Revolutionizing Awareness

helping humanity, make choices, more so through awareness, than ignorance

Posts Tagged ‘fukushima’

Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50? 3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

Posted by Admin on March 1, 2012

Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50?

This is the article that sparked the fight between Makow and Rense. If Rense was honest, why would he avoid this?

This article needs greater exposure and distributed protection. It needs more than the few million reads it has had so far. Post it everywhere – even on your site, I don’t make money from this – the truth just NEEDS TO BE KNOWN. It really is US against the lie machine. Cache the pictures locally also, they MUST be available if I get taken down. If this truth does not get spread we WILL see more disasters just like Japan.

NHK released a bogus report – NHK PULLED IT, PROBABLY IN RESPONSE TO THIS SITE! – On Feb 26 2012, claiming they have the first aerial footage of Fukushima when far better aerial footage has been posted on this site since May of 2011! Furthermore, NHK modified their photos! What are they hiding? Well, what is reported here, of course!

DEAR NHK NEWS IN SENDAI JAPAN: If you really cared about the Japanese people, you would show them THIS picture of reactor 3!

3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

This report is based on official records and evidence which cannot be silenced. The whole truth could not be definitively dug up with 9-11, but this was NOT the case with Japan’s disaster.

Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist, Updated Tuesday, Feb 28, 2012

This is a massive and technical report. If you have troubles understanding it, just look at THIS classified picture of the vanished reactor, THIS classified picture of the destroyed facility and THIS picture of Magna BSP’s camera. Then scroll down to the photos which prove there was no actual quake damage to Japan and the original Japanese seismic charts which prove there was no 9.0. The linked public records prove that the very real tsunami which destroyed everything in it’s path could not have been natural. The fact that what happened in Japan did not occur naturally has been very well documented by a skilled investigator, who spent hundreds of hours getting to the bottom of this story.

NEW INFO: Japan offered to enrich uranium for IRAN!

HERE ARE THE LINKS: Ynet newsInside Japan News NetworkThe New AmericanRianovosti newsHindustan TimesZee News


This report includes classified photos and the schematics for Fukushima to support it’s claims.

They are,

1. Reactor 3 is completely missing, which means the press and anyone who has claimed anything about pressures, temperatures, containment, ect at reactor 3 after March 14 is lying and people need to pay attention to it, because failure of the public to realize the massive extent of the lies about what is going on there will leave the door open to a repeat event.

2. Reactor 4 is Building 7, demolished by explosives. Reactor 4 had been defueled and was undergoing replacement of it’s internal stainless steel shroud, yet blew it’s containment anyway. That is the FINAL smoking gun, an empty reactor is inert, and cannot produce an explosion, yet one happened at 4 that was so powerful it destroyed the structure leaving it in danger of falling over. Overheated open fuel pools cannot produce hydrogen because in an open fuel pool the water boils off at 100 Celsius, and won’t be present in pressurized form at 2,000 degrees Celsius to liberate it’s hydrogen by losing it’s oxygen to the zircon cladding in the fuel rods. The rods will prefer the free oxygen in the air and burn long before attempting to claim the oxygen in whatever humidity there might be. Fuel rods only contain 20 percent fissionable material, and therefore could not have produced the “prompt criticality” in the fuel pools Arnie Gundersen, “The most qualified nuclear engineer in the world” has spoken of. This report includes a background investigation of Arnie Gundersen which proves he is a fraud who is hiding how big the disaster at Fukushima is. He is making statements which defy the laws of physics, and hide what really happened at Fukushima because if it became widely known serious questions would be asked. When have you heard Gundersen talk about a totally missing reactor? SOMETHING had to cause #3 to vanish. It weighed over a million pounds, where did it go?

Reactor 4’s dome was removed for defueling. Drone photos prove it. This dispels the rumors surrounding unit 4’s explosion. Some people have said that this reactor was secretly in operation to enrich plutonium. This photo proves it was disassembled for shroud replacement as stated. Tepco is going out of it’s way trying to explain the explosions, especially at reactor 4 because they did indeed occur, so an explanation is needed. As a result they are giving reasons that cannot happen just to say something. They need to see this post and get the Arava perspective(Arava is a district surrounding Dimona).

3. That the destruction of the facility is so severe it could only have been accomplished with nuclear weapons. Hydrogen gas produces a non-ideal subsonic explosion. It cannot turn concrete into dust. It can produce high pressures if sealed off, but the metal roof on all the reactor containments should have provided the relief and been the only thing destroyed. It takes a high intensity explosive to strip concrete off rebar, a blast wave many times faster than supersonic. This means that whatever happened at Fukushima did not have blast characteristics that fit the “official” story. If you missed it in the high resolution photo of the destroyed facility, I took a car that was laying around in the remains and placed it on top of one of the blown away walls at reactor 3, which clearly gives the reference that the walls had support columns at least 15 feet thick. Fukushima was built with the Mark 1 containment design, but beyond Mark 1 standards which was a common upgrade(reference is the included photos, it is obvious). It is true that gas explosions can be very destructive, but only in facilities that were not designed to handle them. Even the basic mark 1 containment was many times beyond capable of withstanding the worst hydrogen blast.

4. That nuclear weapon(s) were placed inside of the reactor containment(s) disguised as security cameras installed under contract this year by Arava based security firm Magna BSP (Arava is a district around Dimona, not a city.) Their “security cameras” weighed over 1,000 pounds and were the size and shape of gun type nuclear weapons.The reason Magna BSP gave for the odd shape, enormous weight, and giant proportions of their cameras was that they were stereoscopic. A stereoscopic camera could be plausible at an airstrip, where the camera would need depth perception out miles, but not indoors where focal lengths are short. Depth perception going out miles could also be accomplished with two separately mounted cameras weighing only a few pounds; the giant thousand pounder is a dead giveaway. Why this giant thing, when smaller nukes are possible? Nuclear weapons always produce a certain amount of heat, and if a small design was used it would be obvious the “camera” was warm, even when turned off and sitting on the shelf. This would cause questions to be asked, especially in a nuclear power facility. The enormous size and weight helped conceal the decay heat.

. . . . . . . . . .9/11, 4/11, 3/11? see a pattern? Let’s not see another X/11. Your time and effort in spreading the word may really make a difference.

The quake was not what we were told.

In fact, the quake was a bold faced lie, packing a political agenda. The proof goes beyond the linked Japanese chart. This original seismic data is the smoking gun, however, I have something better. I analyzed the falsified charts put out by the USGS, and from them wrote this sad, sad story about how it had to be according to those charts, not what you will see in the newsroom video I have linked farther down the page which documents what really happened. Keep in mind that precise top speeds of flying debris cannot be determined with complete accuracy, but this story will at least be close to the numbers put out by the USGS.

The people in the newsroom did not die, this story is what would have happened if the USGS charts were true.

Meet Atsuo, Airi, and Akiyoshi. They were all the best and most dedicated people at the NHK newsroom, in Sendai Japan. Akiyoshi loved Airi, and Atsuo was the one who introduced them. Unfortunately, all 3 died in the quake. Akiyoshi got a severe cut and bled to death when he hit a display screen behind him at 44 miles an hour, and was then thrown out through a hole in a collapsed wall. Airi followed pretty much the same path, and died beside him in the rubble. Atsuo flew through the open door behind him, then crashed through a window and was crushed when he landed in a massive seismic crack in the road, which closed in on him. Others in the newsroom died also, but I never thought up names for them. At least, according to the official USGS charts. The laser printer was never found, but the table it was on ended up on top of the rubble, smashed to pieces, where one of the few survivors used a piece of the metal frame to splint his broken leg.

The chart is from station MYG012, which is less than 1/2 mile from the NHK newsroom. THIS PROVES THE USGS LIED. THERE WAS NO 9.0

The USGS charts are phony folks, that’s all there is to it! Scroll down to the video of the quake represented in the above chart, which represents a 9.0 and was reportedly from a seismic station only one half mile away from where the video was shot.

The implications of this run deep. The seismic chart, in conjunction with the following video, proves that the US government is also involved in the lie about the quake at some level. The video proves the USGS falsified records.

Some people keep typing on their computers as the quake happens.

Also, note that most of the stuff stays on the desks, at the end, a laser printer is still sitting on a cheap table, ect. some things fall but things return to normal quickly, all the while the English announcer is reading a script of devastation with all the pep of some paid fool who does not believe what he is saying in a cheezy infomercial. The quake was significant, but only in a 6.0 sense, as recorded by the JAPANESE seismographs, and FAKED to a 9.0 by the USGS. This is important footage, because it proves the earthquake measured at a 6.8 was an instrumentation based richter reading. Confusion between the Shindo and Richter scale is being used to cover this up . I chose this video because it’s location is documented to have been the worst affected, and was recorded in a news room with a known fixed location.

This video gets deleted off youtube occasionally, if it does not work check back later and I might have re-linked it.

Remember that this video is proof of what really went on. This means there never were significant aftershocks, never was a natural tsunami, and if they lied about that, what else? This video is pivotal and vital to exposing the truth. Sure there was a quake, but at this newsroom it was not much over a six if it even was a six. I chose this video because the news room is within eyeshot of station MYG012, which was used by the USGS to make these graphs which represent an 8.8 AT THAT STATION, as was stated in this (English) newscast and was probably used as a guide to fudge the lie due to the closeness of the newsroom to the seismic station. Here is the full chart put out by the USGS Of course, they offer no reading from MYG011, which was closest to the 9.0 “epicenter” by a long shot, because it only got a 5.63’s worth of shaking. I will do that work for them. That map is below.

I challenge ANYONE to send me pictures of this quake showing me devastation in an area not hit by the tsunami.

All we have, all the pictures are tsunami damage. Let’s see pictures of quake damage. The Kobe quake was a 6.9/7.2 depending on source. That makes this quake, at a 9.0 100X as powerful. Sendai was near the epicenter, where station MYG012 was and would have been devastated if it really happened as stated by the USGS. Look at the earthquake photos of damage from the Kobe quake, and try to find ONE THING SIMILAR in SENDAI. Just try. They do not exist. Outside of the tsunami, the quake which supposedly hit Sendai with many times the power of the one in Kobe, did not destroy a single building there. Sendai was only 48 miles from the epicenter of this “9.0” which would have devastated everything in an area 1,000 miles across if it was real. All of Japan would be toast. Try to find a photo of seismic damage in Sendai. I challenge you. Try to find it in any of the coastal cities, as little as 25 miles from the “epicenter”. I looked for 5 hours, and except for some tanks that fell at a brewery not a single one exists. No pictures of collapsed skyscrapers or high rises equals NO 9.0. You will not find a single skyscraper photo where the windows got broken either. You will find no downed power poles, no flipped over cars, no uprooted trees, no derailed trains (except for one the tsunami hit), and the road damage is typical of even a 5.0. You will not find pictures of a single damaged multi story building or even a structurally damaged wood framed house outside the tsunami zone. In Sendai the quake messed up grocery stores and kitchens and that really is about it.

And now, I will say it like I knew it had to be.

I believe the phony 9.0 story was used as seismic cover for a tsunami nuke, which produced the tsunami of a 9.0 when detonated in the Japan trench (where no earthquakes of significance happen) as punishment for Japan offering to enrich uranium for Iran. The rest of the story, the concealment, is black ops. Bet on it. In the tsunami videos, the tsunami rips through pristine and undamaged cities, where business as usual is obvious and the tsunami is an ambush; not 9.0 earthquake ravaged debris. The quake is a paper thin story taped together by the undeserved trust of a gullible public. And the stories? The CIA did not hire a million people last year for nothing. If there is evidence of a 9.0 SHOW ME. A 9.0 will devastate an area over 1,000 miles across.That is how big a 9.0 is. The entire nation should be in ruins, especially judging from the damage the 6.9 Kobe quake did, and no where, no where outside the tsunami zone in the entire country is there a single damaged multi story building, a single collapsed bridge, a single structurally damaged wood framed house, or skyscraper. If a picture exists that can be definitively pinned to this quake, show me. The only collapsed structure in all of Japan was an old welfare shelter near station MYG004, the true epicenter.

Take a look at these frame captures, and ask a question – Why is no one trying to run? Why are the cars all just parked peacefully as the tsunami arrived? Why was there no warning? Why did the tsunami sirens only go off after the tsunami arrived? Could it be that the people and the governement had not felt a significant earthquake and did not measure one either?

Question: Why are none of the roads packed with people trying to flee the approaching tsunami?

Could it be that the people and government were not expecting one? Tsunami sirens blare only when it arrives, rather than 40 minutes before, which is how much warning they would have had if a real quake in the ocean had been detected. Consider that. Parking lots full of cars, everyone at work, no one trying to leave. AMBUSH!!.

When people keep typing at their keyboards during the quake, it’s obviously not what we were told.

When reviewing the seismic data for the supposed 9.0, I knew there were instead 3 small simultaneous inland epicenters. This made me suspicious right from the start that the quake was artificially triggered and used as seismic cover for a tsunami bomb. But I needed a reason to believe an artificial quake could have been done. I suspected that either Japan was testing nukes and Israeli intelligence was onto it and used the tests as the “start of clock” for their operation, or Israel managed to smuggle nukes into lava tubes and tunnels far underground to trigger earthquakes and contain the blasts. So I was hunting for tunnels and lava tubes near each of the three epicenters, and wanted to find them before writing this into this report. As it turns out, I did not need to. This military briefing with Secretary of Defense William Cohen, dated all the way back to 1997! shows that even then, Cohen knew about EM weaponry that could trigger quakes and set off volcanoes. I have ignored everything regarding this subject, I thought it was the realm of kooks. I thought EM weaponry would be effective in weather modification only, but I am not going to argue with the Secretary of Defense. There are obviously then, energy technologies which have never been publicized, such weaponry would need far more energy input than the electrical grid could provide. And the systems Cohen spoke of in 1997 would be outdated now.

Cohen stated: “Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that’s why this is so important. – William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense, April 28, 1997. Left unsaid by William Cohen is that such systems would be developed by DARPA and owned by America first!

I would expect with 14 years of advancement that these technologies could now trigger devastating earthquakes in non-seismic zones.

The following picture is the strongest reading for this quake on any seismogram anywhere in Japan. This was before the lie machine got running smoothly. Early on there were a few sputters and this REAL chart got out. As you can see on this chart, it was a 6.67 on the Richter scale, (not shindo scale, confirmed by PGA reference) This would fit in with NO structural damage in Sendai and the level of shaking in the video

This quake was initially asessed a 6.8, and the seismic data will show anyone the epicenter was inland, not at sea. So it started a 6.8, then got upgraded to a 7.9, then got upgraded to an 8.4, then got upgraded to an 8.8, then got upgraded to a 9.0, and had the epicenter put out in the ocean. Now many are saying it was a 9.1 which would bump up MYG011’s number to 1200 from 1070, and it is all based on tsunami effects, not seismic data.

The following seismograms clearly show epicenters from 3 separate small quakes all occuring simultaneously. This is what would be expected of an attack, rather than a natural occurence.

One problem with people grasping how big a 9.0 is, is exponential charts which will hide how much energy is really being released behind confusing gradient marking. To answer the need for clarity, I got out the calculator and produced a chart that shows you how big a 9.0 earthquake is on a linear scale. Make sure you expand and scroll it, it is 5,000 pixels tall. Due to its large verticle height it opens on the left side of the screen and is almost invisible until you expand it. Confusion over how GIANT a 9.0 really is has helped the elite scammers enormously in their lie. There is simply no way much of anything will remain standing, yet as the tsunami rolls in . . . . . .

And now, I will bite. This is what I did not want to publish, but I know it has to be true. Call this creative journalism, because I never called Netanyahu, but here is the most rational conclusion I can draw, based on all info gathered so far including the original not faked seismic data.

I honestly believe Japan is being held a nuclear hostage. It all makes sense.

1. Japan offers to enrich uranium for Israel’s GREAT SATAN, Iran

2. Immediately, Israel sets up front companies masquerading as security companies, and one of them succeeds in getting a security contract at a Japanese nuclear facility. 4 months later the Dimona Dozen shows up, and under the cover of a security contract gets unlimited access to the heart of Fukushima. They plant the virus, install real cameras outside the facility, and functional poorly disguised nuke cameras inside the facility. In addition to this, they install an unauthorized data connection to allow control of all the guts of the facility via the virus. (they admitted to this connection, as discussed later on this page)

3. After installing Stuxnet and the nukes they scram

4. Israel waits for one of the many natural quakes in Japan to provide cover for a tsunami bomb, and they already have it at the bottom of the Japan trench. VLF communications are established with the bomb to penetrate the water. David in Dimona gets seismic reading from Japan. 6.67 in progress, BOOM. (new evidence shows the quake most likely was not natural)

Tsunami comes in, swamps stuxnet infected power plant, direct video feed from legitimate cameras security company installed gets to David via totally unauthorized channel, and David knows just when to cut the generators off. Others on the team do all they can to counteract measures taken by the employees at fukushima, who are unaware an attack is taking place and do not understand why everything is going crazy

5. Israeli Prime Minister calls Japan, and says TAKE THAT for offering help to Iran, and ya know, there are FIVE MORE NUKES in the ocean off the coast of Japan, and we are going to set those off and destroy your coastal cities if you do not forget that 6.67, and say it was a 9 to cover for tsunami effects. AND NOW we are going to make your people DEMAND you move away from nuclear power so you can NEVER threaten us like that again. We are BLOWING UP FUKUSHIMA DIIACHI and you are going to go along with whatever story we tell you to. SO THERE!!

6. David and his pals close ALL valves to the reactors via the remote data link they admitted to installing, and put them full throttle, to melt them down while the virus keeps control room readouts displaying false info, like nothing is going on even though the place is coming apart. After enough mayhem ensues to provide plausibility, they set off planted nukes and blow the place sky high.

And even if the quake was real, there are nukes that can reach an 8.4. Close enough. Though I have yet to work out the final details, I probably have enough to hang them because:

1. I got the real seismic data that proves beyond a doubt the quake is not what we were told and was in fact an inland 6.8, (calculated higher than the seismogram due to the triangulated true epicenter being a little higher) which would get noticed but not feared in quake ridden Japan.

2. Numerous referenced sources prove Stuxnet really was written by Israel

3. Japan really did offer to enrich Uranium for Iran, and Israel has been documented to have attempted to destroy the reactor in Iran, and probably did. Japan contributing to Iran’s nuclear future would make them just as much an enemy to Israel as Iran. Israel would want them taken out.

4. It is documented that a team from Israel, with a history consisting only of working in Israeli defense, got unlimited access to a Japanese nuclear facility, which then went boom

5. Reactor 4 had been defueled and proven disassembled, and therefore no explosion there was possible. What should have happened at reactor 4, if anything at all? the fuel pools should have melted down and caught fire once the water boiled off from lack of recirculation AT Worst, and badly contaminated the containment structure, NOTHING ELSE. NO explosions, NOTHING ELSE. Reactor 4 is building 7, PERIOD. Why did an explosion there happen that was so severe it blew the outer containment walls (4 feet thick) and inner containment walls that were much thicker? Reactor 4 is reportedly now in danger of falling over. HOW?

6. The Japanese government is going along with the story of a scientifically proven false 9.0. There is a reason, and my guess is that Israel has made threats to wipe out Japanese coastal cities with additional tsunamis if the government of Japan speaks a word of what went on, there should be no reason for Japan to go along with this other than a continued threat.

Is it not interesting this “quake” reportedly happened at the bottom of the Japan trench, which would be perfect for hiding an atomic bomb blast?

Is the Department of Homeland Security trying to keep American industries (and nuclear facilities) in the dark about Stuxnet? After Fukushima fell victim to unwary operators, I would think such a conference would be a TOP priority here! The genie is out of the bottle. It is a fact that the writers of Stuxnet intend to use it. So cancelling a well researched conference about the vulnerabilities of the Siemens SCADA system to Stuxnet in the name of “keeping hackers from getting info” seems to me like an effort to keep the threat alive. Ignore the fluff at the beginning, and read the “About TakeDownCon” summary near the bottom so you know what they actually cancelled rather than settle for the no-panic fluff at the beginning. This is SERIOUS. I fear that by the time the Hacker Halted conference happens in October, the summer of disaster may have passed. And if it has not, I bet any discussion of Stuxnet at Hacker Halted will also be cancelled. Stuxnet is too good a toy for a very powerful group to let go of. Something is fishy here.

Other publications picked up this story now, and are poo pooing the issue into the ground. They are obviously attempting to morph responsibility for Stuxnet style attacks away from Israel so that they can regain cover and use the weapon as a false flag tool to destroy internet freedom. This is where they are going to go with this – count on it, and when the disasters happen there will be a cozy blanket of lies shielding Israel from all blame. Never forget, THIS IS THEIR BABY, NEVER FORGET. Prior to them doing this, WE NEVER HEARD OF IT.

About “prompt criticality” – As it turns out, Arnie Gundersen, mister “prompt criticality” with regard to the massive explosion at #3 is very poorly credentialed. His crowning achievement was playing with a 100 watt open water tank reactor in a classroom for a short period of time.

Fuel rods are only 20 percent fissionable, sometimes even less, and until you reach over 90 percent purity in U238 and about 70 percent purity in Plutonium NO “prompt criticality” is possible in ANY case no matter how much of it you have laying around. Furthermore, even with 100 percent pure material you need a precision trigger slamming or crushing material together to get a detonation. Even if 100 percent pure material is slammed together at high speed, if it is not done right you will get only a nuclear “sputter” that pushes the pieces apart, and no detonation. Nukes are hard to do! Why have so many of us seemed to have forgotten that nuclear detonations are hard to accomplish? The “prompt criticality” in spent fuel story is something I would have expected to hear from an Ewok praying to a gold robot. I can’t believe even a scammer would have the guts to suggest it, let alone allow it to be spread around in his name. For an explanation for the explosions, just look at the cameras the Dimona Dozen brought in. If someone is waving a degree as an anchor for this “prompt criticality” bull hockey, remember that there is such a thing as a paper trained idiot and if you look into Gundersen’s background you will discover he is barely that, with his ONLY hands on experience outside a classroom being an intern at a nuclear facility two years before he got his degree!

If the mainstream media wanted the facts, why did they pick this guy? Because he said what they wanted, truth be damned.

“We at Vermont Yankee are well acquainted with Arnie and his exaggerations. He plays to a public and a legislature that has zero knowledge of nuclear power or engineering and is willing to accept any negative claim as truth.” And since he gave an impossible “prompt criticality” explanation which diverted attention away from the only real explanation for the magnitude of the explosion at #3 – a nuke, they gave him a ton of air. Enough said.

Arnie Gundersen’s consulting firm, which has only him (no employees yet or ever, and therefore it’s easy to be “senior engineer”) was curiously founded within months of the release of the spider man villain Critical Mass, who, as Spider man’s fourth grade classmate went by the name of ARNIE GUNDERSEN. Critical Mass had the ability to project explosions from his fingertips. Hmm, perhaps THAT gave birth to the “prompt criticality” in a 20% fuel pool when 90+ percent is needed for an explosion of any sort no matter what the circumstance? If you need 90 or more percent and you have only 20 percent, THE LAWS OF PHYSICS WILL BE OBEYED. Folks, In perfect form, the scamming media hunted out a fraud and rammed him down your throats. Arnie Gundersen has a phony company and was inspired in his fraud by a Spider Man comic. NO ONE at the college Arnie supposedly attended even heard of him, I went down that rabbit hole and the man is a mystery.

This post has been greatly improved via input from readers. If you have information proving any points wrong, or think something should be clarified, as well as new info that can further solidify the case, contact me. Thanks!

If you read this far, I invite you to take part in the Truth Project

The article about Fukushima follows.


Fukushima was impossible. The swamping of the external generators by the tsunami was irrelevant, because the real emergency backup systems are driven by steam from the reactors themselves. No electricity is needed to operate three separate emergency systems at each reactor, each of which will keep a reactor safe even if only one works. Interesting it is then that all 9 non electrical backup systems across the three fueled reactors failed. This is technically impossible outside of willful intent, and was likely the result of a Stuxnet attack.

Stuxnet was designed specifically to target Siemens SCADA controllers and is most effective at tampering with fluid control systems. The centrifuges it attacked in Iran were ideal. So are the fluid control systems at a nuclear facility. Oil refineries are equally at risk, Stuxnet is most dangerous when affecting a system which needs to control the flow of any liquid, be it hydraulic, for cooling, or combining chemicals. Stuxnet is documented to have been produced by the Israeli Defense Forces, for the purpose of destroying any industrial system that can be destroyed by improper fluid flow.

Magna BSP, a Dimona based company with no history outside of IDF contracts prior to Fukushima has a suspiciously short domain history despite a 10 year claimed history. Magna BSP had a full time internet linked two way connection to the Fukushima reactor room(s) all the way through the disaster. They told TEPCO about that connection on March 15 (after everything blew sky high) via an article printed in the Jerusalem Post. Why did Manga BSP wait until everything was blown sky high to tell Tepco the data link existed, and then did not tell them face to face? I find it hard to believe that TEPCO would not have been interested in viewing a reactor that was about to explode. It seems impossible that Tepco would not have wanted to view the reactor, and probably did not ask because the link was kept a secret. It is a simple fact that internet connections are never allowed inside a reactor’s containment. The connection was mentioned in the Jerusalem Post AFTER the destruction was finalized.

Stuxnet has two modes, random and administrative. It can be administered to optimize the damage and can also transmit setup information and industrial system information to a remote computer. Once installed on the host system via a flash drive it causes that system to violate it’s normal security protocols and internet administration becomes possible if a connection exists. Tampering is not visible on the control room readouts, because Stuxnet learns what “normal” looks like and keeps the temperature, pressure, and other readouts within normal limits so that the operators are oblivious to the destruction happening in secret. Stuxnet appeared in Japan in June of 2010, shortly after Magna BSP arrived. Remote administration mode can be adjusted on demand to suit any need. No doubt the people at Fukushima sat there in idle mode thinking all was well until something screamed or went boom and at that point it would be too late to do anything other than cry.

I am a lifer in the types of control systems Fukushima and it’s clone, TVA owned Browns Ferry have. BOTH have been upgraded to modern Siemens controllers running the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) system Stuxnet was designed to attack; upgrades are the norm in any major facility. On many blogs people say the controls were old and therefore Stuxnet immune; they are out of touch or have no knowledge of industrial control systems. I actually ferreted it out.

And now I will explain in detail why the problems before the explosions had to be sabotage

The diesel generators were not out in the open as we were led to believe, they were in fact located in the basements of the turbine buildings which were sealed off and never significantly flooded. One of them stayed running the entire time, but the electrical switch gear attached to it disconnected it for an unexplained reason which made it useless. Each of the backup generators at Fukushima were capable of running 14,000 households each, which means they had to be over ten megawatts each. It is obvious then that Fukushima was set up to survive on only ONE of 13 backup generators, and ONE did keep running. One would be many times larger than needed to run last ditch backup systems at all reactors, but would not keep business as usual. But that is not the real story, which is that even others which were high and dry stopped as well.

I hypothesize that the ONE generator that kept running was kept as a lone reserve, never hooked up to a SCADA controller. Why did the switch gear disconnect a working generator? That is the type of thing Stuxnet was designed to do. On top of these things, emergency generators arrived on scene within 9 hours, before anything bad happened at all but were not able to provide power because the switch gear would not let them. This deceptively written report from the World Nuclear Association contains all this information, but it is presented in a way which will cause you to overlook these things if you are not careful while reading it. This report contains accurate information presented in a very misleading way, which will protect the liars who wrote it – they actually did speak the truth here but in a way it would be missed by virtually anyone. Study the facts presented here with the full ramifications of those facts in mind, not their shallow misleading conclusions.

From this report you can get:

1. The generators never got submerged – you have to connect the dot between them being in a contained area and the tsunami thereby not being able to get to them. Some water got into one of the the turbine buildings where several were located and flooded the lowest point in that building to a depth of 4 feet, which means that even if the generators were on the floor at the lowest point they likely would not have been swamped because they are too big – the water would not get past the footings. Perhaps a one megawatt generator would have swamped; certainly not one of the big diesels, which were, according to this report enough to run 14,000 homes each. In addition to this, there were several generators in a second location that never got flooded at all. One of these generators kept running but was not able to get power into the facility because the switchgear prevented it.

2. You have to have watched the robot videos, which clearly show the switch gear that malfunctioned after the tsunami never got wet – there was a non tsunami reason for the failure. Also look at the high resolution photos referenced below. There is no switch gear for the diesel generators outside the facility, it is all indoors in areas higher than the water got. Remember that there was no emergency when the off site generators arrived, which means that they could work efficiently to get things up and running. With my experience in this area, Assuming it DID get soaked, a complete replacement of high capacity switch gear should only take an afternoon if done with an emergency attitude. A truck mounted crane or a forklift does all the heavy lifting and the stuff is modular. In every major facility there are spares galore. It is not that hard to make the terminations. A worst case scenario could have been addressed before things went horribly awry, that is, unless a virus did not let the new switch gear activate either. It would take days to conclude a virus was messing things up. You would not expect that. I am sure there is a LOT we never heard about.

3. That batteries held, leaving only a one hour gap in time where there was no power present to run things before adequate off site power drove into the facility on the road all nice and ready to hook up, but was denied to by switch gear which this report says was swamped but that is likely an assumption because swamped switchgear could have been replaced even before the batteries died. The fact that the offsite generators were able to be driven into the facility also proves that other lies told about the earthquake in general – employees leaving only to find cracks in the road so bad they had to walk home; Why? Why lie like this? AT LEAST this report has some modicum of honesty.

4. You have to look at the chart that shows the thermal output of the reactors 8 hours after the earthquake, which is when the batteries running the electrical cooling pumps died, the output at that time was less than 20 megawatts from each reactor, which means that they would not have had troubles before the off site generators were hooked up to restore power if it was not denied by what I suspect was stuxnet infected switch gear. The real critical time is in the first 3 hours after shutdown.

5. Reactor 3 exploded entirely, yet this reactor had the most functional backup systems. At least this report says the explosion remains “unexplained”. Perhaps those who wrote the report should take a look at this for an answer.

6. The reactors are stated to be an “early 1960’s design” apparently to mislead people into believing they were outdated even when installed. This was not the case. Their design was an early 60’s concept but in fact a late 60’s design, and since installation takes years, what more could you expect in the early 70’s? The reactors were in fact a very safe design. This report at least states that the facility was very well updated. Identical reactors at TVA owned browns ferry have been certified safe and licensed to operate through the year 2035. These reactors were also converted over to run the Siemens Scada system. The reactors at Fukushima were not garbage. The fastest cars in production still function on a late 1800’s concept.

I hypothesize that the situation at Fukushima is not being properly assessed by facility controllers because STUXNET is STILL giving false readings to the control panels, readings which obviously have to be false because they show containment pressure when confidental leaked photographs prove beyond a doubt no containment exists AT ALL at reactor 3. There is not even a reactor there.

This report is perfectly inaccurate with regard to reactor 3 containment. Perhaps the people who wrote this report have not actually looked at the facility or seen the confidential photographs.

This report supports what I have said here entirely. It was written by an experienced reactor operator. I found this on May 10. I was absolutely right!

Each reactor has 8 separate emergency backup systems, each capable of saving the reactor on it’s own. Three are designed to function perfectly if all power is lost and even the generators fail. Fukushima did not need any electrical systems operating AT ALL to keep itself from blowing up, when power is lost steam from the reactors is automatically diverted from the generator turbines to two totally separate steam turbines connected to totally separate water pumps needing only reactor steam to power them. Even that backup system has dual redundancy, only one of the two is needed for the job. But the valves which have to activate to re-divert the steam, all 6 valves on a total of 3 fueled reactors, eventually failed to. At reactors 1 and 3 these systems worked, but switched off at reactor 1 within an hour and off at reactor 3 after running for more than two days. No one has been able to explain why these systems switched off all by themselves, when they need a powered command to switch off. At reactor 2 they were never allowed to activate. This can only happen if the control system tells them to shut off or stay off, absent intervention from the controller they automatically and seamlessly switch cooling modes to passive rather than electrical.

Some readers may remember that the real issue at Fukushima was malfunctioning valves, and the need to get someone past the radiation to open them. These are the valves that were spoken of. Because Stuxnet kept the readouts normal, no one knew this system did not function until major problems happened as a result flooding the area where the valves are with radiation. This prevented last ditch efforts (running and cutting the wires). One automatic valve jamming and mechanically failing would be a surprise,6 failing can only be sabotage.

In addition to this, another completely independent separately piped backup with an entirely different electronic decision tree which injects borated water at a pre charged 3,500 PSI into the reactor to irrevocably shut down all chain reactions (reactor rebuild required) also simultaneously failed at all 3 fueled reactors. The borated water systems have explosive operated valves so reliable that even one out of 3 failing would be a ten thousand to one possiblity, if that. The reliability of the borated water systems is technically theoretically assured. All three failing at the same time at Fukushima can only mean sabotage.

High pressure in all of the reactors proves the quake did not damage any of the infrastructure at fukushima because any leaks would have let the pressure go. In addition to this, the seismic readings at Fukushima were 6.07 Fukushima was designed to handle being at the epicenter of an 8.

The media keeps harping about how all the water went away. It only did because these three backup systems were prevented from cooling the reactor which caused the water to boil off and never be replaced. High pressures were talked about constantly in the press; This means beyond a doubt that all 6 steam powered backup systems were intact, and all 3 borated water systems were intact also because if they were not the pressure would have escaped through them. Absent emergency backup control power keeping the virus alive; (control power Magna BSP admitted was there the whole time by mistake when they said their cameras and supporting computers captured the explosions and maintained a data link) the valves which control these systems would have opened when the generators failed and there would have been no disaster. 3 worst case scenarios where all 9 automatic valves across 9 separate emergency backup systems are held shut by the controller when no power should have been present to prevent them from activating can only mean sabotage.

A historical perspective of Fukushima shows the hydrogen blasts were bogus.

Hydrogen blasts could not have damaged Fukushima so badly, this is a media fed lie. If hydrogen gas alone mixed with air could produce blasts strong enough to blow reactor containment buildings to pieces, which are among the strongest structures on earth (exceeded in strength only by ones like Hoover Dam,) then hydrogen gas filled bombs would be the prime military option. In reality, the Three Mile Island incident proved hydrogen ignition in open air after reactor meltdown is likely to only scare employees, while causing no damage at all to the facility, as was the case there. It is extremely important to know the differences between the boiling water reactor design and the design of Chernobyl. At Chernobyl, a hydrogen blast DID cause destruction of the facility, but it was because the reactor design caused hydrogen and oxygen at a perfect ratio to ignite at thousands of PSI inside the reactor pressure vessel. That’s a big difference from hydrogen alone igniting in relatively oxygen starved open air at one atmosphere (14.5 PSI). The difference would be similar to the difference between a small firecracker and a case of dynamite; there were many orders of magnitude lower blast potential at Fukushima.

Just to be absolutely safe after the Three Mile Island incident, many nuclear facilities installed hydrogen hard vent stacks hooked directly up to the relief valves on their reactors, and Fukushima was one of them. This was to prevent a hydrogen buildup in the containment building in the event of a core meltdown, which caused a minor explosion at Three Mile Island. These stacks are the tall white towers you see in the photographs of Fukushima, and they are effective in getting rid of hydrogen buildup, are directly piped, and vent completely outside. “Hard piped” means that the electrical failures would have had nothing to do with the blasts, because a hard vent is exactly that – no fan needed at all because the system is sealed. Even if the hard piping at all 3 fueled Fukushima reactors failed entirely, it should not have been any worse than Three Mile Island which did not have any hard venting to begin with. While hydrogen venting might be a problem if it ignited, it would not mean the death of a facility. It makes no sense that at Fukushima we got a nuclear weapon style mushroom cloud far in excess of the highest yield conventional bomb.

Below are the classified photos

What then, caused the explosions? The containment walls were at their thinnest points in the lowest allowed General Electric design a minimum of 4 foot thick steel reinforced concrete, were likely to be a minimum of 8 feet thick, and were totally blown away. All concrete was stripped from the rebar, which was left dangling. Reactor 3 vanished entirely,as seen in the classified photo used to compare the destruction to the diagram and reactor 4 appears to have been blown to pieces as seen in this classified photo The yellow dome which should be sitting on top of reactor 4 can be clearly seen on the wrong side of the containment building. This type of destruction is is indicative of hard weaponry in use; a hydrogen air mix will not do that. Reactors are not made out of tinfoil. On top of this, there was no potential for an explosion at reactor 4 at all, it had been defueled. SO WHAT, PRAY TELL, BLEW IT APART? That’s the dirty question no one is asking – how did that happen?

To give you an idea of how big the reactors at Fukushima were, look at this. It’s the top of the same make and model at Fukushima’s American twin, TVA owned Brown’s Ferry, and it is only the top. The yellow dome sits above this, and is even bigger. (here the yellow dome has been removed for refueling). over 150 feet of reactor sits below that cap. Hydrogen will not vaporize that, which appears to be what happened to #3, only a nuclear weapon would. Reactors are about 14 digits beyond incapable of going supercritical even with a complete core meltdown. The reactors did not explode, something placed in their vicinity did.

Magna BSP had access to the reactors at this facility. They were based in Dimona, which is a military base that manufactures nuclear weapons. Stuxnet was made in their yard. They are stated to be a military company.

There is extremely strong evidence that Dimona based Magna BSP placed nuclear weapons at the exploded or vanished reactors at Fukushima, possibly hidden inside one of their unbelievably GIANT stereoscopic cameras. These cameras were installed inside the reactor containment of Fukushima reactor 3 under the cover of a security contract in the year prior to the disaster. These cameras are identical in size and appearance to a gun type nuclear weapon. Since previous hydrogen explosions at boiling water reactors have never caused any sort of damage to equipment or buildings, even during complete meltdowns, it begs the question how on earth one at reactor 3 produced a mushroom cloud. Three Mile Island sits in the evidence pool against what we have been told about Fukushima. History does matter.

One problem with the reporting in the mainstream media is that it failed to convey just how massive and strong the containment structures really were, as seen in this classified photo. A hydrogen explosion would only blow the sheet metal off the steel framed roof if it even did that, at Three Mile Island the hydrogen ignition did nothing at all. It just scared employees. Another thing the reporting failed to convey is the gravity of the disaster. Compare the containment diagram to the remains of reactor 3. It is painfully obvious that many tons of highly radioactive plutonium in the containment pools is nowhere to be found, the entire floor they were on is completly gone. We are getting lied to.

That was a LOT more than a hydrogen blast, and as a result there are thousands of pounds of plutonium scattered everywhere. TEPCO was ridiculed for initially stating that the radiation from the facility was “immeasurable”. I think they at first told the truth. Now they have this story about the Fukushima 50. Is it in fact a “wag the dog”? No one could be there and live. Why is remote controlled heavy equipment doing the cleanup? The official story is hydrogen blasts, not nukes, so the story line has to at least be within the far outer limits of what a hydrogen blast could actually accomplish; not missing reactors and entire fuel pools blown away.

I suggest you ponder the pictures and materials presented and reach your own conclusion. A government issued training manual for the reactors at Fukushima is here

Now that Osama, who has been dead for 10 years is officially dead, Al Quaida is going to use a nuke, so they say; I strongly urge you to consider this article if a nuke actually does go off somewhere or if other nuclear facilities start acting like Fukushima.

The only reason I believe the management at Fukushima is not telling it like it really was is because victim status has been so well asserted by the ethnic group in question that it is career suicide to point the finger at them, even when they try to kill you. I find it interesting that all 12 Non Japanese employees of Magna BSP returned to Israel a week before the tsunami . . . . .

I might have understood the need for Stuxnet if it’s use would have ended with Iran. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case. I do hope this article breaks their toy.

For those of you who are reluctant to re-post this because the wording is too strong, I ask you to consider this;

The real answer came out of Fukushima. We have a member of the international community which has already done horrendous damage to a very advanced and (presently) innocent civilization and we simply cannot continue to tolerate it. Consider what ignoring this will cost you. Are you prepared to have a major disaster at the convenience of the couch; because you sat there watching TV rather than dragging your butt over to the computer to at least spread the word? Are your video games, ball games, 4×4 and porno really worth continuing to lose everything for? Is your religion going to keep you silent as well? We really need a serious wake up call. Please let this post be it, rather than some other unforseen disaster.

Thank you to the many readers who pointed out flaws, gave tips, and suggested clarifications, you studied this indeed! My thanks also goes out to the radio hosts who have had me on the air and invited me to appear to discuss this subject. BTW, this article was written via code entry, without spell check. Consider that.

These references included as e-mail compatible links. (source of high resolution photos)

Jim Stone visits anti-Iran war protest in DC

“Joe” did not Stack up.


Nasa noticed Haarp anomalies in Hurricane Katrina

Face it, the Election was STOLEN

Jim Stone visits Occupy Los Angeles

Power Grid Tampering to End an Era

An open letter to the Israeli Mossad


Fukushima SABOTAGE!

Mails from Japan, the true perspective


Special update for Japanese readers

Tainted Nightmare

Truth Project

Upcoming Articles

Is Intel’s Sandy Bridge on a road to nowhere?

Antidepressant Nightmare



Posted in Conspiracy Archives, Earth Changes, Economic Upheavals, Exopolitical Interventions, Geo-Politics, Rated R, Truthout Articles, War Quotient | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50? 3/11 was Japan’s 9/11. It’s all documented folks!

FUKUSHIMA: Public health Fallout from Japanese Quake “Culture of cover-up” and inadequate cleanup. Japanese people exposed to “unconscionable” health risks

Posted by Admin on December 31, 2011

by Canadian Medical Association Journal

Global Research, December 30, 2011

Canadian Medical Association Journal – 2011-12-21

A “culture of cover-up” and inadequate cleanup efforts have combined to leave Japanese people exposed to “unconscionable” health risks nine months after last year’s meltdown of nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant, health experts say.

Although the Japanese government has declared the plant virtually stable, some experts are calling for evacuation of people from a wider area, which they say is contaminated with radioactive fallout.

They’re also calling for the Japanese government to reinstate internationally-approved radiation exposure limits for members of the public and are slagging government officials for “extreme lack of transparent, timely and comprehensive communication.”

But temperatures inside the Fukushima power station’s three melted cores have achieved a “cold shutdown condition,” while the release of radioactive materials is “under control,” according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (

That means government may soon allow some of the more than 100 000 evacuees from the area around the plant to return to their homes. They were evacuated from the region after it was struck with an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a tsunami last March 11.

Although the potential for further explosions with substantial releases of radioactivity into the atmosphere is certainly reduced, the plant is still badly damaged and leaking radiation, says Tilman Ruff, chair of the Medical Association for Prevention of Nuclear War, who visited the Fukushima prefecture in August. “There are major issues of contamination on the site. Aftershocks have been continuing and are expected to continue for many months, and some of those are quite large, potentially causing further damage to structures that are already unstable and weakened. And we know that there’s about 120 000 tons of highly contaminated water in the base of the plant, and there’s been significant and ongoing leakage into the ocean.”

The full extent of contamination across the country is even less clear, says Ira Hefland, a member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility. “We still don’t know exactly what radiation doses people were exposed to [in the immediate aftermath of the disaster] or what ongoing doses people are being exposed to. Most of the information we’re getting at this point is a series of contradictory statements where the government assures the people that everything’s okay and private citizens doing their own radiation monitoring come up with higher readings than the government says they should be finding.”

Japanese officials in Tokyo have documented elevated levels of cesium — a radioactive material with a half-life of 30 years that can cause leukemia and other cancers — more than 200 kilometres away from the plant, equal to the levels in the 20 kilometre exclusion zone, says Robert Gould, another member of the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility.

International authorities have urged Japan to expand the exclusion zone around the plant to 80 kilometres but the government has instead opted to “define the problem out of existence” by raising the permissible level of radiation exposure for members of the public to 20 millisieverts per year, considerably higher than the international standard of one millisievert per year, Gould adds.

This “arbitrary increase” in the maximum permissible dose of radiation is an “unconscionable” failure of government, contends Ruff. “Subject a class of 30 children to 20 millisieverts of radiation for five years and you’re talking an increased risk of cancer to the order of about 1 in 30, which is completely unacceptable. I’m not aware of any other government in recent decades that’s been willing to accept such a high level of radiation-related risk for its population.”

Following the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine, “clear targets were set so that anybody anticipated to receive more than five millisieverts in a year were evacuated, no question,” Ruff explains. In areas with levels between one and five millisieverts, measures were taken to mitigate the risk of ingesting radioactive materials, including bans on local food consumption, and residents were offered the option of relocating. Exposures below one millisievert were still considered worth monitoring.

In comparison, the Japanese government has implemented a campaign to encourage the public to buy produce from the Fukushima area, Ruff added. “That response [in Chernobyl] 25 years ago in that much less technically sophisticated, much less open or democratic context, was, from a public health point of view, much more responsible than what’s being done in modern Japan this year.”

Were Japan to impose similar strictures, officials would have to evacuate some 1800 square kilometres and impose restrictions on food produced in another 11 100 square kilometres, according to estimates of the contamination presented by Dr. Kozo Tatara for the Japan Public Health Association at the American Public Health Association‘s 139th annual meeting and exposition in November in Washington, District of Columbia.

“It’s very difficult to persuade people that the level [of exposure set by the government] is okay,” Tatara told delegates to the meeting. He declined requests for an interview.

The Japanese government is essentially contending that the higher dose is “not dangerous,” explains Hefland. “However, since the accident, it’s become clear the Japanese government was lying through its teeth, doing everything it possible could to minimize public concern, even when that meant denying the public information needed to make informed decisions, and probably still is.”

“It’s now clear they knew within a day or so there had been a meltdown at the plant, yet they didn’t disclose that for weeks, and only with great prodding from the outside,” Hefland adds. “And at the same moment he was assuring people there was no public health disaster, the Prime Minister now concedes that he thought Tokyo would have to be evacuated but was doing nothing to bring that about.”

Ruff similarly charges that the government has mismanaged the file and provided the public with misinformation. As an example, he cites early reports that stable iodine had been distributed to children and had worked effectively, when, “in fact, iodine wasn’t given to anyone.”

Public distrust is at a level that communities have taken cleanup and monitoring efforts into their own hands as the government response to the crisis has been “woefully inadequate” and officials have been slow to respond to public reports of radioactive hotspots, Gould says. “That’s led to the cleanup of some affected areas, but there are also reports of people scattering contaminated soil willy-nilly in forests and areas surrounding those towns.”

“In some places, you can see mounds of contaminated soil that have just been aggregated under blue tarps,” he adds.

Even with government assistance, there are limits to the decontamination that can be achieved, explains Hefland. “What do you do with the stuff? Do you scrape entire topsoil? How far down you have to go? And if you wash down the buildings, what do you do with the waste water?”

As well, Ruff argues the government must examine the provision of compensation for voluntary evacuation from areas outside of the exclusion zone where there are high levels of radioactive contamination. Without such compensation, many families have no option but to stay, he says. “At this point, the single most important public health measure to minimize the health harm over the longterm is much wider evacuation.”

The Japanese government did not respond to inquiries.

Global Research Articles by Canadian Medical Association Journal


Posted in Global Research, Pollution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on FUKUSHIMA: Public health Fallout from Japanese Quake “Culture of cover-up” and inadequate cleanup. Japanese people exposed to “unconscionable” health risks

Fukushima and the Battle for Truth

Posted by Admin on September 30, 2011

Large sectors of the Japanese population are accumulating significant levels of internal contamination
Global Research, September 27, 2011
– 2011-09-26
Fukushima’s nuclear disasteris a nightmare. Ghostly releases of radioactivity haunt the Japanese countryside. Lives, once safe, are now beset by an ineffable scourge promising vile illness and death.Large sectors of the population are accumulating significant levels of internal contamination, setting the stage for a public healthtragedy.A subtle increase in the number of miscarriages and fetal deaths will be the first manifestation that something is amiss. An elevated incidence of birth defects will begin in the Fall and continue into the indefinite future. Thyroid diseases, cardiac diseases and elevated rates of infant and childhood leukemia will follow. Over the next decade and beyond, cancer rates will soar.

Chernobyl was the harbinger of this heartbreaking scenario. It taught mankind the inescapable biological truths that emerge within populations internally contaminated by heightened levels of fission products. And yet, government and industry schemers attack these truths as unfounded scare-mongering. With cold indifference, they deny that Chernobyl was a mass casualty event. They turn a blind eye to a huge body of research and deviously proclaim that no evidence exists that more than a handful of people suffered harm from the Ukrainian disaster. They publish propaganda, draped in the guise of science, that dismisses the hazard of low levels of internal contamination. Believing their subterfuge to have been successful and intoxicated by their hubris, they are already positioning themselves to stage-manage the public’s perception of Fukushima. 

Japan’s government, its Nuclear Safety Commission, and the Tokyo Electric  Power Company have already demonstrated that they will do everything in their power to keep citizens ignorant of what is taking place. The emerging health crisis is scheduled to be erased. Following a time-tested blueprint worked out by prior radiation releases around the world, data relevant to assessing the medical impact of the accident will not be gathered. Radiation doses to the population will be woefully underestimated. The hazards associated with low levels of internal contamination will be obliterated from all discussions of risk. Academic journals that support the nuclear agenda will be flooded with bogus studies demonstrating that no health detriment was suffered by the population. The heightened incidence of childhood leukemia will be attributed to some as yet unidentified virus unleashed by population mixing following the evacuations caused by the tsunami. (This theory is currently in vogue to deny that the heightened incidence of leukemia among children under five years of age living nearby to nuclear reactors is radiation induced.)  The birth defects will be summarily dismissed as impossible because the risk models upheld by the International Commission on Radiological Protection don’t predict them. The possibility that the models are fraudulently constructed escapes consideration. (See a Betrayal of Mankind by the Radiation Protection Agencies, available as a free download at

How is TRUTH to gain ascendancy when blocked by this institutionalized matrix of deceit? What agency can possibly take the lead to accurately document the full scope of the disaster, identify its victims and those at risk, and publish trustworthy public health information? Who is going to take responsibility to protect the children? To wait for the government to come to the rescue is naive. The history of radiation accidents testifies that governments routinely betray their citizens in deference to their nuclear weapons program and the nuclear industry. No, only one alternative is open to the people of Japan. They must become proactive. They must seize the initiative and wrest control from government and industry of the “perception” of the catastrophe. 

The accident at Fukushima demands that a peoples’ campaign be initiated to produce an honest assessment of the current situation, catalog the medical consequences as they emerge, and offer accurate advice as to how citizens can protect themselves. Using the internet as a platform, scientists from all relevant disciplines must band together with interested laypeople with something valid to contribute to create a widely distributed open source research project. The evolving online encyclopedia will archive all pertinent data and preserve it from future tampering. The accident from its inception must be documented. With published reports frequently in conflict with one another, all available information, whether from government sources, citizen investigators or eyewitnesses, must be gathered for future evaluation. Worldwide meteorological data since March 11 must be assembled. All official and unofficial measurements of radiation in the environment, both in Japan and worldwide, must be collected and collated. This is essential information required for future epidemiological studies. Contaminated agricultural areas must be identified. Samples of all edible material for human and animal consumption must be evaluated for safety. As suspected radiation-induced illness begins to appear in the population, healthcare providers and victims must make public their experiences. Initially, this information will be anecdotal but nonetheless invaluable. It will identify emerging trends of morbidity and mortality and define population subgroups requiring more systematic scientific investigation.   Researchers working alone or in groups must seize the initiative to pursue study in their fields of expertise and interest. (One excellent suggestion by Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility is the widespread collection of babies’ teeth to provide objective data on the geographic dispersion and uptake of strontium-90 [1].) Methodologies, data and results need be posted online as they become available. Free access to the whole body of work must be guaranteed so as to allow scrutiny by people from all over the world. Transparency must be paramount. An open dialogue will allow divergent points of view to be fairly represented. Disagreements over research protocols or the interpretation of results will point the way to new avenues of investigation where clarification and consensus might be achieved. Objective investigation via the scientific method will be the final arbitrator of truth. The ultimate goal of this effort will be to produce an unbiased determination of the public health consequences of radiation released into the environment, assess the accuracy of current standards of radiation safety and identify how improvements can be made for the common welfare of humanity.

It is urgent that this initiative commence immediately. Data must be captured while it is remains untainted. Of particular importance is the securing of pre-accident health statistics for the population of Japan. Rates for various pregnancy outcomes; the frequency of different types of birth defects; the incidence of thyroid diseases, heart diseases, cancers and so forth, all must be cataloged. There is good reason why this baseline data need be preserved. The history of radiation accidents is littered with examples of the outright falsification of data that has prevented an honest evaluation of the effects of low levels of internal contamination on human health. For instance, evidence exists that morbidity and mortality data published by the U.S. Government’s Public Health Service was altered in the wake of radiation releases from nuclear weapon production facilities and commercial nuclear power plants so as to hide cancer deaths in the population [2]. The accident at Three Mile Island, persistently painted by government and industry spokesmen as a benign event, in fact produced illness and death among humans and farm animals downwind [3,4]. After the accident at Chernobyl, hundreds of thousands of so-called “liquidators” participated in cleanup operations in close proximity to the destroyed reactor and also built a concrete sarcophagus around the reactor building to entomb the radiation. According to the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), in subsequent years this population was reported as having a lower rate of leukemia than the general population. Only later did it come to light that Soviet doctors were forbidden from recording leukemia in their diagnoses [5]. The Wales Cancer Registry was cited by the ECRR as excising cases of cancer from its database so as to prevent the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in the U.K. from being blamed for causing illness to the population. Also mentioned by ECRR was the alteration of infant mortality figures in Germany after Chernobyl so as to mask the impact of the accident on public health [5].

Mischief has not been confined to falsifying health records. In 1957, a fire broke out in the graphite reactor at Windscale, England on the site now occupied by the Sellafield facility. The amount of radiation released and the incidence of cancer induced in the population of Ireland has remained fiercely contentious issues. According to the ECRR, at some point after the fire, meteorological records were altered “with the apparent motive of concealing the likely location of any effects” [5]. Similarly, the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Japan suffered a devastating fire in 1995. Prefecture and city officials found that the operator had tampered with video images of the fire to hide the scale of the disaster [6].     

If an accurate documentation of the health consequences of Fukushima is to succeed, one condition is paramount: the project MUST retain its independence from the international agencies that currently dominate the discussion of radiation effects. The tacit mandate of these organizations is to support nuclear weapons programs and the nuclear industry, and they do so by publishing fraudulent scientific studies that downplay the hazards to health of radioactive material released into the environment. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and other UN organizations jointly published Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-economic Impacts [7].  This study is routinely cited as proof that Chernobyl had little impact on public health. It concluded that only twenty-eight first responders died from acute radiation syndrome and 4,000 children developed thyroid cancer, fifteen of whom died by 2002. In addition, it estimated that an additional 4,000 fatal cancers might arise in the overall population. This sanitized version of the catastrophe was reached by the devious method of consulting only 350 sources of information, mostly published in English, while ignoring  30,000 publications and 170,000 sources of information available in languages other than English [8]. A summary of this large body of literature, published as Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, concluded that radiation-induced casualties approached 980,000 [9].

To offer a second example, a number of prestigious institutions have published disinformation on the hazards to health of depleted uranium weapons. These include WHO, IAEA, the European Commission, the Royal Society in the U.K., the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the U.S., the Rand Corporation, and the Health Physics Society [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. All concluded that weaponized uranium creates no adverse health effects when internalized by soldiers on the battlefield and downwind populations. Justification for this conclusion came from a survey of the scientific literature regarding uranium contamination among workers in the uranium and nuclear industries and populations exposed to elevated levels of uranium in their drinking water. Historically, the only two types of adverse health effects documented among these populations is altered kidney function due to uranium’s chemical toxicity and cancer due to uranium’s radioactivity. But studies of veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome reveals no evidence of kidney disease. And according to models promulgated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the radiation dose from battlefield uranium is too low to initiate cancer. The conclusion? Case closed! DU cannot be a factor in the severe suffering of veterans or the increased incidence of cancer and birth defects in Fallujah and other areas of Iraq. As convincing as the logic of these studies attempt to be, they all suffer from fatal flaws. They all fail to acknowledge that combustion-derived micro- and nano-sized particles of uranium have unique biokinetics when internalized that are not comparable to historical types of uranium exposure, and they quit cleverly fail to take into account the most up-to-date research on the toxicology of uranium. New research conducted since the first Gulf War has demonstrated that uranium is genotoxic (capable of damaging DNA), cytotoxic (poisonous to cells), mutagenic (capable of inducing mutations), teratogenic (capable of interfering with normal embryonic development) and neurotoxic (capable of harming nerve tissue).  This research has yet to dislodge the stale mantra that uranium is only capable of causing kidney disease and cancer. (For a thorough disclosure of the fraudulent science used to discount the hazards of DU and a summary of recent research on the toxicology of uranium, see this author’s “The Harlot of Babylon Unmasked: Fraudulent Science and the Cover-Up of the Health Effects of Depleted   Uranium”  in   A   Primer   in   the   Art   of   Deception   available   at

Mischief also infects the radiation protection community. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Hiroshima conducts ongoing medical research on the health of the survivors of the atomic bombings at the end of WWII. The Life Span Study is the single most important piece of evidence used by the ICRP for setting worldwide guidelines for radiation safety. That radiation safety for all types of exposure and all manner of radiation-induced illnesses relies so heavily on this research is incredibly disturbing because the Life Span Study is deeply and irreparably flawed. Initiated five years after the bombings, after tens of thousands of victims succumbed to unidentified levels of radiation exposure, results are hopelessly skewed in favor of finding radiation less hazardous than it in fact is.  Further, the study can provide no meaningful information on the birth outcomes to fetuses exposed in utero.  More problematic is the fact that both the study and the control groups were internally contaminated by the black rain that showered down upon the destroyed cities after the blasts. This unacknowledged contamination of the control group hopelessly compromises any meaningful conclusions of the rates of radiation-induced illnesses in the study group. The Life Span Study is plagued by numerous other flaws that raise serious questions as to why it has become the centerpiece of radiation standards. (For further information on this topic, consult Exhibit C in the aforementioned free download at

The Japanese have been victimized by nuclear horror more than any other people on Earth. Today they are immersed in an imperceptible tragedy that will slowly but inevitably bring disease and heartbreak to millions. In response to this crime, a rare and courageous opportunity exists. By undertaking a national campaign to honestly document the disaster that is engulfing them, they can  lead all of humanity to break through the quagmire of deception and deceit that has allowed nuclear weapons and reactors to flourish. Truth finally has an opportunity to triumph over falsehood. In some small but significant way, this would be fitting repayment for the malevolence of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima. 

Paul Zimmerman is the author of A Primer in the Art of Deception:  The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science.  A more technical, fully referenced presentation of the fraudulent nature of current radiation standards and the coverup of the effects of depleted uranium weapons can be found within its pages. Excerpts, free to download, are available at


[1]  Gordon Edwards. Tepco Confirms the Presence of Radioactive Plutonium and Strontium Contamination. Email newsletter from Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition of Nuclear Responsibility ( September 4, 2011. 
[2]  Jay Gould, Benjamin Goldman. Deadly Deceit: Low Level Radiation, High Level Cover-Up. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows; 1990.
[3] Sue Sturgis. “Fooling with Disaster? Startling Revelations About Three Mile Island Raise New Doubts Over Nuclear Plant Safety.” Counterpunch. April 3-5, 2009.
[4]  Katagiri Mitsuru, Aileen M. Smith. Three Mile Island: The People’s Testament. (1989), a series of interviews with approximately 250 Three Mile Island (TMI) area residents from 1979 to 1988. 
[5]  European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk: the Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Regulators’ Edition.  Brussels; 2003.
[6]  Hiroko Tabuchi. Japan Strains to Fix a Reactor Damaged Before Quake. New York Times. June 17, 2011.
[7]  The Chernobyl Forum. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental
and Socio-economic Impacts. Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; April, 2006.
[8]  Janette D. Sherman. Chernobyl, 25 Years Later. CounterPunch. March 4-6, 2011.
[9]  A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko. Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature.  The New York Academy of Science. 2009. 
[10]  World Health Organization (WHO). Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Effects. Department of Protection of the Human Environment. WHO/SDE/PHE/01.1. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
[11]  International Atomic Energy Agency. Features: Depleted Uranium.
[12]  European Commission, Directorate General of Environment. Opinion of the Group of Experts Established According to Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty: Depleted Uranium. March 6, 2001.
[13]  Royal Society. Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions: Part I. London: Royal Society, March 2002.
        Royal Society. Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions: Part II. London: Royal Society, March 2002.
[14]  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Uranium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 1999.
[15]  Naomi H. Harley, Ernest C. Foulkes, Lee H. Hilborne, Arlene Hudson, C.R. Anthony. A Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War Illnesses: Volume 7 – Depleted Uranium. Santa Monica: Rand National Defense Research Institute; 1999. 
[16] Health Physics Society. 
[17]  Paul Zimmerman. A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science. 2009.  
Global Research Articles by Paul Zimmerman

Posted in Geo-Politics, Pollution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fukushima and the Battle for Truth

The nuclear industry’s trillion dollar question

Posted by Admin on April 18, 2011

The Akademik Lomonosov, a floating nuclear power station, is launched at Baltiyskiy shipyard in St. Petersburg, in this handout picture taken March 25, 2011. REUTERS/Baltisky Shipyard/Handout
On Monday 18 April 2011, 2:04 PM

By Muriel Boselli and Geert De Clercq

PARIS (Reuters) – In the inbox of Petr Zavodsky, director of nuclear power plant construction at Czech power group CEZ are three sets of proposals from American, French and Russian consortiums, all angling for a $30 billion contract to build five new reactors.

State-owned CEZ, central Europe’s biggest utility group, plans to build two additional units at its Temelin plant near the Austrian border as well as up to two other units in neighbouring Slovakia and another at its Dukovany station in the east of the Czech Republic.

In the running to build the plants are Toshiba Corp unit Westinghouse, an alliance of Russia ‘s Atomstroyexport and Czech firm Skoda JS, and France’s Areva.

Unlike Germany, which has said it will hasten its exit from nuclear energy following the crisis in Japan , and Italy, which has announced a one-year moratorium on plans to relaunch atomic power, the Czech Republic has no intention of slowing its push for more nuclear power. Less than a week after the Fukushima disaster, Prime Minister Petr Necas said that he could not imagine that Prague would ever close its plants. “It would lead to economic problems on the border of an economic catastrophe.”

At the same time there’s little doubt the Fukushima crisis will change the Czech Republic’s thinking about safety in the new plants — and that could influence whose bid will ultimately be successful.

“Nuclear energy works on the basis of lessons learned from past events,” Zavodsky told Reuters. “We will analyse what happened in Japan and will surely include recommendations arising from this analysis for suppliers in the tender.”

That’s just one way the Japan crisis is already changing the game for the nuclear industry.

Before Fukushima, more than 300 nuclear reactors were planned or proposed worldwide, the vast majority of them in fast-growing developing economies. While parts of the developed world might now freeze or even reduce their reliance on nuclear, emerging markets such as China, India, the Middle East and Eastern Europe will continue their nuclear drive.

But with fewer plants to bid on, the competition for new projects is likely to grow even fiercer — and more complicated. Will concern about safety benefit Western reactor builders, or will cheaper suppliers in Russia and South Korea hold their own? And what if the crisis at Fukushima drags on as appears likely? Could it still trigger the start of another ice age for nuclear power, like Chernobyl did in 1986? Or will it be a bump, a temporary dip in an upward growth curve?


With nuclear plants costing several billion dollars apiece, the answer to those questions may be worth a trillion dollars to the nuclear industry. Little wonder that the main players have rushed to reassure their clients that all is well.

On March 15, just three days after the first Fukushima reactor building blew up, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin flew to Belarus to revive a $9 billion plan to build a nuclear plant there, saying that Russia had a “whole arsenal” of advanced technology to ensure “accident-free” operation.

The next day, President Dmitry Medvedev met with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in Moscow and pledged to press ahead with a $20-billion deal to build a four-reactor Russian plant in Turkey. “The answer is clear: it can be and is safe,” Medvedev said.

It was a similar message in France, the world’s most nuclear-dependent country with 58 nuclear reactors that provide almost four-fifths of its electric power. “France has chosen nuclear energy, which is an essential element of its energy independence and the fight against greenhouse gasses,” president Nicolas Sarkozy said after his government’s first post-Fukushima cabinet meeting. ” Today I remain convinced that this was the right choice.”

The American nuclear industry has also gone on a public relations drive. The industry’s main lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, has been out in force in Washington since the disaster, kicking off its response with a meeting three days after the quake in which it briefed 100 to 150 key aides to U.S. lawmakers on the crisis.

“Our objective is simply to be sure policymakers understand the facts as we understand them,” Alex Flint, vice president for governmental affairs at the institute told reporters. To appreciate how much is at stake for the industry it’s worth remembering that until Fukushima the prospects for nuclear power had been at their brightest in more than two decades, reversing a long period of stagnation sparked by the Chernobyl disaster.

The number of new reactors under construction, up to 30 or more per year in the 1970s, dropped to low single digits in the 1990s and early 2000s; by 2008 the total number of reactors in operation was 438, the same number as in 1996, International Atomic Energy Agency data show. In the past few years, that trend has reversed itself, and in 2008 construction started on 10 new reactors, the first double-digit number since 1985.

Today , there are 62 reactors under construction, mainly in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia , India and China), with 158 more on order or planned and another 324 proposed, according to World Nuclear Association data from just before Fukushima. China, which currently has just 13 reactors in operation, has 27 more under construction and was planning or proposing another 160. India was planning or proposing 58 and Russia 44.

Anti-nuclear lobby activists argue that demand for safer designs will make nuclear power more expensive. That should help low-carbon renewables such as solar and wind, and end nuclear power’s momentum according to Greenpeace EU Policy Campaigner Jan Haverkamp. “Fukushima will end all this talk about a nuclear renaissance. The industry says nothing will change. Forget it,” Haverkamp said.

But even if Fukushima does increase public resistance to nuclear, it seems unlikely to stop the emerging market countries’ nuclear ambitions altogether. For one thing, public opinion in Asia does not drive policy like it does in the West. Even India, with a democratic tradition and a post-Bhopal sensitivity to industrial disasters, seems set to keep its nuclear plans on track.

“The global socio-political and economic conditions that appear to be driving the renaissance of civil nuclear power are still there: the price of oil, demands for energy security, energy poverty and the search for low-carbon fuels to mitigate the effects of global warming,” Richard Clegg, Global Nuclear Director at Lloyd’s Register told Reuters.


Few companies have more at stake than France’s Areva, the world’s largest builder of nuclear reactors. Even before the Japan crisis, the state-owned firm touted its next-generation, 1,650 megawatt reactor — designed to withstand earthquakes, tsunamis or the impact of an airliner — as the safest way to go.

Now Areva’s ramping up that message whenever it can. “Low-cost nuclear reactors are not the future,” Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon told French television just days after the first explosion at the Fukushima plant.

But Areva’s new EPR reactor is not without its own issues. Originally called the “European Pressurised Water Reactor” (EPR), Areva’s marketeers later rebaptised it the “Evolutionary Power Reactor”. Anti-nuclear activists mockingly refer to it as the “European Problem Reactor” because of its troubled building history.

Designed with multiple and redundant back-up systems to safeguard against natural disasters, the EPR’s design was updated after 9/11 to be able to withstand the impact of an airliner crashing into it. Areva’s Chief Technical Officer Alex Marincic says that the EPR’s design reduces the probability of a core meltdown to less than one in a million per reactor per year, compared to one in 10,000 for older second-generation reactors.

Even if the worst were to occur, the EPR comes with a “core catcher” below the reactor containment vessel that is designed to prevent a melting reactor from burrowing China Syndrome-style into the ground.

Marincic said that the EPR, and in particular its back-up diesel generators, would have resisted the force of the tsunami wave in Fukushima as all buildings and doors are designed to be leak tight and to withstand the force of an external explosion.

“Had the reactor in Fukushima been an EPR, it would have survived,” he said.

Construction of the first EPR started in 2005 in Olkiluoto, Finland, where Areva signed a three billion euro turn-key contract with Finnish utility TVO. But due to a string of construction problems, the project is now three years behind schedule and nearly 100 percent over budget. The reactor is not expected to come on stream before 2013 and Areva is embroiled in a bitter arbitration procedure with the Finns over who will shoulder the extra costs.

Work on a second EPR started in Flamanville, France in December 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2014, also after several years’ delay. French utility group EDF says that in 2010 the investment cost for the reactor was estimated at about five billion euros.

Areva is also building two EPRs in Taishan, southern China, due to come on stream in 2013 and 2014. Areva says that contract was worth eight billion euros.

The size of nuclear deals varies widely depending on what is included. At a minimum, a vendor can sell a reactor or a license to build it. But vendors can also take on construction of the reactor building or even the entire nuclear plant. Deals often also include long-term contracts for nuclear fuel delivery or financing by firms in the vendor country. Building costs also range enormously depending on where the plants are built.

In resource-poor India, for instance, where Areva is negotiating the sale of two EPRs, the deal could include 25 years of fuel deliveries, an Areva spokesman said. CEO Lauvergeon has referred to Areva’s strategy as the “Nespresso model” — Areva not only sells reactors, it enriches and sells uranium, and can recycle the spent fuel.

A French official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that Chinese authorities have told French partners that following the Fukushima disaster China now wants to use third-generation reactor designs for its smaller power plants.

This would be a huge boost for Areva, which is developing — with Japan ‘s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries — a new 1,100 megawatt ATMEA1 pressurized water reactor designed to supply markets with lower electricity needs.

Areva spokesman Jacques-Emmanuel Saulnier said the group is currently negotiating some twenty projects in countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, India, China and the Czech Republic. The firm still hopes to capture one third of the market for new reactors by 2030, though the Fukushima events may push back that target date.


Areva’s main competitor is Toshiba Corp unit Westinghouse, which is building four of its third-generation “Active Passive” AP1000 reactors in China, with the first expected to go on-line in 2013.

Considered to be the most up-to-date technology, the AP1000, rather than focusing on multiple back-up systems like the EPR, introduces the concept of “passive safety” which relies on gravity and natural convection flows of water — instead of pumps driven by electricity — to cool down the core in case of an emergency.

One of its key features is a 300,000 gallon water tank inside the containment area, above the core. Westinghouse says the AP1000 does not require backup diesel for cooling, as all water needed for an emergency will run down from the tank and begin the cooling process without the need for electricity or human intervention. The water would boil, turn to steam and condense on the inside of the steel containment vessel and then fall back into the core.

“So you have a perpetual rain forest in there,” Westinghouse Electric spokesman Vaughn Gilbert said. Kind of. The passive system would “last for three days and with minimal additional use of a small diesel you can go four additional days,” according to the company.

Like Areva, Westinghouse claims that its new reactor would have withstood the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami. The earthquake “would have been a non-event for the AP1000,” Westinghouse chief executive officer Aris Candris told Reuters.

The firm has said it expects to finalize agreements with China this fall to build 10 power plants with Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, on top of the four already under construction. Candris says that Westinghouse is in negotiations to sell more AP1000s in other countries including the UK, the Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania and was involved in preliminary discussions in Brazil and India.

“The share of the AP1000s in the market will go up following the events in Japan because more and more people — around the world and in China, the biggest market going forward — will see the advantages of the passive design,” he added.

Experts agree that passive safety is a good idea but urge caution.

The AP1000 design has not yet been approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the company acknowledges that the NRC may require more backup generators, batteries and other features at US nuclear plants as it integrates the lessons learned from Japan .

“No reactor that I know of can indefinitely take care of itself without external intervention,” said James Acton, Associate, Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Fukushima was a beyond-design basis event. The earthquake and particularly the tsunami were much larger than the plant was designed to withstand. You can have the most modern sophisticated well run reactor in the world but if it is hit by a beyond basis event, then you cannot guarantee the safety of the reactor,” he said.

Acton believes that “the industry as a whole will be damaged by the crisis in Japan and presumably General Electric” — which designed the Fukushima reactors — “will be damaged the most.”

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a tie-up between the two companies, has two “Advanced Boiling Water Reactors” (ABWR) third-generation plants in operation in Japan and a more recent design, the ESBWR, in the planning stages.

The firm lags some distance behind Areva and Toshiba-Westinghouse and is in no mood to look for commercial opportunities while the disaster in Japan is still unfolding. Officials refused to answer questions about how Fukushima might impact the power balance in the industry, saying that the firm remains focused on providing assistance to the people of Japan .

“Now is not the time to speculate on future sales,” GE Hitachi PR manager Michael Tetuan told Reuters.

Western firms do not have a monopoly on safety. Experts say that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ APWR, the Korean APR-1400, the Russian VVER and the Chinese CNP1000 are all third-generation reactors, each with their own merits.

Privately, the big players all seem happy to criticise their rivals’ reactor designs demerits. If you promise not to quote them, competitors will tell you that Areva’s EPR does not have much in the way of passive safety features, for instance, while French sources rarely fail to suggest that some rival reactors are not designed to withstand the impact of an airline crash.


It’s not all about safety features and price, of course. Nuclear contracts often come down to geopolitics. The firms that sell reactors are mostly state-owned which means negotiations about nuclear deals are often done government to government.

Even the privately owned U.S. reactor builders get an extraordinary level of diplomatic support. Numerous cables obtained by WikiLeaks show that U.S. missions, with the active support of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, have led lobbying initiatives for nuclear contracts in countries such as China, Hungary, South Africa, Kuwait , Abu Dhabi and Italy.

Just one example, from a February 23, 2009 cable from the U.S. embassy in Rome illustrates the size of the stakes and how closely U.S. and French diplomats watch each other. The cable recounts how the U.S. mission orchestrated a visit by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials who provided Italy with Washington’s views on nuclear power just as the Italian government prepared to reintroduce nuclear power after a twenty-year shutdown.

“U.S.-made nuclear reactors may prove to be the best technological and commercial choice for Italy, but intense French lobbying, including by President Sarkozy, could win the day for the French. The Mission will continue our efforts to provide U.S. nuclear technology firms with an opportunity to win what could be billions of dollars in contracts,” the confidential cable said.

The cable goes on to say that France was lobbying the Italian government at the highest political levels on behalf of Areva and that “all our sources conclude that a political decision by Berlusconi will likely trump any and all expert input.”

American diplomats said that the U.S. mission in Italy had been “vigorously promoting a broad effort to encourage new energy technologies”, paying special attention to the nuclear sector, “given the enormity of potential orders for U.S. firms”.

“U.S. company representatives and their Italian allies are apprehensive that absent high-level U.S. lobbying, French pressure will push the decision toward a purchase of their technology. We clearly need to engage at the highest level. Tens of billions of dollars in contracts and substantial numbers of high-technology jobs could be involved,” the cable concluded.

Areva spokesman Saulnier said that it is perfectly normal for countries to support their export industries. “In most cases we deal with private clients where the public authorities have no impact. But there are other cases, notably China, where the state-to-state relationship plays its full role and it is important that the political authorities not only give their imprimatur but work side by side with the French company,” he said.


Russia seems unworried about the impact of Fukushima, or at least determined to push on regardless, even though there is little doubt that the Fukushima fallout will hit the government’s ambitious goal to triple nuclear exports to $50 billion a year by 2030.

“The country that turns away from atomic energy today, will become dependent tomorrow on those who did not curtail it,” Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Russia ‘s state-owned nuclear power monopoly Rosatom, said recently in an interview with state television.

Rosatom says it is now building more nuclear plants than anyone — 14 of the 62 reactors under construction worldwide — including projects in China, India and a controversial first plant for Iran . It says it has orders to build some 30 more.

Russia also possesses about 40 percent of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity, and exports some $3 billion worth of fuel a year, offering discounts to clients who buy Russian-built reactors.

Experts say that while one-third of the operating reactors in Russia are ageing Chernobyl-style nuclear plants, the current export designs meet global safety standards. Rosatom’s main export reactors are the VVER-1000 and the VVER-1200 which it describes as a third “plus” generation light-water pressurised reactor and which sell for between $3 billion and $6 billion each.

Rosatom boasts that the twin VVER-1000 reactors in a plant that opened in 2008 in Tianwan, China, are the first in the world to feature a core-catcher — a safety net invented by Russian physicists after the Chernobyl disaster.

The company also says its active and passive safety barriers will cool its reactor for at least 72 hours without intervention. If temperatures rise too high, containment sprinklers with fast-melting metal caps spray coolant on the reactor. Two other passive systems are designed to flood the reactor with water in case of an emergency, both relying only on gravity. Two more VVER-1000s under construction in Kudankulam, India, are also outfitted with vents to allow excess heat to escape from the sealed reactor and be cooled at the roof of the containment dome, capping temperatures within.

“The Fukushima accident is the result of unlearnt lessons of Chernobyl,” Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said. “We have been learning our lessons for the past 25 years.”

Novikov said the fallout from Japan will force nuclear energy companies to protect against even more negligible risks. Work is already underway to protect plants in Russia against the “one-in-a million chance” of a gale-force tornado. New Russia plants to be built in Bulgaria and Turkey are designed to withstand the impact of a 400-tonne plane crashing into them.

“Chernobyl was a bad experience, but an experience nevertheless which we have learned from. Our reactors are definitely up to IAEA standards,” said Gennady Pshakin, a former International Atomic Energy Agency official who now heads a Russian institute in Obninsk.

But Norwegian environmental group Bellona, an authority on the Russian industry, has its doubts. In its latest report the group said that in order to reduce costs, Russia cuts corners on safety, from rushing licensing to using poor equipment and cheaper unskilled labour.

” Russia and Rosatom traditionally save money and beat their competitors with a quite low level of safety,” which should average about 40 percent of the capital cost, said Greenpeace energy expert Vladimir Chuprov, one of the authors of the report.

Environmentalists say that as Rosatom works to make its reactors as safe as Western models, it is becoming less competitive. “Prices are approaching those of the French EPR reactor series. If earlier Russian reactors were at least trusted to sell well because of the lower prices, this hope is now vanishing fast,” Russian environmental group Eco-Defense’s Vladimir Slivyak wrote in a comment on the Bellona site.

Russia ‘s ex-deputy minister for atomic energy Bulat Nigmatulin concedes that the Russian industry regularly scores export contracts by offering generous export credits to underbid competitors. Nigmatulin told Reuters that he had personally lobbied Putin to convince him of the importance of the nuclear industry, arguing that it is one of the few high-tech sectors in which Russia can compete globally. “It’s the only industry that we are not behind in and we must grow it, but there remains one big but: we must be governed by real economic logic,” he said.


As customers rethink the balance between safety and price, will safety now win out?

Just over a year ago, price was still a potent factor.

In early December 2009, Areva was convinced it would win a landmark contract with Abu Dhabi to build four reactors — the first nuclear power plants in the Gulf Arab region. Also in the running were Westinghouse, GE Hitachi and a consortium of South Korean firms with no prior experience of selling reactors abroad.

The final offers, according to a WikiLeaks cable, were “followed by intense political lobbying by Korean, French, Japanese and U.S. officials, including French President Sarkozy”, and the Japanese and Korean prime ministers “who all repeatedly called the Crown Prince.” South Korean President Lee Myung-bak even flew to the United Arab Emirates to personally defend the Korean bid with UAE President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan.

In the end it came down to price. The consortium led by GE Hitachi dropped its final price by “double-digit billions” according to a Wikileaks cable. But the Gulf state chose the rookie South Korean nuclear consortium, which proposed a price per kilowatt/hour that was 82 percent lower again according to a U.S. embassy cable obtained by WikiLeaks and seen by Reuters.

The winning consortium was led by state-run utility Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO) and included Hyundai Engineering and Construction and Samsung C&T Corp .

The Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC) said the value of the contract for the construction, commissioning and fuel loads for the four 1,400-MW APR1400 reactors was about US$20 billion, with a high percentage of the contract offered under a fixed-price arrangement.

In the end “the difference between the South Korean and the French reactors is a very safe reactor and an extremely safe reactor,” said James Acton at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Insiders say that it was not just price or safety considerations that drove ENEC’s decision. “Areva’s schedule slippage of over three years and cost overrun of over $3 billion on Olkiluoto did not help Areva,” an industry source told Reuters.

The French still hope that Abu Dhabi might change its mind and the market has been thick with rumours about a possible review, although industry watchers say these may have been spread by French diplomats in order to test Abu Dhabi’s resolve.

A spokesperson at Emirates nuclear corporation ENEC said that the UAE will continue to work with the South Koreans and is not looking to change partners.


The biggest prize remains China, which is buying reactors from American, French and Russian builders while working hard on developing its own.

Beijing favoured Westinghouse’s plant over Areva’s in March 2007 when the Toshiba-owned firm signed a technology transfer agreement worth about $5.3 billion that put the AP1000 at the core of China’s plans to develop its own “localized” reactors.

Industry experts say that Areva’s failure was caused by its reluctance to give away its patents. In 2007, China ditched plans to build two EPRs in Yangjiang on the southeast coast, choosing to use its own second-generation CPR1000 designs instead after growing frustrated at the pace of negotiations.

So far, the AP1000 is on budget and on schedule in China.

But Areva has fought back and has subsequently won its own deal to build two EPRs at Taishan, also in the southeast, after finally agreeing to transfer key technology to the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation.

Beijing ‘s impatience over third-generation plants has led to the fast-tracking of dozens of second-generation reactors, which led to charges of corner-cutting even before the Japanese quake.

In a paper published in January, scholars at the State Council Research Office said China was moving too fast and that many regions were bucking worldwide industry trends by building less reliable second-generation reactors. It recommended that apart from plants that have already been approved, all new nuclear projects should “in principle” be based on third-generation designs.

Li Ning , a nuclear expert and director of the Energy Research Center at China’s Xiamen University, told Reuters that because of the Fukushima crisis China’s focus will now shift further to third-generation technology.

That could give Westinghouse and Areva a competitive advantage, although it may not last very long. Just as Areva precursor Framatome adopted U.S. technology in the 1960s, the Chinese are learning quickly from their Western suppliers. Li expects that in the near future China will be capable of building projects abroad.

“When China localizes technology, manufacturing and construction it will be able to export to the rest of the world, sooner rather than later because the world will demand such newer technologies. China will have the advantage in manufacturing and skills and this advantage should not be restricted to the domestic market,” Li said.

U.S.-based independent nuclear consultant John Polcyn, who has worked in the nuclear industry worldwide for utilities as well as reactor vendors, expects that the Chinese will align with both Areva and Westinghouse to sell third-generation reactors abroad.

“The Chinese have publicly stated they can build nuclear power plants, including the EPR for 30 percent less than Areva. It could help Areva to be more cost-competitive,” Polcyn said.

He believes the two big Chinese firms will also market, build and operate China’s indigenous CNP1000 reactor. “The Chinese will claim the CNP1000 as a Generation III nuclear power plant, and I cannot disagree. The plants are designed to today’s latest requirements, have state-of-the-art, world-class digital control systems and use the latest materials,” he said.

He said that a number of Chinese entities are already marketing the CNP1000, notably in South Africa, Argentina and Saudi Arabia , where Chinese companies have been meeting with top officials.

The Chinese arrival on the reactor market will put pressure on the existing reactor suppliers, forcing them to take more cost and schedule risk for plant completions. Fukushima might buy the incumbents a bit more time, as China tries to incorporate the lessons learned, but not much.

“The Chinese announced their intent to begin exporting their nuclear power plant technology starting in 2013. I expect that due to the recent events in Japan there will be some delay, to 2014 or 2015. They are looking for opportunities,” Polcyn said. Even with the crisis in Japan , those opportunities aren’t likely to vanish.

(Reporting by Muriel Boselli and Geert De Clercq in Paris, Michael Kahn in Prague, Alissa de Carbonnel in Moscow , Scott DiSavino and Martin Howell in New York, Scott Malone in Boston, Eileen O’Grady in Houston, Amena Bakr in Abu Dhabi, Cho Meeyoung in Seoul, Krittivas Mukherjee in New Delhi, and David Stanway in Beijing ; Writing by Geert De Clercq; Editing by Simon Robinson )

Posted in Pollution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The nuclear industry’s trillion dollar question

What Does Fukushima’s New “Level 7” Status Mean?

Posted by Admin on April 12, 2011

Internationally recognized symbol.

Warning You are repeating the same MISTAKE!;_ylt=Ak4VUwEjp_Qj2Er6Ly0CkY9vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTVrYXBtbWdqBGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMTA0MTIvaHR0cGVjb2NlbnRyaWNibG9nc3RpbWVjb20yMDExMDQxMXdoYXRkb2VzZnVrdXNoaW1hZTI4MDk5c25ld2UyODA5Y2xldmVsN2UyODA5ZHN0YXR1c21lYW54aWRyc3NmdWxsd29ybGR5YWhvbwRwb3MDNwRzZWMDeW5fYXJ0aWNsZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA3doYXRkb2VzZnVrdQ–

By KRISTA MAHR Krista Mahr Tue Apr 12, 6:40 am ET

Japanese officials announced on Tuesday morning that they were planning to raise the event level at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant from a 5 to the maximum level of 7, the highest on the international scale for nuclear incidents and the same level assigned to the 1986 disaster at Chernobyl in the Ukraine.

The decision was made after Japan‘s nuclear safety body determined that at one point after the March 11 earthquake, the plant was releasing 10,000 terabecquerels of iodine-131 for several hours; level 7 accidents are defined as releasing tens of thousands of terabecquerels. “The INES rating itself is not an indicator of a daily phenomena, but the assessment after careful consideration and calculation on the event that happened in the past,” Ken Morita of NISA told TIME on Tuesday morning. (See inside Japan’s nuclear wasteland.)

NISA has also noted, however, that the amount of radioactive material being released at Fukushima today is less than 1 terabecquerel. The agency says that, to date, Fukushima has only released about 10% of total radiation released 25 years ago in Chernobyl, or about 1.8 million terabecquerels. About 30 people, mostly workers, died in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl, though the UN has estimated that the long-term death toll due to exposure could eventually be as high as 4000.

The International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), designed in 1989 by the IAEA and the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD, ranges from 1 (anomaly) to 7 (major accident). The scale is intended to help easily communicate with the public to indicate the seriousness of a nuclear event. Chernobyl is the only other nuclear accident to have been given a 7, an accident classified as having a major radioactive release with widespread impact on the environment and public health. According to INES, “Such a release would result in the possibility of acute health effects; delayed health effects over a wide area, possibly involving more than one country; long-term environmental consequences.” (Read the IAEA’s glossary of short- to long-term health effects of radiation exposure here.) (See the world’s top 10 environmental disasters.)

Besides Chernobyl, the only event that’s come close to a 7 before was a 1957 accident at a fuel processing plant (where spent nuclear fuel is recycled into new fuel) in Russia, in which an off-site release of radiation prompted preventative evacuations. The Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. in 1978, in which a reactor core was severely damage but off-site release of radioactivity was limited, was classified as a 5. Almost all reported events at nuclear facilities are a level 3 or under, according to INES.

Tuesday’s announcement comes on the back of a minor fire spotted by workers outside Fukushima’s reactor 4 on Tuesday morning, shortly after the second of three major aftershocks to hit the beleaguered northeast in the space of 24 hours. Three people in Iwaki died in landslides triggered by the 7.1 aftershock on Monday evening. The government also expanded the exclusion zone around Fukushima on Monday to include several towns within a 30-km (19-mile) radius that had formerly been told that they could remain at home, but were recommended to stay indoors. The towns now added to the mandatory evacuation zone were found to have high levels of radiation. (See the battle to hold Fukushima’s cores.)

Meanwhile, Greenpeace has said that in a survey conducted in Fukushima last week, its team of experts found radiation levels 75 times higher than the government recommendation in 11 samples of vegetables from gardens and small farms. The environmental group also announced that it found radiation levels equivalent to an annual exposure of 5 millisieverts – the evacuation threshold for Chernobyl – in a playground in Fukushima City, population 300,000. Greenpeace is urging the government to delay the start of the school year.

Though raising Fukushima’s level to 7 may not herald any immediate worsening of events, it is sure to add to many residents’ growing concern – and feelings of helplessness – over what could happen at dozens of other nuclear reactors spread across this seismic archipelago. On Sunday, over 17,000 people protested at two separate demonstrations in Tokyo against nuclear power. It was the first time that Yohei Nakamura, 45, had ever been to a protest. “For a long time I’ve been suspicious of nuclear power, but now I realize it’s a serious problem,” he said amidst the crowds carrying placards and shouting slogans. He said anti-nuclear demonstrations were undercovered in the Japanese press because of the influence of Tokyo Power and Electric Power Company, which owns Fukushima. “TEPCO is one of the most powerful companies in Japan,” Nakamura said. “They use a tremendous amount of money for adverstising. If the mass media shows anti-nuclear power activities like demonstrations, they risk losing TEPCO as an advertiser.”

Posted in Earth Changes, Pollution | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Does Fukushima’s New “Level 7” Status Mean?