RT On Air

Saturday, 19 March 2011

10 Amazing Sights Discovered Over Google Earth

Written by Tibi Puiu

I’ve really loved the Google Earth/Maps technology ever since it’s been first rolled out by the Silicon Valley giant many years back. The prospect of having my own digital satellite right on my notebook’s display has been simply mind blowing, keeping me constantly fascinated by how easy it is for me to reach far away places. Thanks to Google Earth I can now physically see where I need to go, what routes to take or even my cousin’s car in front of her flat in The Village. The possibilities are incredibly wide, as well as the privacy issues, but that’s another story.

However, along the years Google Earth hasn’t just been a source of geographical information, but also a valuable tool in spotting anything from a forest packed with undiscovered species, early-mammal fossils or even a huge cannabis plantation (sure beats finding crop circles). Bellow, I’ve listed a few truly amazing sights captured with Google Earth, that are either fun, odd or simply mind blowing captured by people with waaay to much time on their hands.

1. Arizona <3 Oprah

Oprah Crop Circle

Through out this list you’ll see a lot of crop circle ‘art,’ but this one can be considered by far one of the weirdest, not because it foretells of the arrival of an alien master race to enslave us all, but rather because it’s a really clear example of how far obsession and cult-like personality can go. Above captioned is the portrait of famous talk-show host Oprah Winfrey carved in a 10-acre crop by an Arizona farmer. Now that’s a fan! [see it on Google Maps | Coordinates: +33° 13' 33.18", -111° 35' 48.32"]

2. The Jet Plane Inside a Parking Lot

fighterjet

We’re used to using jet planes either on air stripes or in the sky, where they belong, not in a residential parking lot in a Parisian suburb as is the case in the above photo. Weird as heck! [see it on Google Maps | Coordinates: 48.825183,2.1985795]

3. A Farmer Who Hates Internet Explorer

firefox

Back in 2006, the Oregon State University Linux Users made this huge Mozilla Firefox logo in a corn field to celebrate the world’s most favorite web browser’s 50 millionth downloads. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: +45° 7′ 25.39″, -123° 6′ 49.08″ ).

4. The Huge Bunny In The Woods

134186-03_bunnyhuge

Built by a group of artists from Vienna, this huge 200 feet bunny rabbit thingy was built in Prata Nevoso, Italy a few years back. Quite cute. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: +44° 14′ 39.38″, +7° 46′ 11.05″)

5. The Bloody Iraqi Lake

iraq-blood-lake

This lake’s colour, located outside of Baghdad, Iraq, has been puzzling people for a lot of time now. Most likely, the reddish colour is a product of pollution or a water treatment facility (which might explain the corrosive colour). Then again, this might as well had been the dumping pool for Saddam’s enemies. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: 33.39845000,44.48416800 )

6. Building A Brand, Can By Can

coca-cola

What’s quite possibly the largest logo on Earth (if not, it’s definitely the biggest Coke logo), this is what advertising enthusiasts drool about. This huge Coke ad, 50m tall and 120m wide, was built using 70,000 empty coke bottles in northern Chile near Arica desert. This veritable Coke monument was meant to mark the anniversary of 100 years since the brand’s inception, as one can see in the photo (“100 aƱos” – 100 years). Don’t worry, tree huggers, the Aniro desert is one of the most barren places on Earth. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: -18° 31′ 45.21″, -70° 15′ 0.07″)

7. The Noble Clay Indian

134186-07_indianface

This is one of the most famous Google Earth photo to have circulated on the web. Dubbed the Badlands Guardian, this eroded valley very much resembles the face of a man, and if you take a closer look at the tip of the head, you might notice something like the feathery head-piece decoration native Americans used to wear. NOW, if you take an even closer look, you might notice what what may seem like a pair of iPod headsets. Pretty funky, right? Unfortunately, it’s just a road with a oil rig at it’s end. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: +50° 0′ 37.76″, -110° 7′ 0.86″ )

8. African Zoom

elephants

Google Earth is great, but it’s hard to tell a lot of thing apart at low res, this wonderful piece of African life, however, depicting a heard of elephants on the move, is one sweet exception. You can even see details in the grass! Simply wonderful. (See on Google Maps – be sure to zoom… a lot! | Coordinates: +50° 0′ 37.76″, -110° 7′ 0.86″)

9. The Highest Place … In Your Living Room

everest

Peeking at 8,848 metres  or 29,029 ft, Mount Everest is the highest place on Earth. Let’s face it, neither of us will ever get to climb it, but thanks to Google Earth, we now have an incredible view of the mountain from the high-up. When I first found it, I was simply stunned by it’s beauty. Be sure to scroll around it when viewing it – the perspective of it all will undoubtedly send a few shivers up your spine. So serene, yet to deadly! (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: +27° 59′ 9.12″, +86° 55′ 42.38″)

10. Stunning Victoria Falls

victoriafalls

One of the tallest and, at the same time, most spectacular waterfall in the world, Victoria Falls never ceases to amaze people. This true spectacle of nature should be on everybody’s must-see/go-to list, but until you book a flight to Zimbabwe, Google Earth should do the trick. (See on Google Maps | Coordinates: -17° 55′ 31.84″, +25° 51′ 29.60″)

Note: Use the coordinates for inputting into Google Earth. If you’d have the software installed, you can use Google Maps as an alternative. It’s not even half as fun, but still pretty incredible.
Sources: TIME, PCworld, Google Earth Cool Places, random googling :)

Follow ZME Science

 Subscribe in a reader

Thursday, 17 March 2011

GetUp - shock-jocks/ultra conservative 'Australian Tea Party' rally against climate action in electorate of Independent MP Rob Oakeshott - TV and radio scare-campaign coming.

About an hour ago I received a call from a GetUp member in Port Macquarie. He's in the electorate of Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, who has one of the deciding votes on climate change policy this year.

This GetUp member was worried because shock-jocks and ultra conservative groups like the 'Australian Tea Party' have just announced a rally against climate action in his area - and they're collecting money for a local TV and radio scare-campaign too. He wanted to know how GetUp members could respond.

But it's not just Port Macquarie. Across the country, ultra-rightwing politicians, radio shock-jocks and corporate polluter lobbyists are trying to engineer a dangerous lie - that Australians are mobilising against climate action. They've ripped it straight from the playbook of the Tea Party in the USA.

What does it look like to prove them wrong - to win the fight for a price on pollution?

Well, we started winning on Saturday. You may not have seen this if you're outside Victoria, but when we heard that talkback radio shock-jocks were organising a rally against climate action in Melbourne, thousands of us came together with local climate groups for a rally of our own, and we turned their media coverage on its head.

Check out this video to see what happened on Saturday - and how, with your support, we can continue to win the fight for a price on pollution:

https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateChampions

We may not have mining magnates, carbon czars nor polluters' press on our side, but we do have the numbers. Together, each of us chipping in, our sum total will be far greater than its parts - and able to match the polluter lobby's campaign where it counts: out on the streets and on the air. Will you fund the fight for our future with $10 a week until we win the battle for a price on carbon?

With your $10 a week we'll be able to rebuff every attempt by the anti-climate campaign to win the battle for public opinion - like we did on Saturday. Together we'll:
  • Hold events like the 8,000 strong rally in Melbourne to dwarf rallies against climate action. This costs real money: insurance and first-aid, staging, sound systems, power-generators, placards, posters etc.
  • Commission investigative research to expose the vested corporate interests and dirty money that's funding the campaign against climate action
  • Produce rapid-response radio and TV ads to counter fear with facts - particularly in the Independents' electorates, which are being targeted for ad scare-campaigns against climate action.
  • Build cutting-edge online tools to help you effectively advocate for climate action: connecting to talk-back radio, calling politicians and writing to voters in battleground electorates.
For the next six months, your $10 a week can make the difference in the battle for a clean future. All we're waiting for are the funds to hit 'go'.

https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateChampions

It's rare that we're blessed with opportunities like this - the chance to have a real impact on the decisive moments that determine the path Australia takes. Normally, the size of the task at hand - going up against Australia's most powerful lobby - would deter most individuals from doing anything. But we know that we have something more powerful: each other.

Thanks for all that you do,
Simon on behalf of the GetUp team



 Subscribe in a reader

Tuesday, 15 March 2011

High speed rail: China's new silk road?

Roger Irvine is writing a PhD on China's future at the University of Adelaide. He spent most of 2010 conducting research at Tsinghua University in Beijing. 

Part one of this series here;
part two here
part three here

 Subscribe in a reader

Robert Fisk: Palestinians understand Gaddafi better than we do

To Beirut. Storms. Heavy rain. Seas sweeping over the little port by my home.
A meeting with a close friend of a son of Gaddafi. "He wants a battle, habibi, he wants a battle. He wants to be the big guerrilla hero, the big man who fights the Americans. He wants to be the Libyan hero who takes on the colonialists. Mr Cameron, Mr Obama, they will do it for him. They will give him the hero title. They will do what he wants." 

There is a lot of cigar smoke in the room. Far too much. So to the refugee camp at Mar Elias. A man who escaped the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982, white-haired now, my age, shaking his head at the plight of his people in Libya. "You know we've 30,000 people there, Robert? Gaddafi flung them out more than 10 years ago. Most of them are from Gaza. They went there and the Egyptians wouldn't let them cross and the Israelis wouldn't let them home, and so they came back and now they stay in Libya and hope for the best from this guy!" 

Poor old Palestinians. I should have guessed something was up in Jerusalem last year when an Israeli journalist asked me about the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the agency that has been caring for Palestinian refugees for 60 years. "I'm sure," he announced to me, "that they have some connection with terrorism, that they play a role in keeping terrorism going. What are they really doing in Lebanon?" At the time, I thought this all a bit odd. If any UN institution does its job well, it is UNRWA, arranging for the food, education, healthcare and other needs of millions of Palestinians who lost – or whose parents or grandparents lost – their homes in 1948 and 1949 in what is now Israel. 

A visit to the filth of the Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut, or to Ein el-Helweh in Sidon, is enough to teach anyone that amid this swamp of misery and hopelessness, UNRWA represents the world's only collective sympathy, underfunded, short-staffed, poor though it is. Yet now, the whole organisation is being singled out by a right-wing Israel and its so-called (and self-proclaiming) supporters as purveyors of darkness, "de-legitimisers", a network of support for Palestinians which must be destroyed lest the poorest of the poor – including those in the misery of Gaza – become addicted to their social services. UNRWA – I find it hard to believe this is a real quotation from a research fellow at a major US university, but it is – has "created a breeding ground for international terrorism". 

I suppose we might as well laugh as cry, but this comes from a cruel – indeed vicious – article that appeared in the American Commentary magazine a few weeks ago, written by one Michael Bernstam, a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. I single it out not because it is atypical, but because it represents a growing and quite ruthless trend in right-wing Israeli thinking, the kind of self-delusional brutality that is supposed to persuade us that the destiny of the poorest of the Palestinian poor is the destruction of their camps. In his article, Bernstam actually claims that "for 60 years, UNRWA has been paying four generations of Palestinians to remain refugees, reproduce refugees and live in refugee camps", where it is, "in effect, underwriting a self-destructive Palestinian cycle of violence, internecine bloodshed and a perpetual war against Israel". Get the point? The UN is now the fount of all terror. 

There was a time when this kind of drivel would be ignored but it is now part of an increasingly dangerous narrative in which charity is turned into evil, in which the one institution supplying help to perhaps 95 per cent of almost five million Palestinian refugees is to become a target. And since UNRWA in Gaza did appear to become a target in the 2008-9 bloodbath, this is pretty frightening stuff. 

But hold on. It goes further. "UNRWA's mandate created ... a permanent supranational welfare state in which simply placing most Palestinians on the international dole has extinguished incentives for work and investment ... and created a breeding ground for international terrorism. It is this open-ended refugee status that puts bread on the table in the rent-free house, together with an array of rent-free services." This allows the Palestinians – mark these words – a "permanent refugee ... war as it is fuelled by a particular 'right of return' claim – the argument that the Palestinians should be given title to the land they occupied before Israel's independence". 

Note that word "occupied". Far from owning the land, they "occupied" it! They had a "particular" "right of return" claim. And – wait for the next bit: "The claim of the Palestinian right of return is intended for one historical ethnic diaspora of the descendants of perennial refugees to repopulate another people's nation-state, Israel. This is not the right of return to a country; this is the right of return of a country, a reconquest after a lost war, a claim of the right of retake." 

And so it goes on and on and on ... UNRWA should be abolished, which "would signal the end of the world body's support for the continuance of the Palestinian's agony ... Israel is obviously unsuitable as a country of resettlement because integration there is not feasible ... Instead of perpetuating the dead end that the international welfare state for the Palestinians represents, ending UNRWA's horrific six-decade reign would instantly create the conditions for an honest, meaningful and viable peace process to begin in the Middle East".
There you have it. Mr Bernstam should meet Mr Gaddafi. They have a lot in common. Total contempt for the Palestinians. Total abuse for a people who have lost their future and their lives. Total abuse for anyone but their own tribe. Wasn't it Gaddafi who invented the word "Israeltine"?



 Subscribe in a reader

Memo to market: High oil prices are DE-flationary

Kurt Cobb


As the European Central Bank (ECB) prepares to raise interest rates to prevent inflation, the bank cites rising commodity prices, particularly oil prices, as a sign of that inflation. What the bank and other market participants don’t seem to understand is that high commodity prices and, in particular, high oil prices are deflationary.

The logic is so simple it’s hard to understand why smart people with advanced degrees can’t see it. Commodities, particularly oil, pull money away from other sectors of the economy. When people are forced to choose between paying for heat and gasoline or paying the mortgage, they pay for heat and gasoline. Cars don’t budge without gasoline (unless you can afford an electric one) and most people need their cars to get to work. The heat can be turned off rather quickly by the utility company in comparison to the glacial pace of a mortgage foreclosure that can take many months and sometimes more than a year.

This situation is particularly problematic because it pulls money out of the financial sector. And, despite all the nonsense about the financial industry being on the mend, the industry is actually becoming more and more vulnerable by the day as it increases its exposure and leverage to financial and commodity markets. The speculative animal spirits of the banks, hedge funds and other large investors, buoyed by all the virtually free money available for borrowing and huge taxpayer-financed injections into zombie banks, may now be hurtling us toward another jaw-dropping financial catastrophe. As Hyman Minsky might put it, stability and prosperity lead to instability and crisis as market participants become more and more emboldened on the upswing creating the illusion that all is well. Then, when prices and credit expansion go beyond what the economy can sustain, a decline ensues that is often dramatic as confidence suddenly shifts to revulsion and fear.

As housing prices continue to sink, the immense amount of bad mortgage debt still floating around the financial system becomes even more putrid than before. Someday the institutions which hold the debt will have to stop pretending that they are going to get paid back. But the prelude to that will be deflation brought on by the high prices of oil and commodities which tend to depress economic activity as household spending is reserved for essentials rather than discretionary items. As the animal spirits in the markets get dampened by the realities in the economy, the stage is set for a crisis–a turning point when confidence and liquidity turn into fear and illiquidity as big investors try to exit positions all at the same time.

Compounding the deflationary forces inherent in high commodity prices are severe cutbacks by states hit by declining revenues, federal cutbacks, and austerity programs now being implemented across Europe. All of these add to the deflationary juggernaut.

It is certainly possible that commodity prices including oil could rise much higher before the effects described above finally topple the economy. And, it’s possible that those prices could moderate and fall gently in a way that might lengthen any economic recovery under way. But it does seem that we are much closer to a top in commodity prices than to a bottom.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board seems to agree that high oil prices could be deflationary. One of the Fed governors indicated that the Fed’s attempts to boost the economy by buying government bonds (and thus lowering long-term interest rates) could be extended if oil prices continue to rise.

I don’t know what the interest rate policy for the ECB or the Federal Reserve should be. I think neither have good options. I do know that 10 of the last 11 recessions were preceded by oil price shocks. And, this time we are dealing with shocks not only in oil, but also in food, just as we did in 2008. And, I don’t have to remind readers what happened after that.

Will we see a repeat of 2008 in 2011? Mark Twain used to say that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” So far the stanzas of 2011 seems to be rhyming quite well with those of 2008. There have been price spikes in food and oil followed by denials that these could derail the economy coupled with unrest on the streets of many countries related in part to high food and energy costs. But I’d say look for an unexpected divergence between the two periods. Whether that divergence turns out to be detrimental or felicitous will, however, not change the fact that high commodity prices are deflationary.

Kurt Cobb is the author of Prelude, a peak oil-themed novel, and a columnist for the Paris-based science news site Scitizen. His work has been featured on Energy BulletinThe Oil Drum321energy,Common DreamsLe Monde DiplomatiqueEV World, and many other sites. He is a founding member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas—USA, and he serves on the board of the Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solutions.  His writes a blog called Resource Insights.

 Subscribe in a reader

The end of imperialism?

Luke Eastwood


What the world is witnessing in the Middle East is an unprecedented revolt against dictatorship and oppression. Of course similar revolts against this form of government have occurred around the world over millennia, but these have generally been forgotten.  
 
Much of the Middle East was conquered by the Ottoman Empire and retained for hundreds of years, this situation was overturned as a result of another imperial struggle that the Turks were dragged into – the first world war. Having promised the various nations of Arabia their freedom, the British gained their support, (largely due to T. E. Lawrence) and eventually defeated the Arabs.  As usual, the British and French who between them had control of north Africa and Arabia, reneged on the deal and kept and divided the entire region as spoils of war.

Ostensibly the British and French empires collapsed following the second world war, with India starting a trend that would sweep most of the colonial world. Some countries retained close links with their former imperial masters e.g. through trade and the British Commonwealth, but in theory all of these former colonies became independent sovereign nations.

In reality these countries never became truly free – corrupt government, commercial coercion and unserviceable loans have meant that most of these former colonies are free in name only – the imperial powers, in the guise of corporations still plunder the natural resources of the former colonies while the bulk of the populace remain in poverty.

This situation has continued and even progressed in some cases, with countries forced to hand over their nation’s wealth to repay the IMF and individual countries, whilst at the same time giving corporations free reign to exploit both the land and the population. As the former imperial nations  (such as Britain, America and France) have increasingly depleted their own resources, the need to further exploit the poor but resource rich former colonies has become increasingly urgent.

It is only now, in this new century, that the downtrodden are beginning to realize that their so-called emancipation was in fact a sham – that is why rioting and rebellion is tearing across the globe in all the nations that are puppet states of the ex-imperial overloads. It would appear that the game is up, if the ex-imperial powers want to continue to lord in over these nations it will have to be the iron fist alone from now on, the velvet glove will no longer conceal their intentions. It is highly likely that America/Europe will try to oversee the installation of a new set of puppet dictators to ensure their interests are maintained, however I doubt that such a ruse will work given the new level of sophistication and understanding amongst the populace of these countries.

If this fails then that leaves only two options for  America/Europe – using their massive technological advantage to invade and control these nations through military might, or to renegotiate terms of trade in a way that is fair for these resource rich countries. At the moment the former option might seem attractive to America especially, however I believe that the prohibitive cost of gaining control and maintaining it would be so large that it would be unsustainable even if it initially succeeded. As the balance of power shifts away from America and the European former super-powers their machinations become more desperate, but ultimately they may well be forced to accept governments that are unfavourable and also be forced to cut trade deals that actually give a fair price for what was formerly plundered or bought for a pittance.

The final outcome is still very much ‘up in the air’ but it is likely to lead to downgrading of western wealth to the benefit of resource rich developing nations, the only other possible scenario is an endless war over resources which would ultimately benefit no-one and be to the great detriment of humanity and the planet as a whole.

You can read more on my facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Neo-Luddism/156403284402055

 Subscribe in a reader

Fukushima: The End of the Nuclear Renaissance?

 Posted by Eben Harrell

Author Archive

Today I was scheduled to attend a press briefing in London with Sir David King, the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the British government. Sir David was due to address the future of nuclear power in the U.K.. This morning, I received a hurried voicemail from Sir David's press spokesman: thanks to the events in Japan, the meeting had been called off.

So it goes right now with nuclear power in Europe. As the continent watches in horror as Japanese officials scramble to prevent meltdown at three nuclear reactors in Northern Japan, countries that were once at the vanguard of a nuclear renaissance have begun to rethink and even, in some cases, reverse, their policies on nuclear power. On Monday, the Swiss government suspended plans to build and replace nuclear plants, scuppering three proposed reactors and, for the time being at least, any future plans for more. Germany, too, indicated that it would rethink its nuclear policy after Chancellor Angela Merkel suspended a plan to extend the lives of 17 power plants; Italy and Poland decided to rethink prior decisions to invest in nuclear energy, and Finland and the UK governments both pledged to undertake a review of the safety of reactors.
And even countries without reactors began to consider what steps they could take to slow the growth of the nuclear industry until safety fears could be addressed. In the wake of Fukushima, nuclear-free Austria asked the EU for stress tests on nuclear plants.

"Our neighbors are banking on nuclear energy," said Austrian Environment Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich, referring to Germany and nearby Slovakia and Slovenia. "We are demanding maximum safety guarantees for the Austrian people, and all of our neighbours must be able to provide the same guarantee for their citizens."
I've been covering nuclear energy in Europe out of TIME's London bureau for four years. When I started, the industry buzzed with excitement. Europe was talking tough about reducing carbon, oil prices were high, and the global nuclear safety record had been almost unblemished for 20 years. "Nuclear isn't the devil anymore; the devil is coal" the charismatic CEO of French nuclear giant Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, told an industry conference 2007. I wrote about this heady optimism in a story for TIME, "Forget Chernoybl," for which I visited Areva's new nuclear reactor, the construction of which had built up a 21st century version of a "boom town" in tiny Olkiluoto, Finland. I concluded that conditions favored nuclear power.

But I had an important caveat: "Even the most optimistic proponent of atomic energy knows that another accident could halt the industry's growth. In 1974, President Richard Nixon predicted that the U.S. would have 1,000 plants in operation by the end of the century. Then came the disasters at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986. By the turn of the millennium, only 104 plants were operating in the U.S."

So far, it is looking like the Fukushima accident might be precisely such a game changer. The problem is that nuclear power requires political support. In some cases, that means subsidies; in others it simply means permission to build. And even if a government decides to allow new nuclear power plants--Sweden, for example, said it has no plans in light of Fukushima to review a recent decision to allow existing reactors to be replaced—the nuclear industry also requires a favorable regulatory environment. Nuclear  executives have for years complained to me off-the-record that the licensing process in many European countries and the U.S. was overly cumbersome, costly and slow. There is some debate about whether nuclear power is a profitable investment without subsidy—but wherever you fall on that debate there's no doubt that expensive safety standards both in building and operation doesn't help the economic case for atom-splitting.

Of course the regulatory environment is likely going to get only stricter now in Europe, unless every safety review ordered up by European politicians finds that reactors are completely fail-safe, which of course they are not. Swiss energy minister Doris Leuthard, for example, said on Monday that if the country decides to eventually allow new plants, it will only be after new or tougher safety standards had been adopted "particularly in terms of seismic activity and safety."

Similar debate is also ongoing in the U.S. President Obama has said he thinks nuclear should play a large part in supplying energy in the U.S, but according to a recent report in the New York Times  "he is injecting a new tone of caution into his endorsement. “Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S," said Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, according to the New York Times.

A big test of the U.S. political mood toward nuclear will come on Wednesday, when Obama's pledge of $36 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees for the construction of as many as 20 new nuclear plants will be reviewed by Congress' Energy and Commerce Committee.  Steven Chu, the energy secretary, and Gregory B. Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are scheduled to testify.
The environmental movement has a strange historical relationship with nuclear power. In many countries, opposition to nuclear reactors in the wake of Chernobyl gave rise to major Green political parties. Many environmentalists still oppose nuclear power--Greenpeace, for example, still calls for the phase out of all reactors. But as climate change has taken over the Green agenda, other environmentalists have come to favor nuclear  as part of a low-carbon energy mix.  It was this confluence of factors—fading memories of Chernobyl and increased concern about greenhouse gases--that gave the nuclear industry such confidence just a few years ago. That confidence will have been deeply shaken by events in Japan.

Gillard takes on shock jock Alan Jones on qanda over climate change, not prepared to let them ''spew nonsense'

Julia Gillard has admitted her response to broadcaster Alan Jones's description of her as Ju-Liar wouldn't be suitable for the airwaves.

''Some words you probably can't use on the ABC, even at this time of night'', she said on the ABC's Q&A.
''I think it would be a bad result if tomorrow people were [watching] TV, and then the Prime Minister said 'beep, beep beep'. I'll try not to do that.''
Julia Gillard on the ABC last night.

But she said she went on Mr Jones's Sydney radio program ''because I'm not going to let people spew nonsense uncontested'', including denying climate change.

Ms Gillard also said she was sure last week's damaging leak from an adviser criticising Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd was not from anyone in her office.

She defended Mr Rudd, saying when she gave him the job she knew he would be an activist foreign minister. She also stood behind his advocacy of the ''no-fly zone'', which she had been more equivocal about last week. She pointed out last night that the Arab League now supported such a policy.

WikiLeaks' Julian Assange confronted Ms Gillard via a video question. He said Australian citizens wanted to know: ''Which country do you represent? Do you represent Australians and will you fight for Australian interests?

''We have intelligence that your government has been exchanging information with foreign powers about Australian citizens working for WikiLeaks.

''When will you come clean about precisely what information you have supplied the foreign powers about Australian citizens working or affiliated with WikiLeaks?''

Ms Gillard laughed and said: ''I represent this country all day every day. You don't have an accent like mine and get confused with being someone from another nation.''

She said: ''No one in the United States raised with me Mr Assange, no one.''

Assange confronts Gillard with Q&A over 'swapping information'


 Subscribe in a reader

What You Aren’t Being Told About Ethanol and Corrosion

Join the forum discussion on this post


Good Ideas Gone Bad

History is littered with examples of ideas that seemed to be good for a while, but were later discovered to have unpleasant consequences. The pharmaceutical industry is full of cases of promising drugs that went through testing, received FDA approval, and then when they were rolled out on a large scale were found to have serious side effects.

In the energy business, for example, the addition of MTBE to the fuel supply at one time seemed like a good idea. It served as an oxygenate and provided another market for natural gas, but as we now know there were negative consequences.

Indeed, it is possible that with the benefit of hindsight, we will decide that hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to recover shale gas was a bad idea. There is certainly controversy surrounding the practice, with many accusations of ground water contamination linked to fracking.

I often wonder whether we will look back at our great ethanol experiment as a bad idea. We have already seen some of the consequences. While die-hard ethanol supporters may still try to argue that expanded ethanol use has not impacted food prices, that argument is simply not credible. It isn’t believable that using a major fraction of the corn crop for ethanol production hasn’t contributed to the run-up in corn prices. Proponents may argue that the overall run-up in energy prices has a larger impact on food prices (and I would agree with that). They may argue that the impact from using corn for ethanol is only a few percentage points, but even a 1% increase in food prices amounts to $12 billion a year in the U.S. alone given our $1.2 trillion annual food expenditure.

A Transfer of Wealth

That leads me to sometimes wonder whether our ethanol mandates have resulted in true net wealth creation, or whether it simply amounts to a transfer of wealth from around the U.S. (and even the world) into the corn-growing states. I can recall a discussion I had with my dad on this several years ago. He is a cattle rancher in Oklahoma who also farms a little. In fact we grew a fair amount of corn when I was growing up there. In 2005 I was about to give testimony to the Montana State Legislature on a proposed ethanol mandate. My position was that the mandate wouldn’t do much to benefit Montana farmers, because Montana isn’t exactly prime corn-country.

My dad asked me at the time why I wanted to testify against farmers. I explained that it wasn’t farmers I was testifying against – or even ethanol per se – it was the idea of a mandate which would limit choices and have potentially unpleasant consequences. A few years later — in response to much higher feed prices — he had to sell his entire cattle herd. Money had been transferred from his small cattle operation into the hands of Midwestern corn farmers, and he understood first hand the meaning of unintended consequences.

Corrosion is Complicated

That preamble brings me to the topic of this essay. Talk to an ethanol proponent about methanol, and they will cite corrosion as a serious issue. But mention that ethanol is also corrosive, and they will insist that testing has proven that it isn’t a concern. But corrosion is a problem that often takes some time to manifest itself. Corrosion testing in the petrochemical industry is an important, but time-consuming process. Despite testing, we often see corrosion where we thought we had corrosion-resistant materials.

It may take a decade or two before we can really evaluate the overall impact that ethanol had on contributing to corrosion in automobiles and in our fuel infrastructure. Already we hear of anecdotal tales of people complaining that they had to spend money repairing a component whose failure was blamed on ethanol, but over time it should become clearer whether these issues are more common than they were before ethanol started making up 10% of the national gasoline pool.

UL Looks at E15

And while ethanol proponents assure us that there are no corrosion concerns, a report that was released last November — but that got almost no media attention — should have raised some warning flags. The study was conducted by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The purpose of the testing was to expose various pieces of fuel dispensing equipment that were UL-approved for E10 service to 15% ethanol blends (E15) to assess compatibility.

The results — especially given repeated reassurances that E15 poses no risk — are surprising to say the least. But then perhaps because of the highly politicized nature of the ethanol debate — plus the fact that they did the report for NREL, which is pro-ethanol — the authors sugarcoated the findings:

The overall results of the program were not conclusive insofar as no clear trends in the overall performance of all equipment could be established. New and used equipment such as shear valves, flow limiters, submersible turbine pumps, and hoses generally performed well. Some new and used equipment demonstrated a reduced level of safety or performance, or both, during either long-term exposure or performance tests. Dispenser meter/manifold/valve assemblies in particular demonstrated largely noncompliant results. Nozzles, breakaways, and swivels, both new and used, experienced noncompliant results during performance testing. Responses of nonmetals, primarily gaskets and seals, were involved with these noncompliances.

This is the point where we have to go to our due diligence handbook. What do they mean when they write that there were “no clear trends in the overall performance of all equipment?” Which pieces of equipment showed “a reduced level of safety or performance”, and why hasn’t this gotten more coverage? Finally, what exactly do they mean by “noncompliant results” and “noncompliances?”
To get answers to these questions, I had to read through the report to understand exactly what they were saying. The pieces of equipment — consisting of valves, hoses, pumps, etc. — were subjected to a series of tests to simulate long-term usage in the field. These pieces of equipment are in widespread use today in our fuel infrastructure. In this case, I think a picture is worth well over a thousand words, so I am copying the table of results from the tests:


Summary of Underwriters Laboratories Testing of Fuel Dispensing Equipment for E15 Compliance

I don’t know about you, but to claim that there were “no clear trends in the overall performance of all equipment” is quite a stretch. There appears to be a very clear trend, and that is that much of the equipment tested showed that it was not compatible with E15.

If you are keeping score, only three of eight categories of new dispensing equipment tested — fewer than 40 percent — passed all compliance tests. When used equipment was examined — that is to say the equipment found in our existing fuel infrastructure — none of the categories were shown to be fully compliant. Bear in mind that this is equipment that is certified to be E10 compliant, and likely the sort of equipment that would be contacted by E15 were it to be broadly adopted. And this isn’t anecdotal evidence; this is Underwriters Laboratories.

How About More Transparency?
Now perhaps it is a bit clearer why automakers have sued to stop implementation of E15. If fuel dispensing equipment is failing tests in E15 service — and we are not being informed about that — how likely is it that there will be huge numbers of issues in cars that were not specifically designed for E15? I would put that probability as quite high, and I don’t expect that the ethanol industry is standing by prepared to cover those repair bills. It also leads me to wonder more about the long-term implications of E10. If we eventually determine that automobile component lifetimes have been shortened by a year or two due to exposure to ethanol, there will have been a very heavy cost to consumers.

An issue that fellow energy blogger Geoffrey Styles picked up on is that in approving automobiles for E15 service, the EPA didn’t assess whether cars would suffer damage from E15. Rather the waiver was granted on the basis of those cars not emitting more pollutants when using E15. That leads me back to the automobile manufacturers for assurance, and if they won’t assure us that putting E15 in our vehicles won’t harm them, then E15 has no business being put in our fuel supply.

Of course this doesn’t mean that equipment can’t be designed to be E15 compatible. If you are putting in new infrastructure or building a new car, there is no reason that all of the parts can’t be constructed to be E15 compatible. But one thing is clear: Existing equipment has shown to be incompatible with E15, and that information has been kept quiet.

Can My Choice Be E0?

The ethanol industry has recently claimed what it really wants is for consumers to have a choice. I can support that. If consumers want to put E15 in their cars, then they should be allowed to do so if they are prepared to assume the risk (and understand the risks). But I wonder if that choice extends to me choosing to put E0 in my car? I wonder if the ethanol industry would back blending pumps that would allow me to put any concentration of ethanol in my car, give up their mandate, and let the chips fall where they may? I suspect the result would be as it has been in Germany, where consumers have simply refused to buy ethanol blends over similar concerns. So I suspect what the industry really wants is choice — as long as that choice still involves putting ethanol in your car.

 Subscribe in a reader

Funding public media: How the US compares to the rest of the world

With this week’s NPR news has renewing the debate about de-funding public broadcasting, it’s worth highlighting a recent report (pdf) that puts our public broadcasting system into perspective when compared with 14 countries around the world.


Though cutting public broadcasting appropriations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would essentially limit the “public” nature of our system by cutting out the government, it’s important to remember that most public radio stations receive only about 10 percent of their money from CPB. For many public radio stations, though, if it comes to it, the loss of this federal money may make it all the harder to sustain local programming — and local newsgathering — if it cannot be found elsewhere.

Taking a look at the report, compiled by Rodney Benson and Matthew Powers of NYU’s Department of Media, Culture and Communication, which includes a close breakdown of the public service models of Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK.

Some key findings:
• US per capita spending on public broadcasting is $4.
• Research fairly consistently shows that public television, simply put, makes for better quality news.
• As a corollary, public service television, at least in Denmark, Finland, the UK, and the US, makes people better informed and encourages higher levels of news consumption.
• The most trusted public broadcasters are those that are perceived as closest to the public, and most distant from the government and advertisers.
• While some countries play around with appropriations, many of these are for multi-year periods, creating some insulation from political pressure. And other countries, like the UK, Japan, and the Netherlands, rely primarily on license fees.
• Independent buffers between governments and the broadcasters help keep the government out of the content.
• Public broadcasters are all over the board when it comes to Internet transitions. Some are trying to figure out how to raise the money to make things more innovative, while others, like the BBC, are pioneers.
• Government newspaper subsidies are alive and well, and have been for a long time — many since the 1970s. They help keep afloat struggling newspapers and create a diversity of opinion. In some cases, they are even sponsoring innovation online. They exist in Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.
• Public broadcasters, even in Europe, are facing pressure from commercial broadcasting — and hedge between trying to fulfill public service missions and compete by appealing to large audiences.
• It could be a lot worse.
In New Zealand, in 1989, the public broadcaster TVNZ lost all its funding and was actually required to produce dividends to pay back to the national treasury. Though some public funding has been restored, pretty much all New Zealand has is New Zealand on Air, a public media agency that gives out public funding to commercial and non-commercial channels. New Zealand has managed to keep Radio New Zealand publicly funded.

Some recommendations the report includes:
• Just because we aren’t Europe doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to have strong public broadcasting.
• Make appropriations for multi-year arrangements, or better yet, establish a trust for public broadcasting.
• As the authors note: “The question is not if government should be involved, but how, and that is a question that demands an in-depth conversation, not a shouting match.”
The report makes a claim worth interrogating, though: the idea that few outlets providing public interest programming, commercial or non-commercial, reach a broad public audience. Just to take issue with that, the evening news figures — in total viewership — for February 21, 2011 look something like this:

NBC: 9,830,000
ABC: 8,400,000
CBS: 6,450,000

But NPR’s weekly reach on Morning Edition is 14 million and 13 million for All Things Considered. So it may be that more public interest news, and public service news, is reaching more people than we think. And the audience has continued to grow.

Benson and Powers are not alone in suggesting a public trust for news; they were joined by a chorus of reports last year looking for sustainability for news. But the question is: Could such a trust be established at a time of political discord when the very viability of the concept of publicly funded media is on the table?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

 Subscribe in a reader

Battleground Wisconsin: Corporate Power v. Worker Rights

Battleground Wisconsin: Corporate Power v. Worker Rights - by Stephen Lendman

The issue in Wisconsin and across America is simple and straightforward - a corporate-financed offensive to crush unions, returning workers to 19th century harshness with no rights whatever.

As a result, well-funded union busting organizations want collective bargaining rights abolished, social benefits ended, wages kept low as possible, and corporations allowed to exploit workers freely, unimpeded by legal protections and rights.

A previous article discussed right-wing think tanks infesting America's landscape, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/waging-war-on-working-americans.html

Generously funded, they include the Koch Family Foundations (established by David, Charles and Claude R. Lambe), several Scaife ones, John M. Olin Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, various others, and George Soros' Open Society Foundations, pretending to be liberal, when, in fact, he supports everything smelling money.

Their agenda includes marketplace sovereignty, deregulation, privatization of government services, ending popular entitlements, social spending, and affirmative action, prioritizing business friendly policies, waging class war, controlling electoral politics and supportive media backing everything on their wish list.

Among many others, their beneficiaries include the American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, founded in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, best known for inaction while America sank into depression while he was president.

Less known ones include:

American Crossroads

Founded by Karl Rove, it's "dedicated to renewing America's commitment to individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise, and a strong national defense," entirely benefitting business at the expense of workers.

Americans for Job Security

An anti-labor insurance industry front group backing unrestricted free enterprise, tax cuts for the rich, job-killing trade agreements, and worker rights ended for greater profits.

The Club for Growth

A neofascist organization wanting Medicare and Medicaid abolished, Social Security privatized, unions eliminated, and business given unimpeded power to plunder and exploit freely.

Americans for Prosperity

A virulently anti-labor group backing all of the above and more, including the right to destroy US jobs by offshoring them freely to the world's lowest wage locations.


Freedom Works

Led by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey, it conducts aggressive campaigns against worker rights nationally.

Center for Union Facts

Led by pro-business lobbyist Richard Berman, it focuses on anti-union propaganda, destroying worker rights, obstructing organizing efforts, and promoting other anti-union initiatives.


National Right to Work Foundation and Committee

America's oldest anti-union organization, it bogusly claims pro-worker credentials. In fact, it's extremely hostile to high wages, essential benefits, job safety, and favorable working conditions, considered impediments to profits.

Public Service Research Foundation and Public Service Research Council

Composed of small organizations nationwide, they oppose collective bargaining rights for teachers and other public sector workers. In 1981, PSRF led the campaign to fire PATCO strikers, a watershed event weakening organized labor overall.

For-Profit Unionbusters

Describing themselves as "union avoidance firms," "management consultants," or "labor consultants," they use lawyers and other credentialed professionals to manipulate labor laws to subvert organizing efforts and worker rights overall.

These and other groups have full-time staffs, lawyers, and other credentialed professionals conducting media campaigns, seminars, workshops, lobbying efforts, and other initiatives to subvert organized labor for business. Nothing unethical is avoided to accomplish ends they'll go to any extreme to achieve, within or outside the law they freely exploit advantageously, flush with cash to do it.

Annually, they spend tens of millions of dollars for anti-union initiatives, allied with the US Chamber of Commerce - "the world's largest business federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations."

Although most of its members are small enterprises, it overwhelmingly represents giant ones and their campaign for unimpeded free enterprise at the expense of worker rights and small competitors. As a result, it spends millions of dollars annually opposing them.

Wisconsin - Ground Zero Outside the Beltway

A previous article explained March 9 Wisconsin Senate maneuvers described as a corporate coup d'etat, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/03/corporate-coup-detat-in-wisconsin.html

In violation of Wisconsin's open meetings law, requiring "24 hours prior to the commencement of (special sessions) unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical," Republican senators passed Gov. Walker's union busting bill with no Democrat members present.

On March 10, Milwaukee Sentinel Journal (SJ) writers Jason Stein, Patrick Marley and Lee Bergquist headlined, "Collective bargaining bill passes; courts, recalls next," saying:

The epic battle ended along party lines after Wisconsin's State Assembly past Walker's anti-union bill 53 - 42, "but only after police carried demonstrators out of the Assembly antechamber." Going forward, "a wider war now remains for both sides, one expected to be fought in the courts and through recall efforts against 16 state senators."

After three hours, legislators cut off debate, refusing to recognize Democrats wanting to speak. They were ignored. Angry worker responses inside followed to no avail. Others there the night before were forced out of the Capitol. On the morning of the vote, they and Democrats were kept out, Rep. David Cullen saying he and others had to climb through a ground floor window to enter.

On March 10, the SJ's editorial headlined, 'Defining Moment," saying:

"Republicans were right to demand more of government workers (but) were wrong to demand this much." In fact, "(r)eason (took) a holiday in Wisconsin politics. Civility along with it....Republicans got what they wanted Thursday: a flawed and divisive bill," destroying hard-won collective bargaining rights and more. "Gov. Scott Walker (and his) party may now reap the whirlwind."

"This is a war of attrition now - one that has been nationalized because of the implications for a key Democratic constituency in a key battleground state with a presidential election coming."

Indeed so, and it might help congressional Democrats solidify control in both Houses and give a failed anti-populist president a second term by default, fearing a worse alternative when, in fact, there's not a dime's worth of difference between either party, especially on major issues.

On Thursday night, White House press secretary Jay Carney said Obama understands state budget problems but opposes "denigrat(ing) or vilify(ing) public sector employees." Noticeably, however, he said nothing publicly to support them, expressing silent approval for destroying their rights, a policy his administration endorses.

On March 11, Washington Post writer Karen Tumulty headlined, "Wisconsin governor wins his battle with unions on collective bargaining," saying:

The epic battle ended along party lines after Wisconsin's State Assembly past Walker's anti-union bill 53 - 42, "but only after police carried demonstrators out of the Assembly antechamber." Going forward, "a wider war now remains for both sides, one expected to be fought in the courts and through recall efforts against 16 state senators."

Despite winning legislatively, "the political battle over public employees and their rights to bargain is likely to continue - not only in Madison." Fervor is resonating among workers signaling "it's not over." In fact, the struggle just began with strong public support against Republican thuggishness.

On March 11, Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorialized, "Taxpayers Win in Wisconsin," saying:

"Congratulations to Wisconsin Republicans, who held together this week to pass their government union reforms....maybe there's hope for taxpayers after all. (Walker's) reforms change the balance of negotiating power in ways that give taxpayers more protection."

In fact, over 200,000 Wisconsin public workers pay taxes, less of them ahead as their wages are cut, ranks thinned, and other rights lost, affecting them and their families, unimportant people for Murdoch's Journal, one-sidedly pro-business like the boss.

According to Democrat pollster Mark Mellman, Walker is "winning the battle through pure, uncompromising force, but he's losing the war."

Unless reversed, however, state workers are losing their rights. Besides collective bargaining, their healthcare and pension contributions will double, resulting in pay cuts ranging from 8 - 20% ahead of more planned reductions coming. Moreover, the measure reads:

"This bill authorizes a state agency to discharge any state employee who fails to report to work as scheduled for any three unexcused working days during a state emergency or who participates in a strike, work stoppage, sit-down, stay-in, slowdown, or other concerted activities to interrupt the operations or services of state government, including specifically purported mass resignations or sick calls. Under the bill, engaging in any of these actions constitutes just cause for discharge."

In addition, the governor may unilaterally declare "state of emergency" authority to fire striking workers, and under the section titled, "Discharge of State Employees," stating:

"The Governor may issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency for the state or any portion of the state if he or she determines that an emergency resulting from a disaster or imminent threat of a disaster exists."

In other words, he can unilaterally seize dictatorial power and do what he wishes, especially regarding public worker rights and job security. They're gone unless resurrected by a sustained, mobilized, united, and committed mass action statewide shutdown for rights too important to lose.

Nonetheless, Democrats and union bosses oppose it, focusing instead on recall campaigns and lawsuit challenges when, in fact, shutting down the whole state is essential and perhaps the only way to achieve justice.

However, in a March 9 conference call, Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) president Mary Bell, representing 98,000 public education employees, told teachers "to be at work tomorrow as we determine the next step to have the voices of Wisconsin's workers to be heard."

Wisconsin Public Employees Union president Marty Beil said "peaceful demonstrations" and recall campaigns are the only way to "change the face of government" when doing so will take months and may fail.

Democrats were just as submissive, supporting every anti-worker provision except ending collective bargaining, and they were willing to compromise on that. So was Jesse Jackson. Ahead of the Assembly vote, he gave the official prayer, asking for Republican - Democrat unity, not joining protesters outside demanding justice. Instead, he urged them to "honor (Martin Luther King's) legacy" by voting for Democrats who betrayed them.

Planned Mass Actions

On Sunday, March 13, mass protests are being organized across the state, involving teachers, students, police, firefighters, small business men and women, farmers, unemployed men and women, lawyers, engineers and other professionals, community leaders, seniors, and others for worker justice.

Wisconsin Wave.org says:

"Forward! Not Backward! We won't pay for their crisis! We stand united as never before around a common sense of human dignity. Today we exercise our freedoms of speech and assembly to defend the Wisconsin that we love, its people, and its lands and waters. We call on" everyone to challenge government and "narrow corporate interests that are hijacking our democracy."

It calls for a "Wisconsin Wave of Resistance against corporatization and austerity and for democracy and shared prosperity." It wants all Wisconsinites involved in a common struggle affecting every working person in the state. Taking aim at corporate giants, it says:

"(W)e will not stand by and watch you destroy Wisconsin democracy, Wisconsin's economy, Wisconsin's schools, and Wisconsin's communities. We will not pay for your crisis. We will organize. We will march. We will nonviolently resist your policies and overcome your agenda."

So will courageous supporters, joined by private sector workers, united in a common struggle for justice. They're on their own knowing it's up to them to do what union bosses and Democrats won't - shutting down the entire state proactively. In Wisconsin and across America, nothing less can work. Battle lines are drawn to regain rights too important to lose, never without a fight!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

 Subscribe in a reader

Democracy Now - Japan Facing Biggest Catastrophe Since Dawn of Nuclear Age



Japan remains in a state of emergency three days after a devastating earthquake and tsunami hit the country. An estimated 10,000 people have died, and Japan is facing the worst nuclear crisis since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On Monday, a second explosion hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and a third reactor lost its cooling system, raising fears of a meltdown. Radiation levels have been detected as far as 100 miles away. Dozens of people have tested positive for radiation exposure, and hundreds of thousands of have been evacuated, with the number expected to rise.

Guests:
Yurika Ayukawa, Professor of Climate, Energy, and Environment at Chiba University of Commerce in Japan. She is formerly with the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center. 
 
Harvey Wasserman, longtime anti-nuclear activist and the editor of nukefree.org. He is also a senior adviser to GreenPeace USA and the author of the book SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth
 
Kevin Kamps, specialist in nuclear waste at the nuclear watchdog, Beyond Nuclear. Last year he was in Japan assessing the state of its nuclear facilities. 
 
Arnie Gundersen, nuclear industry executive for many years before blowing the whistle on the company he worked for in 1990, when he found inappropriately stored radioactive material. He is now chief engineer at Fairewinds Associates.
 

AMY GOODMAN: Japan is facing its biggest catastrophe since the dawn of the nuclear age, when the U.S. dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the wake of the massive earthquake and tsunami Friday, a second explosion has hit a Japanese nuclear plant. Monday’s explosion, caused by a hydrogen buildup, blew the roof off a containment building at Fukushima Daiichi’s reactor 3, two days after a blast hit reactor 1. Eleven people were injured in the blast.
Officials say the reactor core inside was undamaged, but now a third reactor at the plant has lost its cooling system, and news agencies are reporting a meltdown of the fuel rods cannot be ruled out.

While Japanese officials are playing down any health risk, Pentagon officials reported Sunday helicopters flying 60 miles from the plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates, suggesting widening environmental contamination. And the U.S. Navy moved one of its aircraft carriers from the area after detecting low-level radiation 100 miles offshore. The New York Times reports radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants could go on for weeks or even months. Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated from the area around the plant. At least 22 people have tested positive for radiation exposure, with the number expected to rise.

Technicians have been battling to cool reactors at the plant since Friday. They’re using an untested method of pouring in a mixture of seawater and boric acid. Re-establishing normal cooling of the reactors would require restoring electric power, which was cut in the earthquake and tsunami and now may require plant technicians working in areas that have become highly contaminated with radioactivity.

The New York Times reports, quote, "In a country where memories of a nuclear horror of a different sort in the last days of World War II weigh heavily on the national psyche and national politics, the impact of continued venting of long-lasting radioactivity from the plants is hard to overstate."

Harvey Wasserman is a longtime anti-nuclear activist and editor of nukefree.org. He’s also senior adviser to Greenpeace U.S.A. and the author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth. He joins us from Columbus, Ohio.

We’re also joined by Kevin Kamps, specialist in nuclear waste at the nuclear watchdog Beyond Nuclear. Last year he was in Japan assessing the state of nuclear facilities. He’s joining us from Washington, D.C.

And we’re joined via Democracy Now! video stream from Burlington, Vermont, by Arnie Gundersen, a nuclear industry executive for many years before blowing the whistle on the company he worked for in 1990, when he found inappropriately stored radioactive material, now chief engineer at Fairewinds Associates.

And we are going first, though, to Japan. We are going to be speaking with Yurika Ayukawa. She is joining us from Tokyo, formerly with the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, now a professor of the environment at Chiba University in Japan.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the latest with the nuclear reactors?

YURIKA AYUKAWA: Hello. This is Yurika Ayukawa.

The latest one is the threatening of meltdown by nuclear reactor 2 at Fukushima 1 site. So, this is the third reactor that’s going to be in a very critical situation. All of the fuel rods seems to be out of water, and they are pouring in seawater, but they couldn’t detect how much water they’ve put in, in the beginning, and now they said it’s going in, but still there is a lot of—the whole rod is exposed. And the latest news is that they found some radioactive materials, like—they didn’t say the name, but I feel it’s like cesium—around the site. So, there must be melting going on inside the reactor.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Harvey Wasserman. He’s speaking to us from Columbus, Ohio, long experience in dealing with nuclear plants in this country. Harvey, this latest news of the Japanese nuclear reactor, water levels inside almost empty, according to the power plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power. Then, the news agency Jiji saying a meltdown of fuel rods inside the Fukushima Daiichi complex’s No. 2 reactor could not be ruled out. Can you explain the significance of this, the exposure of the fuel rods?

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, it’s hugely significant, and it’s a very, very dangerous situation. I should note that the first reactor at Fukushima is identical to the Vermont Yankee plant, and which is now up for relicensing and which the people of Vermont are trying to shut. And we should also note that this kind of accident, this kind of disaster, could have occurred at four reactors in California, had the 9.0-Richter-scale earthquake hit close to Diablo Canyon at San Luis Obispo or San Onofre between L.A. and San Diego. We could very well now be watching Los Angeles or San Diego being evacuated, had this kind of thing happened in California. And, of course, the issue is the same in Vermont. There are 23 reactors in the United States that are identical or close to identical to the first Fukushima reactor.

Now, this exposure of fuel is about as bad as it gets. It means that these fuel rods, superheated fuel rods, could melt if they are exposed to water, which they’re trying to pour water in there. It could create radioactive steam, conceivably blow off the containment and result in another Chernobyl and a horrific, horrendous release of radiation that could, and in fact would, come to the United States within a week or so, as the Chernobyl radiation came to California within 10 days. This is about as bad as it gets. And we are not 100 percent sure we’re getting fully accurate information. We only know that the worst case scenario is very much a possibility. There are 10 reactors at the Fukushima site—two separate sites, one with six reactors and one with four. And the fact that a U.S. aircraft carrier has detected significant radiation 60 miles away is very much a dangerous sign. It means that radiation releases are ongoing and probably will only get worse.

AMY GOODMAN: Here in the United States, some have raised concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants located in earthquake-prone areas like California, like you, Harvey Wasserman. But speaking to Meet the Press yesterday, Marvin Fertel, the president of the NEI, the Nuclear Energy Institute, expressed confidence about the safety of nuclear plants in California.

CHUCK TODD: We have a couple of nuclear power plants in earthquake zones, or at least in California. Is there a concern? Should Americans be concerned about the fact that these power plants are sitting in earthquake zones? Are they safe?

MARVIN FERTEL: Yeah, all of our power plants, whether they’re in California, which is a high earthquake area, or in the Midwest or other places, are required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to design to be able to withstand the maximum credible earthquake. And the NRC continues to update and upgrade what the requirements are.

CHUCK TODD: And you said post-9-11 that there were some extra upgrades put in to make sure that—that these nuclear plants could handle a total power shutdown, correct?

MARVIN FERTEL: Yeah. We’ve done things post-9-11 to make sure that if something happened in our plant, like happened in Japan, where you lost all power, that you could get water to the core and continue to cool it.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the energy industry, speaking with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press. Harvey Wasserman, your response?

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, that’s what he’s paid to say. You know, I was in Japan in the mid-1970s. That’s exactly what they said about Fukushima. I spoke at the Kashiwazaki plant, which, less than five years ago, was also hit by a huge earthquake, and seven reactors shut there. The people of Japan were repeatedly assured that this could not happen. Those reactors in Japan, and the ones in United States, are designed to withstand a 7.5-Richter earthquake, and this is a 9.0, which is more than 10—a significantly higher impact than what they’re designed to withstand. We’re also seeing pressures inside these reactor pressure vessels and containment domes that are in excess of design capacity. The nuclear industry is defending a product that cannot withstand Mother Nature, both in the United States and Japan.

You have to remember that the Japanese industry is highly advanced. Both Westinghouse and General Electric, the two major purveyors of nuclear plants in the United States, are now owned by Japanese companies. This is not the Soviet Union. This is a highly advanced country that cannot cope with nuclear power plants that have been—sustained damage that was predicted. We predicted that these nuclear plants would be hit by earthquakes and by tsunamis, and the Japanese government and the nuclear industry laughed it off, just as Mr. [Fertel] has done yesterday. Every nuclear plant in the United States is susceptible to this kind of damage and this kind of disaster, and it’s time that they be shut, in any kind of prudent mindset that will protect the people of this country and our economy, by the way, as we’re going to see what’s happening to the Japanese economy.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re speaking with anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, speaking to us from Columbus, Ohio. When we come back, we’ll speak with a specialist in nuclear waste who has recently returned from looking at the nuclear power plants in Japan. And we’ll speak with a nuclear whistleblower from Vermont who says one of the plants in Japan is similar to, almost the same as, the one in Vermont, that even the Vermont governor is attempting to shut down. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue on the catastrophe in Japan, we turn now to Kevin Kamps, specialist in nuclear waste at nuclear watch group Beyond Nuclear. Last year he was in Japan assessing the state of the nuclear facilities there.

Kevin Kamps, explain exactly what is happening in these nuclear reactors. Japan has some 55 nuclear plants—nuclear reactors within five nuclear plants.

KEVIN KAMPS: Yes, Amy, as your Japanese guest said, the cores of at least three reactors now at Fukushima Daiichi are uncovered from water, and so, therefore, a meltdown is likely underway at three reactors. Something that has not gotten much mention yet are the pools of high-level radioactive waste at these very same reactors, which also need cooling. They need electricity to cool, to circulate the water with circulation pumps. And each of the—well, two of these three reactors have suffered explosions, as your guests may have seen online in videos. And the pools that hold the high-level radioactive waste are located above, just slightly above, and to the right of the reactors. So, our hope and our prayer at this point is that not only the reactor itself, the containment around the reactor, but also the pools, which contain massive amounts of radioactivity, have somehow remained intact. That’s what the officials are saying. As Harvey said, we don’t know whether to believe them or not.

In the pools, you have a lot of radioactive waste, which contains a lot of hazardous radioactivity. And now, because those explosions took place at two of those reactors, that is open to the sky at this point. There is no roof or walls over the pools. And the hope is—but we have indications that at Fukushima Daiichi unit 1, that the pool is experiencing difficulty in cooling the waste, because electricity has been lost. They lost the electricity grid with the earthquake. They lost the emergency diesel generators with the tsunami. The backup batteries only had a life of four to eight hours. That’s long passed.

And I just wanted to comment on what Fertel of Nuclear Energy Institute said—"Oh, we have great earthquake regulations in the United States." The reactor that got me involved in this issue, in southwest Michigan, Palisades nuclear power plant, has been storing its high-level radioactive waste in outdoor silos of concrete and steel on the beach of Lake Michigan, a hundred yards from the water, in violation of NRC earthquake regulations since 1993. An NRC whistleblower in Chicago called attention to this problem in 1994. Nothing’s been done. There are two dozen containers, dry casks, of high-level radioactive waste next to the drinking water supply for 40 million people downstream in the U.S. and Canada, in violation of NRC earthquake regulations.

And another reactor in the U.S., Fermi 2, also in Michigan, just another example of how safety is being just thrown to the wind, the emergency diesel generators, which have proven to be such a central component of this disaster in Japan, because they were located vulnerable to the tsunami—what appears to have happened is the tsunami flooded the basements where these emergency diesel generator connections are at. So, even though they brought in mobile units, new emergency diesel generators, to hook them up to run the safety systems, the basements were flooded, where they needed to do the hook-up. Well, at Fermi 2 in Michigan, again, the same exact design as the Fukushima Daiichi unit 1, the emergency diesel generators in the year 2006 were discovered to have not been operable for 20 years. From 1986 to 2006, the emergency diesel generators at Fermi 2 in Michigan would not have operated if called upon. So, thank God that they were not needed during that 20-year period of time, or we could have lost Detroit, or we could have lost Toledo, or we could have lost Windsor, Ontario. That’s the level of safety with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry in this country.

AMY GOODMAN: You have said, Kevin Kamps, that a cover-up is a huge part of this story, as it was with Chernobyl. Why?

KEVIN KAMPS: Well, I mean, as Harvey indicated, if the U.S. Navy—and as you reported—if the U.S. Navy, which is a hundred miles away, has to move an aircraft carrier away from the shore because the radioactivity levels are of concern, then all of these assurances by Tokyo Electric Power Company and the Japanese government that everything’s really OK—I mean, a statement made two days ago by the chief spokesman for the government, the secretary of the cabinet, was that the evacuation is underway, and the wind is blowing out to sea, so everything is really going to be OK. Well, we have indications that the wind direction may change towards the mainland of Japan. So, those false assurances are not helping the situation.

And another question that needs to be asked is, well, if the wind is blowing out to sea, what’s in that direction? Well, the United States is in that direction. And we see, again, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying no harmful level of radioactivity could reach the United States. While we’re in the middle of this crisis, a new reactor is now melting down. How did they determine that the containments are going to hold? How did they determine that the radioactivity will not blow in large quantities to the United States?

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Yurika Ayukawa, joining us from Tokyo, and also share with you our condolences for the horrific catastrophe that your country is undergoing right now. You’re formerly with the Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, now a professor of the environment at Chiba University in Japan. What is the government telling you? And are you satisfied with that right now?

YURIKA AYUKAWA: What the government and the Tokyo Electric is saying is what—just as just Kevin explained. They are trying to downgrade the critical situation and make the people don’t get worried or—so, we are totally not sure. There’s no transparency about the information that they are saying. They don’t give enough—what—actually, maybe they don’t actually know precisely what to say, but nothing concrete is being announced. So, we don’t know what is really going on. So, there’s no transparency in what they’re speaking.

So, there’s no—on the other hand, just as Kevin said, there’s nothing spoken about the spent fuel pools. So that’s maybe a really—another hazardous matter that will come up later, after this thing is, you know, finished. And I’m very unsatisfied with what—how the government is treating this. And if—there was an article in the New York Times about this radioactive contamination by U.S. air flight, the U.S. Navy. I wish you could make it a big story that could appear in the Japanese newspapers, because all the Japanese people are thinking, all the government is thinking, is only about Japan. They are not thinking what kind of effects it will bring to other countries. And I just read that the French embassy is making the French people living in Japan to leave the country. So, it’s really—that kind of thing should make news in Japan, but it’s not.

AMY GOODMAN: Yurika Ayukawa, can you also talk about the number of people—what, more than 180,000 people have been evacuated around one of the nuclear power plants. Up to 160 may have been exposed with radiation—of course, this is very early on to know this—may not be able to return for a long time.

YURIKA AYUKAWA: Yeah, that is—that is not the right number that they announced. The official number is 12,000 people, and they—but most of them are not yet evacuated fully, and some of them are still left at close to the site, because most of them are very old and bedridden or cannot walk, so they are still close by. And one hospital, yesterday, before the first explosion occurred, the people in the hospital were waiting for the helicopters to come to rescue them. Ninety people were outside waiting for the helicopter to come. And then they saw this explosion. And so, they were very close, because they could really see it. And since after that, there was no helicopter coming, so they went back to the hospital. And they measured three people, whether they were contaminated. And all three were actually contaminated. So, in total, I think, all of them—I think they found like 160 people contaminated. But—

AMY GOODMAN: I just wanted to ask—the AP, Associated Press, is saying that number, 180,000, have been evacuated. The New York Times saying, "Japanese reactor operators now have little choice but to periodically release radioactive steam as part of [an] emergency cooling process for the fuel of the stricken reactors that may continue for a year or more [even] after fission has stopped." The Times goes on to say, "That suggests that the tens of thousands of people who have been evacuated may not be able to return to their homes for a considerable period, and that shifts in the wind could blow radioactive materials toward Japanese cities rather than out to sea."

I wanted to ask you about—there are worldwide protests now, Yurika Ayukawa, deeply concerned about nuclear power all over. But in Japan, it’s particularly acute, the issue, given the history, that you were the site of the dawn of the nuclear age, the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Could you talk about that and the feelings of the Japanese?

YURIKA AYUKAWA: About? About now?

AMY GOODMAN: That particular sensitivity, on top of this catastrophe.

YURIKA AYUKAWA: This is very different—something different discussed in Japan, because for the nuclear bombing, we are feeling that we are—we were bombed, so we were—we are the—I forgot the term—sacrificed. But on the other hand, a nuclear power plant is a peaceful use of nuclear. And people believe that, and we need this for energy security, because we don’t have natural resources of our own. And by making nuclear power plant into a nuclear cycle using reprocessing and using fast breeder reactor, then we could have our own energy source. That was the first initiative to get—start with nuclear power plants. And that has been not changed since 1950, when it was decided that Japan would introduce this technology. So, I am very angry at this, because if—there is so much priority to the nuclear power plant, even if we are—were bombed. They don’t think it’s the same thing, and they try—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you?

YURIKA AYUKAWA: They tend to consider it separately: "That is from World War II, and now we are in a peaceful world using the technology, advanced technology, to make a energy source of our own." And we have 50, more—like 55 reactors in this small island country without the safety control. And the priority is so high that no renewable energy has been promoted, or we don’t have enough renewable energy that could have saved this energy crisis situation now, if we had more renewable energy in hand.

AMY GOODMAN: Yurika Ayukawa is joining us from Tokyo. We are also joined from Burlington, Vermont, by Arnie Gundersen, nuclear industry executive for decades before blowing the whistle on the company he worked for in 1990, when he found inappropriately stored radioactive material, now chief engineer at Fairewinds Associates. You are concerned, Arnie Gundersen, and quoted in many of the papers today, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, about the similarity of the plant in Japan with the plant in Vermont, Vermont Yankee. Can you explain?

ARNIE GUNDERSEN: Yeah. The plant in Japan was 40 years old in March. The plant in Vermont is 39 years old in March. So they’re about a year apart. Same vendor, same conceptual design. Actually, the plant in Japan was built to withstand—was better built, was stronger built, because of earthquake resistance in Japan. So the American reactor is in fact weaker than the Japanese reactor. But conceptually, there’s 23 of them, including the one here in Vermont, but also Pilgrim right next to Boston, and also Oyster Creek, which is in New Jersey, that are old plants of the same vintage.

AMY GOODMAN: The Japanese reactors, made by General Electric. Your plant in Vermont, made by...? Your plant, Arnie Gundersen, in Vermont is made by...?

ARNIE GUNDERSEN: Is made by General Electric. And it’s also a Mark I containment, which is the same containment that’s causing problems right now in Japan. This containment is the smallest containment ever built. And even in 1972, the NRC had concerns about this containment. And we’ve gotten memos through FOIA that indicate, in 1972, the NRC thought that perhaps this particular design should never have been built. So, it’s not something that popped up like a mushroom last month, but it’s been known to the industry since 1972 that this is a weak link in the design.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s interesting in Vermont is you have a governor, Governor Shumlin, who wants to shut down the Vermont Yankee. And he, when he was a state legislator, represented the particular area that Vermont Yankee is in. But Arnie Gundersen, can you explain to us more what is happening in Japan right now, the issue of partial meltdown versus full meltdown, the fuel rods being exposed and the danger?

ARNIE GUNDERSEN: Yeah. When the reactor shuts down, what that means is that the uranium atom doesn’t split anymore. But these pieces that are left behind are still radioactive, and they generate about five percent of the reactor’s heat. And you’ve got to dump that heat for as long as a year or two or three. So, what’s happened is that there has been no way to remove that heat, and that’s caused the nuclear fuel to hit 2,200 degrees. At that point, the nuclear fuel begins to suck up the oxygen atoms in water. Water is H2O. And that gives off hydrogen gas. So the hydrogen explosions that we’re seeing at two of these reactors are an indication that the water is being stripped of its oxygen and creating hydrogen. So, the cores are uncovered, and when the cores are uncovered, unfortunately, that’s what happens. Now, the problem in the long haul is that now that these cores have been uncovered and there’s no way to cool them, they will have to continuously vent these containments. And as the Times said, you’re not going to get back into these villages in the next week or two. It could easily be months, if not years, before these villages can be inhabited again.

AMY GOODMAN: The effects of radiation on humans, Arnie Gundersen?

ARNIE GUNDERSEN: It’s too early to tell, but as your previous speaker said, you know, they tested—they talk about 160 people that have been contaminated. That’s all they’ve tested. Basically, everything they’re testing is coming up contaminated in that inner couple of miles around the plant. You’ve got radiation being detected 60 miles to the north in a Navy helicopter, a hundred miles to the east on a Navy aircraft carrier. So, it’s not clear to me that that cloud is not looping around and affecting Japan. And, of course, I think the worst case, as Mr. Kamps suggested, is that the fuel pools on these reactors, that sit very high, and they’re designed just like the Vermont Yankee one, if the fuel pools are not cooled, they will melt down, in which case we’re going to have Chernobyl on steroids.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Harvey Wasserman. The news out of Switzerland, they’ve suspended the approvals process for three nuclear power stations, so safety standards can be revisited after the crisis in Japan. The German government, facing pressure to reverse its plan to extend the life of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors, as domestic opponents of atomic power took Japan’s worsening nuclear crisis as validation of their views. Talk about the reaction now around the world, these protests that are taking place.

HARVEY WASSERMAN: Well, the protests are huge, Amy. And specifically here in the United States, we’re facing two very tangible issues in the near term. The owners of the nuclear plants all across the United States, including these very old reactors, some of which are virtually identical to Fukushima 1, are going in for license extensions. And so, you have reactors that are 40 years—or approaching 40 years old, more than 30 years old, and the owners are asking the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and getting approval to extend their life. I hope that the NRC and that the public, in general, will take note that these reactors now cannot withstand these kinds of pressures and should absolutely not have their licenses extended.

Secondly, we’re facing in the Congress pressure from the Obama administration and from supporters of the nuclear industry to give them $36 billion in loan guarantees to build still more nuclear plants. This is something that really has to be stopped, because we’ve seen in Japan—and both Kevin and I have been there, and we’ve seen the kinds of things that the industry has said, the kind of safety that they claim that they can deliver—that these are false promises. And I tell you that the Japanese industry assured the Japanese public that Fukushima—and there are 55 reactors in Japan, all of which are on earthquake faults and near the ocean. The Japanese industry assured the Japanese public that these reactors could withstand exactly these kinds of events. This is not a surprise, what’s happened at Fukushima. This was predicted. We’ve predicted similar things here in the United States, especially at those reactors in California. They are going for license extension at Diablo Canyon. This is unconscionable, especially in light of what’s happened here.

So these are tangible things that are happening. These demonstrations around the world will certainly escalate, because we’ve seen now that the nuclear industry cannot be trusted, and this technology simply does not belong on this planet.

AMY GOODMAN: Harvey Wasserman—

HARVEY WASSERMAN: I want to add one other thing, by the way.

AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly.

HARVEY WASSERMAN: None of the reactors in the United States are insured. None of the reactors in the United States are insured beyond $12.4 billion. If such an accident happened here, the burden, the economic burden, will fall directly on the taxpayers and on the victims, not on the owners of the plants.

AMY GOODMAN: Harvey Wasserman, editor of nukefree.org; Yurika Ayukawa, joining us from Tokyo, from Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center; thank you to Arnie Gundersen, who joined us from Vermont, a longtime nuclear whistleblower at Vermont Yankee; and finally, thanks to Kevin Kamps, who is a specialist at nuclear watchdog Beyond Nuclear.

We end this segment with the scale of destruction in Japan unleashed by Friday’s earthquake and tsunami, unprecedented. Al Jazeera English filed this report from Minami Sanriku, the seaside town completely devastated by the earthquake and tsunami.

WAYNE HAY: First light brought the first signs that a recovery effort may finally start in a part of Japan that is now unrecognizable to those who lived here. When the tsunami reached the town of Minami Sanriku, it barged its way three kilometers inland, decimating what was once a picturesque valley. Hundreds of cars are now entangled in the remains of houses. Boats lie where they don’t belong. They were thrown around like toys by the ocean but ended up high and dry. Thousands of people are missing.

This area was home to around 17,000 people, but it’s been completely destroyed. The tsunami stretched from one side of the valley to the other. And in just a few minutes, an entire town was gone. It’s now a desolate place where survivors are slowly venturing out to try to find any sign of their friends and family or their homes. They can’t quite believe what’s happened to their sleepy seaside town.

MINAMI SANRIKU RESIDENT: The town I like best is gone. I feel very, very sad to see the scene. And I went around this morning. Nothing is familiar to me.

WAYNE HAY: The military has been flying in food and medical supplies to survivors who fled to higher ground, landing on one of the few buildings still standing, the local hospital. While we were inside trying to get to the roof, a strong aftershock struck, resulting in a hasty departure and highlighting the dangers the recovery and relief teams are facing.

Soon after, another tsunami alarm sounded, forcing rescue personnel and everyone else to quickly head to higher ground, a now familiar but unwelcome ritual. In an instant, the valley became a lonely place again. When the danger passed, the survivors returned, wandering what were once streets in their neighborhood, looking at places where houses once stood, perhaps searching for a belonging that may offer a clue. But with so many missing in a devastated town, the search will be a long one.

Wayne Hay, Al Jazeera, Minami Sanriku, Japan.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report.


 Subscribe in a reader