lung – and visiting particularly polluted sites like the northeastern city of Harbin, with pollutant levels many times those considered hazardous. Jing found, and hopes to capitalize on what she calls a basic “social consensus” – that we all need air. “This,” she says hopefully, “is how history will be made.” To date, China’s famously restrictive state media has been startlingly supportive of her message; experts say their openness may or may not last. You can watch the film in Mandarin with English sub-titles here, or watch its dramatic start and final call to action, with middle portions summarized, here.

Shock: Fracking Used to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades!

Shock: Fracking Used to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades

Truthsream Media has just posted this amazing research showing the extractionists abuse of the ecosystem going back half a century. The disregard for the consequences of polluting the groundwater forever is mindboggling.

(Truthstream Media) Unearthed articles from the 1960s detail how nuclear waste was buried beneath the Earth’s surface by Halliburton & Co. for decades as a means of disposing the by-products of post-World War II atomic energy production.

Fracking is already a controversial practice on its face; allowing U.S. industries to inject slurries of toxic, potentially carcinogenic compounds deep beneath the planet’s surface — as a means of “see no evil” waste disposal — already sounds ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid anyway without even going into further detail.

Alleged fracking links to the contamination of the public water supply and critical aquifers, as well as ties to earthquake upticks near drilling locations that are otherwise not prone to seismic activity have created uproar in the years since the 2005 “Cheney loophole,” which allowed the industry to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting fracking fluids, thus fast tracking shale fracking as a source of cheap natural gas.

Now, it is apparent that the fracking industry is also privvy to many secrets of the nuclear energy industry, and specifically, where the bodies are buried, err… dangerous nuclear waste is buried, rather — waste that atomic researchers have otherwise found so difficult to eliminate.

Truthstream uncovered several published newspaper accounts from the Spring of 1964 concerning a then-newly disclosed plan to dump nuclear waste produced by the atomic energy industry into hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wells using a cement slurry technique developed by Halliburton & Co. The top two fracking companies in the nation at the time were Halliburton and Dowell, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

And here we thought fracking was a relatively new industrial phenomenon growing in popularity over just the last couple of decades. Boy were we wrong. Revealed within these articles is Halliburton’s long-standing relationship with the secret government and deep ties between the oil and nuclear industries.

Teaming up with the U.S. Government and Union Carbide Corp., who operate nuclear materials divisions at the Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, Halliburton was then credited with “solving” the radioactive waste problem faced by America’s secretive nuclear industry. Dumping waste via fracking had apparently been going on since 1960, according to the reports, but was only made public here in 1964.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Each of the articles Truthstream found carry the same account under different headlines, with four of them using identical copy, and the fifth, published in the San Antonio Express, slightly rewritten based upon the same source information. The photo captions of each story also add some useful tidbits:

radioactive-fracking-Express_and_News_Sun__May_3__1964_
May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News. Click for larger image view.

These ran in the:

April 19, 1964 edition of the Great Bend Tribune,
the April 22, 1964 edition of the Warren Times-Mirror,
the April 26, 1964 edition of the Lubbock Avalanche Journal,
the May 3, 1964 edition of the San Antonio Express News (original)
and the June 15, 1964 edition of the Denton Record Chronicle.

The story read, in part:

“Two techniques originated by the petroleum industry for its own uses are expected to solve a major problem in the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The problem is the disposal of dangerous, sometimes deadly, radioactive waste by-products.”

“Researchers at Halliburton Co’s. Technical Center here working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientists, have combined the oil well cementing technique with the hydraulic fracturing production stimulation technique to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.”

“The method used at Oak Ridge begins by mixing the waste with a cement slurry, pumping the mixture down a hole drilled into the Conasuaga shale and then fracturing the shale to create a horizontal crack. The crack fills with the mixture to form a thin, horizontal sheet several hundred feet across. The mix sets to permanently hold the radioactive waste in the formation.”

“Union Carbide Corp., which operates facilities at Oak Ridge for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, and Halliburton, which provides specialized oil field services such as cementing fracturing worldwide, have collaborated on the project since 1960.”

The mix remained liquid for 48 hours before it was supposed to permanently set and remain there, entombed, forever.

The articles make clear that the Atomic Energy Commission was preparing to use fracking as a means of disposing of nuclear wastes at additional facilities, with Oak Ridge being simply one of the largest, and the first to publicly disclose these out-of-sight disposal procedures:

“Oak Ridge has a radioactive waste disposal problem typical of the nation’s nuclear sites. Each year about four million gallons of waste, including such fission products as strontium 90, cesium 137 and ruthenium 103, are generated at Oak Ridge.”

“Among the disposal methods already tried have been dumping concrete-encased barrels of waste in the ocean or burying the waste in lead-lined containers. These are considered either too dangerous or too expensive or both.”

Unfortunately, the ocean has been used as a giant trashcan not only by the nuclear industry, but municipal garbage and landfill companies and many other entities as well, without any real concern about its significant effects on the food supply and larger ecosystem of the planet.

“If this process is successful for disposal of Oak Ridge National Laboratory intermediate-level wastes, it has potential application at other atomic energy sites where suitable geological conditions exist,” the Atomic Energy Commission says.”

The slightly different version in the San Antonio Express News added these details:

“A couple of techniques used by oilmen when they have hopes of production may soon be used by the Atomic Energy Commission for – of all things – radioactive garbage disposal.”

“Final tests are now under way at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, in trying a combination of oil well cementing plus hydraulic fracturing to entomb radioactive wastes in an impermeable shale formation a thousand feet underground.”

radioactive-fracking-Great_Bend_Tribune_Sun__Apr_19__1964_

Meanwhile, the Great Bend Tribune added information about the Halliburton executives involved in the plan in their caption for a photo which shows businessmen looking at a diagram explaining how nuclear waste like strontium 90 is mixed with cement and injected into shale formations:

“Halliburton engineer Mack Stogner, left, reviews the project with Harry P. Conroy, senior vice president and general manager of the oil field service firm, and W.D. Owsley, senior vice president.”

The process includes remote controlled operation of the hydraulic fracturing drill in order to shield workers from the “medium level” radioactive substances being dumped into the earth’s crust, as the Warren Times Mirror in Pennsylvania notes in the caption:

“Disposing of Waste – Working behind shielding and wearing film badges, Halliburton Company personnel use demounted oil field service units to dispose of radioactive waste generated at the Oak Ridge, Tenn. nuclear site.”

How often this procedure has been used at other facilities since then is not entirely clear, though we know from reports discussed below that the practice continued and there is no indication that it ever stopped.

Five years later, the October 22, 1969 edition of the San Bernardino County Sun carried a report titled, “3 Ways to Manage Radioactive Waste.”

It discussed the ongoing and growing problems with nuclear waste, naming three principle strategies for managing the toxic stuff, summed up as “(1) delay and decay, (2) concentrate and confine and (3) dilute and disperse,” discussing how materials with lower half lives can supposedly be safely sequestered and later dumped, while other materials can be simply diluted and poured into existing groundwater supplies and systems.

The UPI story originating out of Oak Ridge states, in part,

“Since the start of the atomic era in the 1940s, nuclear reactors around the nation have produced 75 million gallons of hazardous high level radioactive waste materials.”

“And scientists here and elsewhere around the nation still are wrestling with the problems of what to do with this material, which promises to become even more plentiful as more and more commercial nuclear reactors go into power production.”

Oak Ridge proclaims that it found a solution to dealing with high level nuclear wastes, which has thus far been to keep it,

“…buried a few feet underground in storage tanks – tanks which must be periodically replaced because of the natural deterioration of the steel and other materials of which they are fabricated.”

“It is in this area of confining the high level wastes, whose radioactive half life ranges up to 30 to 50 years, that the Atomic Energy Commission is pushing dramatic new concepts.”

“One disposal system, involving materials in the medium range of radioactivity, is the hydraulic fracturing procedures. This system is now being used at Oak Ridge and involves mixing the liquid radioactive waste with concrete to form a grout which is pumped into shale formations 500 to 800 feet underground.”

Note, this article cites a shallower depth, at levels as shallow as 500 feet, after the 1964 articles claimed a further removed depth of 1,000 feet to 5,000. The even “higher level wastes” were disposed of in abandoned salt mines, according to Oak Ridge.

Nuclear Waste ‘Safely Flushed Away’ into the Water Supply

The 1969 article states that “low level waste” is “material which can safely be flushed away into rivers and lakes or released into the atmosphere because the level of radioactivity is so low that is presents no hazard when diluted and flushed into man’s natural environment. The more difficult problem is involved in the high level, liquid and solid wastes which are produced in the reprocessing of used fuel elements from nuclear reactor cores.”

The idea that the waste dumped into water supplies was so “low level” as to be completely harmless is likely dubious and hopeful at best. Fluoride, a by-product of the nuclear power industry, was one of those constituents, and was transformed from being known as a rat poison to being known as a dental benefit by the original spin doctor and propagandist, Edward Bernays.

In his book “The Fluoride Deception,” author Christopher Bryson revealed how the nuclear industry also used fluoridation of the public water supply as a means of secretly dumping industrial waste after fluoride was a major by-product in the uranium enrichment process for building the atomic bomb. Bryson told Democracy Now:

The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium. That’s how they did it. The biggest industrial building in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr. Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the Manhattan Project, the key — the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children.

More recently, an Associated Press investigation found in 2011 that 48 of 65 nuclear sites in the United States were leaking tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, into groundwater supplies via corroded pipes and tunnels. AP found at least 37 locations were in direct violation of federal drinking water standards for tritium, in some cases hundreds of times over.

Fracking Nuclear Waste ‘Safe for Millions of Years’… Unless It Leaks

Some 30 trillion gallons of toxic waste has been kept out of sight, out of mind by U.S. industries that have injected it hundreds and thousands of feet underground into wells since the 1960s.

Scientists who work for these corporations have used computer modeling to assure the Environmental Protection Agency that this waste poses no threat to our aquifers and that layers of rock deep within the Earth would safely store this stuff like Tupperware for millenia.

Already, several incidents have proven that scientific computer models are no match for reality.

It is clear from a December 21, 1973 article that disposal of nuclear waste via fracking continued, along with promises that it would be safe for millions of years to come.

The Dixon Evening Telegraph wrote in “Geologists look at energy crunch”:

“The U.S. Government is disposing of approximately 250,000 gallons of intermediate-level wastes each year using a technique called hydraulic fracturing. Liquids are pumped into impervious shales 1,000 to 5,000 feet below the surface. High pressure is applied causing the rocks to fracture and the liquid moves out laterally. Because the rock and radioactive wastes it contains will not be exposed to the biosphere for millions of years, this method should be safe unless leakage into an overlying aquifer occurs.”

That is, as the article points out, unless there are leaks.

As we found in research, leakage is exactly what has happened time and again throughout the years, including at disposal sites for Oak Ridge National Laboratories, according to reports in the following cases. Via ProPublica:

In April, 1967 pesticide waste injected by a chemical plant at Denver’s Rocky Mountain Arsenal destabilized a seismic fault, causing a magnitude 5.0 earthquake — strong enough to shatter windows and close schools — and jolting scientists with newfound risks of injection, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

A year later, a corroded hazardous waste well for pulping liquor at the Hammermill Paper Co., in Erie, Pa., ruptured. Five miles away, according to an EPA report, “a noxious black liquid seeped from an abandoned gas well” in Presque Isle State Park.

In 1975 in Beaumont, Texas, dioxin and a highly acidic herbicide injected underground by the Velsicol Chemical Corp. burned a hole through its well casing, sending as much as five million gallons of the waste into a nearby drinking water aquifer.

And these are hardly the only examples… in fact, it is just scratching the surface of an issue that is almost as incomprehensible as it is unfathomable.

Then in August 1984 in Oak Ridge, Tenn., radioactive waste was turned up by water monitoring near a deep injection well at a government nuclear facility.

Bingo…

There it is. The infallible, permanent, and “impermeable” deep injection wells that Halliburton and the Atomic Energy Commission considered as a solution to nuclear waste for eons to come were found turning up radioactive nuclear waste at the very Oak Ridge site where these 1960s disposal projects were taking place.

Subterranean Waste Disposal a ‘Cornerstone of the Nation’s Economy’

Those cemented wells, filled with injected disposal substances may be safely secured for a few years or even decades, but that is no guarantee for the years down the road and its certainly not the millenia as promised by Halliburton and others in the industry. In fact, many of the wells have been forgotten, abandoned, and are lost to the record books.

As ProPublica reports:

There are upwards of 2 million abandoned and plugged oil and gas wells in the U.S., more than 100,000 of which may not appear in regulators’ records. Sometimes they are just broken off tubes of steel, buried or sticking out of the ground. Many are supposed to be sealed shut with cement, but studies show that cement breaks down over time, allowing seepage up the well structure.

And many of these are injection wells, where all kinds of unwanted, toxic substances are dumped in order to be forgotten… though not necessarily gone.

Not only are these practices taking place, they are widespread… and widely defended, even with the known failures and safety issues.

Many scientists and regulators say the alternatives to the injection process — burning waste, treating wastewater, recycling, or disposing of waste on the surface — are far more expensive or bring additional environmental risks.

Subterranean waste disposal, they point out, is a cornerstone of the nation’s economy, relied on by the pharmaceutical, agricultural and chemical industries. It’s also critical to a future less dependent on foreign oil: Hydraulic fracturing, “clean coal” technologies, nuclear fuel production and carbon storage (the keystone of the strategy to address climate change) all count on pushing waste into rock formations below the earth’s surface. (source)

Sure, maybe it’s better than dumping it directly into the waterways, but still. This isn’t just playing with fire, this is playing with the lives of everyone in the nation for generations to come.

Please read ProPublica’s full series of reports on this, starting here. Things have to change.

These people should not have started messing with something they did not know how to fully and safely manage.

How long can this madness continue until it winds up tainting every drinking glass in America?

Engineer Mario Salazar, who worked as a technical expert for 25 years with the EPA’s underground injection program in Washington, told ProPublica’s Abrahm Lustgarten something that should give us all pause about how radioactive nuclear waste and industrial pollutants in general are being handled, and where they may ultimately end up:

“In 10 to 100 years we are going to find out that most of our groundwater is polluted. A lot of people are going to get sick, and a lot of people may die.”

2 Comments

  1. PDF version of this story will be uploaded to the Alachua County Environmental Protection Agency website at:
    http://www.alachuacounty.us/Depts/EPD/Pages/epac.aspx

  2. desertspeaks

    I call it, PREMEDITATED MURDER!

Fukushima world’s radiation nightmare

Fukushima world’s radiation nightmare

Fukushima is Japan’s and the world’s radiation nightmare that will not go away in our lifetimes nor our children’s or grandchildren’s. The Fukushima nuclear power plant is hemorrhaging radioactive toxic waste into the ocean and though we are told not to panic, nor even to be casually concerned, the situation is dangerous and critical to future life on earth.

Ever since March 11, 2011, the damaged plant has been leaking tremendous amounts of radiation. Now Tepco, the operator of the damaged facility, says they have recorded spikes between 50-70 times above average readings in the gutters that pour water into a nearby bay.

The Nuclear Regulation Authority said February 22, 2015, that an alarm went off at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant signaling high radioactivity levels in drainage ditches. According to the NRA and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co., the first alarm sounded at around 10 a.m., and another alarm 10 minutes later indicated much higher levels.

The levels of beta ray-emitting substances, such as strontium-90, measured 5,050 to 7,230 becquerels per liter of water between 10:20 a.m. and 10:50 a.m. Tepco requires radioactivity levels of groundwater at the plant discharged into the sea to remain below 5 becquerels. However, it was revealed that Tepco knew about the problem all the way back in May of last year and did not report it.

An official at the plant apologized, saying that, “the trust of the people in Fukushima is the most important thing,” and that “we’ve been working with that in mind, but unfortunately, we have damaged that trust this time,” according to Digital Journal. The situation at Fukushima is obviously much worse than authorities are leading us to believe. Newsweek reported on the continuing disaster saying, “The fallout from the Fukushima disaster is far from over. A staggering number of accidents has plagued the plant.”

Strontium mimics calcium making it extremely dangerous to all life forms once it is absorbed. Local, national and international fury once again rises against TEPCO as this latest indication that the crisis at the plant is far from under control. Japan’s top government spokesperson reiterated the government’s long-standing mantra, “The situation is completely under control. Any negative impact of radioactive water on the environment is completely blocked.” TEPCO was aware since April of last year and did nothing to prevent contaminated water from leaking directly out to sea.

Scientists are able to actually measure what they say are very low levels of radiation in the ocean that are now reaching the west coast of North America. Their instruments read the radiation and so can the cells in a person’s body. We are toldnot to worry and certainly not to panic. In fact, nuclear power plants are still promoted as safe even though they offer potential hell to life. Prince William was recently near Fukushima juggling balls for the children, eating locally produced foods and planting trees, promoting the safety of the area and that is understandable considering how deeply the royal family is into the nuclear industry.

Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution said, “I certainly wouldn’t discourage people from swimming or eating fish from the Pacific because of levels that low. It sounds scary because it’s radioactivity, it’s Fukushima and it’s detectable.” Only problem is if there is any strontium in the fish one could get leukemia!

Low levels of radiation are extremely dangerous

There has long been public concern about risks from low-level radiation, which is understandable in light of the fact that you may be exposed and yet never know it. Dr. Boyd Haley, the ex-chairman of the chemistry department from Kentucky University warns us that even low levels are dangerous and should be everyone’s concern. It is widely understood that there is no ‘safe’ level of radioactivity. Any amount can kill. The more radioactivity, the greater the impacts. As the National Council on Radiation Protection has declared: “Every increment of radiation exposure produces an incremental increase in the risk of cancer.”

On February 18, 2014, the Aichi Prefectural Police arrested a construction firm executive for sending a 15-year-old boy to help clean up radioactive waste outside the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant. That executive, the press and governmental agencies around the world all agree that the situation should not be of concern. So do not bother with iodine or anything else like sodium bicarbonate, which both are inexpensive ways to protect oneself and one’s children from radioactive contamination.

Image credit: Bedford Institute of Oceanography

A radiation plume from the March, 2011 nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan took about 2.1 years to travel via ocean currents and ultimately cross the waters of the Pacific Ocean to reach the shores of North America. That is according to to a study at the end of 2014 (December 29) by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For the first time since the catastrophic 2011 earthquake, Japan has been rocked with a series of stronger tremors, with two 6.0+ stronger quakes recorded in February 2015. It is unclear if the new leaks are directly related to the recent surge in tectonic activity. RT News said that contamination levels fell quickly, but still measured 10 to 20 times more than prior to the leak.

Death is coming

The year is 2015 and already “It’s like a scene from a horror movie along the West Coast. “We’re seeing all sorts of mysterious goings-on.” “There is no food out there.” Scientists cannot figure out why there is mass starvation of seabirds. Sardines and crayfish have disappeared from the Pacific Ocean; they have just vanished. Marine mammals are starving, struggling to survive on the West Coast. Reports are coming in up and down the coast of a mysterious surge in sick marine mammals infested with parasites, and being extremely emaciated.

At Fukushima where 4 reactors are still out of control and spewing radiation many think this has caused the death in the Pacific of thousands of baby sea lions on the California coast, and 500 navy soldiers are still suffering from radiation poisoning after responding to the earlier Fukushima disaster. We also have reports that West Coast orca whales are experiencing extremely high infant mortality rates as radiation from Fukushima drifts across the ocean. An adult killer whale weighing up to 5,000 kilograms can eat 5% of its body weight, or 250 kilograms of fish, per day. Researchers are also alarmed by ‘puzzling’ changes in orca’s behavior.

As far south as Peru dolphins and sea lions were found dead but no reliable explanations are given. Governments everywhere refuse to make any connection between the deaths and Fukushima. In fact, officially no one has died from radiation from Fukushima. Yet we find scientists saying that right after the accident death rates of infants increased in North America. This is of course adamantly denied by all devotees of nuclear energy.

Jiřina Vitázková and Errico Cazzoli wrote, “The results with respect to health effects show that within 80 years the number of victims of the Fukushima disaster can be expected to be at least in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 people in terms of deaths due to infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, genetic diseases and cancers; and about the same number of sicknesses/syndromes needing prolonged hospitalization and health care are expected to occur. This estimate accounts only for the population already living at the time of the accident. A comparable number of excess deaths and sicknesses may be expected in the population that will be born in the period. In addition to these, more than 100,000 excess still-births and a comparable or larger number of excess children born with genetic deformations (e.g. Down syndrome) are expected.”

The toxic substances such as Tritium, Cesium, Plutonium and Strontium are being carried everywhere by winds, rain and ocean currents, entering the food chain through seaweed and seafood, building up high levels of toxicity in the fish – and humans – at the top end of the consumption chain.

It is the contention of this book that all levels of radiation are threatening. When levels increase, even by small amounts, we humans, and all the life around us will suffer from increasing cancer rates thus demanding that doctors learn and teach their patients to take defensive measures. We live in a contaminated world (chemical, heavy metal and radiation) that is getting more toxic day by day. I calculate that 20 tons of mercury are put into the air by all the coal fire plants in the world but government officials obsess only with carbon dioxide, a safe necessary gas that is not bringing warming to our world.

Doctors, who themselves expose their patients to radiation tests and treatments have to calculate the rising risks of combined radiation exposure. Eco Watch lists fifty reasons that we should not trust our governments nor the press, and why we should fear the worst from Fukushima.

Projecting a death toll of more than a million from the radioactivity released from Fukushima is Dr. Chris Busby, scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk who has been a professor at a number of universities. “Fukushima is still boiling radionuclides all over Japan”, he said. “Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse.”

Dr. Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, told a symposium on ‘The Medical Implications of Fukushima’ said, “The accident is enormous in its medical implications. It will induce an epidemic of cancer as people inhale the radioactive elements, eat radioactive vegetables, rice and meat, and drink radioactive milk and teas. As radiation from ocean contamination bio-accumulates up the food chain … radioactive fish will be caught thousands of miles from Japanese shores. As they are consumed, they will continue the cycle of contamination, proving that no matter where you are, all major nuclear accidents become local. The Fukushima disaster is not over and will never end. The radioactive fallout which remains toxic for hundreds to thousands of years covers large swaths of Japan will never be ‘cleaned up’ and will contaminate food, humans and animals virtually forever.”

Written by Dr. Mark Sircus

This Changes Everything: Naomi Klein and You

Margaret Thatcher famously said “there is no such thing as society”.  Naomi Klein seems to have the carbonazis quivering in their boots by proclaiming the exact opposite.

This Canadian mom has become one of the most astute commentators of our time, enduring being called “Marx in a skirt” and much worse.   Her take on the corporatocracy that is ruling our world is concise and to the point – they have got to go.  Their business model does not include paying for cleaning up the mess they are creating.  Her vision of Solar warriors rising up and giving them the old heave-ho world wide is great. Real change versus the apparency of change almost always comes from the ground up.  Myself, I thought it would come to a black cloud of destructive pollution roiling about the planet before there would ever be a change.  But now I can see it her way, a more positive push comes to shove by the mothers that be.

Go to see her if you can, buy her books if you can afford them, watch her on youtube if you can’t, but make an effort to follow her example and pray to the Gods to give her strength as if your grandkids lives depended on her success.  Because they do.

Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT

scorched earthTake it however you want, the numbers are alarming.

December 23, 2014

Close up of tractor spraying pesticides on cropWhy? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a conference last Thursday, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as “inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

– See more at: http://www.anh-usa.org/half-of-all-children-will-be-autistic-by-2025-warns-senior-research-scientist-at-mit/#sthash.HpWxRpb2.dpuf

Move Over Rover, Let Solar Take Over!

Solar Power Costs Lowering

It is ironic that the same day that Obama vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline and all the carbon fans were up in arms raging against such foolishness, that this report should come out showing the inevitable triumph of solar power. This report was first linked in the Australian news, but then quickly pulled down, reflecting no doubt the Aussies embarrassment at their gung ho coal plans and the official lack of solar development. Move over Rover , let solar take over!

The full story…

Solar energy will be cheapest energy source for many within 10yrs: German think-tank report

Annie White reported this story on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:29:00

ELEANOR HALL: A German think-tank has released a report today showing that solar energy will be the cheapest source of electricity in many regions of the world within the next 10 years.

Agora Energiewende is independently funded to help the German government achieve its 80 per cent renewable energy target.

Its CEO Dr Patrick Graichen spoke earlier to Annie White.

PATRICK GRAICHEN: We’ve seen a lot of cost decline in the photovoltaics technology in the last five years, and the question was: is that going to come to an end, or will we see further cost declines in the next 10-20 years.

ANNIE WHITE: And what was the finding?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: The finding is there’s no end to the cost decline in photovoltaics. The technology has still further improvement, so that we expect that within the next 10 years, photovoltaics will become, in many regions of the world, the most cheapest source of electricity.

ANNIE WHITE: In our part of the world, there’s arguably a view that solar is still a fringe technology, if you like, that it is useful on the side, but that it could never replace fossil fuel power. What’s your feeling about that compared to what you know now in this study?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: That notion was true in the past, but today we see that photovoltaics will become so cheap that, especially of your part of the world, it will be cheaper than burning fossil fuels.

ANNIE WHITE: What has led to the decline in cost?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: It’s the sum of the parts. It’s the technology itself; the modules have become cheaper because China is now producing them on very large scale, so we have the effect of the mature technology with a global market, where prices decline, and second, we’ve got to know better how to integrate it into the systems during the past five-six years.

We will see prices like AUD$5 then for electricity from photovoltaics in Australia within the next five years.

ANNIE WHITE: How big is the uptake in solar in your part of the world, in Germany?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: Well we have in Germany an extensive program on photovoltaics in the past years, and that has led to now about 40 gigawatts being installed. That is still only six per cent of our electricity production, but still, it is already six per cent, and we’ve seen how that already impacts on our electricity system in the sense that we don’t need peak power of gas-fired power plants in the summer anymore.

ANNIE WHITE: Are you surprised that countries with more, arguably, sunshine even than Germany, like Australia, haven’t reached that kind of uptake?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: Indeed, I do find it very surprising. Because, if you look at that technology and you ask yourself the question: where in the future will we have cheap and clean energy? It’ll be those countries in the world with a lot of sun and with stable investment conditions.

And it should be Australia.

You see a lot of solar projects are now coming up in the Gulf, are coming up in New Mexico, California, Texas, but Australia is lacking in that concept.

ANNIE WHITE: Why do you think that is?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: All those countries that have strong tradition on fossil fuels, like also Germany, that do have coal mines, we all have this culture that energy traditionally comes from below the ground, and it does take its time to overcome that old notion that we need to dig into the ground to find energy.

ANNIE WHITE: What about the problems with solar that are raised here, for example, collection, of feeding back into the grid, of retaining, of transporting that power, as it were. Have those things been addressed yet?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: Of course you have to take care of the issue, you need good enforcement when you install solar PV. You can combine basically the question, where to put solar with the question, where is the grid the strongest.

So if you have your solar power plant close to where there’s already a strong grid infrastructure, then there’s no extra cost coming from that first issue.

ANNIE WHITE: And what sort of resistance do you think you’d see from the fossil fuel industry?

PATRICK GRAICHEN: Well yes, I mean, obviously this is a threat to all those that are betting on coal, but there has always been structural changes, major structural changes to economies. Those that were building railroads weren’t happy about cars either, but in the end the cars came because the technology was better suited to the needs of the 20th century.

And, I would say that’s the same case now here with the 21st century. Our need is cheap and clean energy, and that’s something solar and probably also wind will deliver and coal can’t.

ELEANOR HALL: CEO of Agora Energiewende Dr Patrick Graichen, speaking to Annie White.