Nuclear @ MindSay 
war
Nuclear Blogger
Download
nuclear-blogger-how-to-create-an-effective-wordpress-blog.pdf
How |
If 
 | Patrick Todd www.patrick-todd.com "Your help in building my blog has been tremendous. Definitely looking |
 | Helmut Loetzerich "Your teaching and support you render to your members is outstanding |
 | Kevin DeRoo www.kevinderoo.com If you are new to Blogging then I can't think of two better people to |
Don't let lack of knowledge hold you back
If you have not got a successful blog up and running right now,
the chances are that you are letting lack of technical knowledge hold you back..
It's time to change that right now and let us show how easy
it is to get up and running with a great looking blog..
There is a lot of skepticism online these days about money making
opportunities so let me cut right to the chase.
Having a blog like mine that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors
and makes me thousands of dollars in revenue every month is not going to happen
overnight, however it will happen for you if you are willing
to put the time in!!
Just take a look online at any topic these days, go past the first page of
Google and check out all the rubbish there is out there online in any niche.
If you have a professional looking blog in the right niche
you can literally become the expert in that area very quickly and start making
some serious cash online.
Picture getting up in morning and posting content on your blog for fans that
are visiting your site every day. These people click on your ads or
buy your products, or other peoples products, that you recommend.
You also have list of loyal subscribers that you can market anything you want
to - making you even more money.
If the sounds good to you, then let's get the ball rolling by clicking on the
add to cart button below. After you enter your credit card details you will
be immediately taken to a login page where you will have full access to the
instructional videos and accompanying text. You will also have the full support
of Peter and I to assist you in any way we can!!
Time to stop wasting time
Make no mistake about it. Time is the most valuable thing
that you have online and the one thing that you can't get back. Don't
waste anymore time trying to figure it all out by yourself. You could be spending
that time building a really successful blog and creating a money making asset
at the same time!! The sooner you act the better...
Let us take all the risk for you
We want to make the decision to go with "Nuclear Blogger" completely
risk free and that is why we are offering a no risk money back guarantee if
this course does not live up to your expectations for whatever reason in the
next 2 months. If this is the case, simply shoot us a mail and we will refund
every penny.
Money Back Guarantee
Disclaimer: This site and the products and services offered on
this site are not associated, affiliated, endorsed, or sponsored by WordPress,
nor have they been reviewed tested or certified by WordPress.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision of a nuclear weapons free world is indeed laudable as is his treaty with Russia on weapons stockpile reduction and the communique issued at his April, 2010, 47-nation summit promising greater efforts to block "non-state actors" from obtaining nuclear materials for "malicious purposes."
However, someone should tell him about the elephant in the room; that his encouragement and financial assistance for the development of more nuclear energy in his own country runs directly counter to his weapons-free world vision. (Some of the many negative aspects of nuclear energy have been outlined in my "downsides" article.
You cannot build nuclear weapons without first having nuclear energy, which produces the needed ingredients for atomic bombs. The world is already witnessing the frightening linkage between nuclear energy and nuclear armaments in North Korea and Iran. The linkage is clear as is the desire of additional countries to pursue nuclear energy development.
Referring to North Korea and Iran, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that "Both are countries whose actions contravene their international obligations. Both use violence and intimidation to deprive their own citizens of fundamental rights. Both are serious threats to global security. There is much at stake. If nuclear proliferation leads to the use of nuclear weapons, whether by states or non-state actors, then no matter where the bombs are set off, the catastrophe will be felt around the world." Absolutely! But, Mr. Harper should also be advocating the phase out of nuclear energy, without which nuclear weapons development would not be possible.
Further proliferation of nuclear energy can bring the world even closer to the risk of nuclear bomb making materials falling into the wrong hands. Nuclear energy expansion is likely to increase the already dangerous potential for diversion of nuclear materials to unsavory terrorist groups around the world. The more nuclear facilities–the more opportunities for nuclear terrorism.
And then, there is the unsolved problem of the irradiated fuel waste, which can be diverted to nuclear weapons development. Producing more nuclear fuel waste without a truly acceptable solution for its disposition is really quite unconscionable.
President Obama’s new “Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.” is now in the process of determining what to do about irradiated nuclear fuel wastes, now that Yucca Mountain, Nevada, has essentially been eliminated as a potential underground repository site.
One option, the reprocessing of nuclear waste, will quite likely be a topic for discussion by the Blue Ribbon Commission.
It is truly amazing how many nuclear energy advocates naively believe that all you need do with nuclear waste is “recycle it.” to pave the way for a nuclear power “renaissance.” This simplistic notion completely overlooks the harsh realities surrounding nuclear waste reprocessing.
Nuclear waste is anything but a nice, clean, green substance that can be recycled like yesterday morning’s newspaper. Lethality and toxicity of this waste as well as its mind-boggling longevity is well known. You cannot simply take the waste and easily convert it into fresh reactor fuel. You cannot cool it off and stick it back into the reactor.
Reprocessing requires that you break up the deadly radioactive waste and extract the elements you need, putting them through an unbelievably toxic “un-green” process to produce some usable fuel for the reactor.
The process is well described by Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, CCNR. On his web site he says that “...separating plutonium from spent fuel is a dangerous and a dirty business. First the fuel is chopped up, by remote control, behind heavy lead shielding. These chopped-up pieces are then dissolved in boiling nitric acid, releasing radioactive gases in the process. The plutonium is separated from the acid solution by chemical means, leaving large quantities of high-level radioactive liquid waste and sludge behind. After it has cooled down for several years, this liquid waste will have to be solidified for ultimate disposal, while the separated plutonium is fabricated into nuclear fuel or nuclear weapons.”
As noted by Wikipedia, “reprocessing of civilian fuel has long been employed in Europe, at the COGEMA La Hague site in France, the Sellafield site in the United Kingdom, the Mayak Chemical Combine in Russia, and at sites such as the Tokai plant in Japan, the Tarapur plant in India, and briefly at the West Valley Reprocessing Plant in the United States.”
Yes, some of those countries currently reprocess irradiated nuclear fuel rods. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that the down sides of reprocessing far outweigh any of its perceived advantages.
As Max S. Power (an analyst who worked on nuclear cleanup issues for two decades ), points out, “...in the 1980s, (U.S.) Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment concluded ‘reprocessing’ which generates additional radioactive waste streams and involves operational risks of its own, does not offer advantages that are sufficient to justify its use for waste management reasons alone.’”
According to the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, “Reprocessing is the fundamental link between a nuclear reactor and a plutonium bomb.” The Union of Concerned Scientists has noted that “reprocessing would increase the ease of nuclear proliferation.”
Reprocessing is also responsible for considerable radioactive land and water pollution; for example from the British and French reprocessing operations at Sellafield and La Hague respectively. Originating from Sellafield sources, the Irish sea merits the dubious distinction of being called the most radioactive body of water in the world. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability says that “France's reprocessing plant at La Hague routinely discharges into the English Channel so-called low-level liquid radioactive waste which has contaminated seas as far away as the Arctic Circle.”
Given these proliferation and environmental concerns, I hope that the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission eliminates nuclear waste reprocessing from any serious consideration.
Most importantly, the Commission should recommend that further production of nuclear waste itself be curtailed by the phase-out of nuclear energy, in favor of the many available truly innovative renewable green energy and conservation measures.
Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
Click on "Nuke Droppings" for the Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
free online
The world’s powerful nuclear establishment took a big public relations hit in July, 2010.
The UN Environment Program (UNEP) and the International Energy Agency-backed Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) project, declared that, for the second year in a row, the quantity of “newly installed capacity” of renewable energy in Europe and the U.S. outpaced that for fossil fuels and nuclear. The report suggests the same outcome is likely on a global basis by next year.
As reported in the July 15, 2010 Report on Business section of the Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper, the report stated that green energy has “reached a clear tipping point” as the main kind of new electricity supply.
Green energy includes such sources as wind power, solar energy, biomass, geothermal, hydro power, ocean wave and tidal power. Also, energy conservation technology could be considered a major form of green energy.
Of course, it will be many years before the tipping point becomes an overwhelming reality. But the trend is quite clear. A comprehensive system of green energy and conservation alternatives is rapidly developing around the world.
Some countries continue to plan for more nuclear energy projects, e.g., China and Russia and even the U.S. But it can take a decade or more to build nuclear plants, whereas many green energy and conservation projects can be completed in a much shorter period of that time. Also, it is likely that countries now planning more nuclear energy will be unable to proceed with many of their projects for financial, design and safety reasons.
There are many downsides to nuclear power generation. To mention a few, it requires fabrication processes which cause noxious emissions and greenhouse gasses, uses non-renewable and ever more costly uranium deposits with increasing amounts of energy inputs, emits radioactive tritium into the air and water, requires massive public loans and subsidies, contributing greatly to the national debt, is the basis for nuclear weapons proliferation, and a desirable target for terrorism. It is a technology that must have an impossible-to-achieve perfect record of zero tolerance for accidents over an entire reactor life cycle, as there is no safe level of ionizing radiation.
Furthermore, some observers point out that , in the unlikely event that all planned nuclear reactors are finally built, they would contribute little or nothing to global energy supply or to the mitigation of any possible adverse effects of climate change, since they will largely be replacing old decommissioned reactors.
And then, of course, there is the intractable nuclear waste issue. A few countries are still planning to develop permanent underground repositories, such as Canada and Sweden, and likely China. But there is a growing reluctance in other quarters to pursue the permanent underground nuclear waste burial option.
Aside from the fact that the underground burial option is certainly no solution to the waste problem and should not be pursued, the act of challenging and thus slowing the development of nuclear waste repositories has helped to “buy time,” for the expansion of green energy and conservation technology.
Renewable green energy may only be providing a small percentage of the world’s energy now, but the tipping point is great news for all of us who have worked so long to bring about a “paradigm shift” away from nuclear energy and fossil fuel toward a sustainable alternative clean energy future and a much safer and healthier planet.
Walt Robbins
August, 2010
Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
The underground research repository developed in the 1980's, in the Canadian province of Manitoba, in the Rural Municipality of Lac du Bonnet, by Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., (AECL) was officially decommissioned on November 17, 2010. Or so it seems!
“Getting the Shaft, The Radioactive Waste Controversy in Manitoba,” was released by Queenston House Publishing Company in 1984. It is my personal account of this incredible episode of nuclear madness, from early in 1980, to the present. As a property owner in the municipality, my role was that of a public relations and media spokesperson for the citizens group. My book, plus several sequels and related articles, are freely available on my web site; http://www.nukeshaft.ca
To a large extent, the waste project was propelled by the results of test bore hole drilling at the nearby Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment, at Pinawa, Manitoba. The pre-Cambrian granite rock of the Canadian Shield was deemed by the geological experts to be the ideal “host” environment for a deep nuclear waste repository. The special “plutonic” formations were considered to be “solid rock,” with few cracks or fissures.
The discovery of two major water bearing fracture zones during the excavations did not seem to faze the geologists in the least, even as pumps ran continuously to keep the water out of the massive hole in the rock. On my one visit to the underground facility, the place was soaking wet.
I spoke with George Ylonen about the decommissioned facility. As a resident of the municipality, a retired hard rock miner, and an initiator of the local concerned citizens group, he was delighted at this turn of events. “I’m so happy I lived to see this day,” he told me. However, he went on to express some concern that the current generation of Canadian nuclear people might come back for a second try if they fail to find the “willing” host they are currently seeking elsewhere in Canada.
Apparently, the deep hole was only capped, not filled in and sealed with rock as we had been given to believe it would be, back in the 1980's. Furthermore, according to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press on December 8, 2010, Paul Thompson, geotechnical science and engineering branch manager with AECL said that despite its closure, research at the site will continue and that they will be watching how well a huge man-made "seal" installed in the interior of the shaft works to keep two water aquifers forever separate. According to the article “The seal is built of highly compacted clay sandwiched between two massive concrete plugs.”
Thompson was quoted as saying "Basically, it's resembling what we would imagine a seal would be at a (nuclear waste) repository if we were ever to build a repository," Thompson said.
I share George’s pleasure in seeing that underground facility officially decommissioned, and I sincerely hope that the reckless idea of permanent underground emplacement of highly toxic and radioactive spent nuclear fuel never sees the light of day in Canada.
Walt Robbins
January, 2011
Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
In fact, both plans would ultimately yield the same end result: a sealed underground nuclear waste dump, some of its contents radioactive and lethal for eons of time.
Now, NWMO is going back to the future in its approach to selecting a site for a repository. Aside from using a lot of smooth talk, it is dangling big bucks as an enticement to municipalities and other groups.
A recent example is NWMO’s approach to aboriginal communities, something that was tried south of the border by the U.S. Department of Energy during the 1990's and failed miserably. In the end, all the first nations in the U.S. which were contacted, rejected the offer to host a surface monitored retrievable nuclear waste storage facility, turning down offers of millions of dollars for the “privilege.”
In November 2010, various Canadian media outlets revealed that the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN) has received one million dollars from the NWMO to educate first nations people about nuclear waste and that two northern communities—the English River First Nation and the Métis village of Pinehouse—have come up as potential sites. And of course it is no secret that vastly larger sums of money would be made available to the “finalist” of the site selection process.
I was struck by the reported comments of Lyle Whitefish, FSIN vice-chief (in a November 18th 2010 article in the Saskatchewan News Network). While declaring neutrality on the issue, Whitefish said that “he and FSIN will not be providing any other information besides that coming from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization.” He was quoted as saying that “...there may be an opportunity in the future for other organizations to be heard on the nuclear waste issue.”
In a CBC News item online, November 18, 2010, Cathy Holtslander, of the Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, was reported as being concerned that the NWMO information would be biased. She said that "It needs to have independent information, not information from a group that has an interest in basically looking after their problem."
As a former member of the nuclear establishment, and having been involved with and written extensively on this issue for many years, I certainly believe that Ms. Hotslander raises an important point about sources of information. Perhaps the NWMO did not mention to Mr. Whitefish that throughout the world, nuclear waste management is one of the most controversial public policy issues of our time encompassing many different points of view. I can only hope that FSIN will agree to having other information and voices heard up front and right along side those of NWMO, an organization that is clearly an agent of the Canadian nuclear establishment.
NWMO has also been providing information to two interested communities in northwest Ontario; Ear Falls’ and Ignace . The information has been publicly challenged by North Bay’s Northwatch organization, on grounds of “omissions and understatements.” Northwatch’s Brennain Lloyd cited NWMO informational deficiencies, including issues around long term repository reliability, storage container reliability, and the rejection of the earlier AECL burial concept after a ten year environmental assessment review. Ms. Lloyd also observed that “...no country has yet permanently disposed of nuclear fuel waste in rock...”
I commented on NWMO’s siting process in December, 2008, when it was in draft form and concluded that “Aside from the fact that a plan to permanently bury nuclear fuel waste is inherently immoral, unethical, unscientific, and downright mean-spirited to future generations, it is simply not a good idea.” Furthermore, I have a real problem with the dangling of large sums of money to entice communities into such a scheme.
In the final analysis, any community which supposedly “benefits” from this dubious activity, could very well be playing dice with the health and safety of its own descendants.
Great Canadian Nuclear Waste Saga
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
