kristopher
kristopher's Journal"Just go to one of DOE's nuclear weapons facilities"
I don't have to - I worked C^3 where we had nukes. The security is established and practices are In Accordance With the clear and unambiguous wording of the statute under discussion, which is modeled exactly on the statute guiding the DoD.
Let's clarify your position: you wrote:
Those bonehead SHOULD be shot on sight - they are asking for it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761372#post33
Faced with criticism, you explained:
kristopher, That's the LAW as currently enacted.
If the guards see a person in the "kill zone", then they know the only way to get there is to climb over fences or cut through them as did the nun and her accomplices..i.e. they didn't "accidentally" trespass; they knew exactly what they were doing.
So if someone is in the "kill zone"; they didn't get there by accident. The US Congress enacted law giving the guards at US nuclear weapons facilities the authority to shoot and kill the people who were where they weren't authorized to be.
So no manner how you cut it; the only way that they don't wind up shot is if someone cuts them some slack.
That's what the Y-12 guards did; and the Obama Administration's Dept. of Energy went "nuclear" because the guards didn't shoot.
So I would bet that guards in the future aren't going to be so lax. As I said,they will literally, "shoot first and ask questions later".
PamW
My response was
How much time were you in uniform carrying a weapon Greg?
Fortunately caraher took a more constructive approach and and responded to me by providing the text of the law. What follows are caraher's words responding to me.
15. No kidding
I'm looking up the statutes from Pam/Greg/Rude Dog's sign. First up - 10 CFR 1047 on Deadly Force (boldface mine):
(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).
(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.
(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.
(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.
Footnote(s):
1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.
(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:
(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.
(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.
"DOE Manual 470.4-3" is full of details regarding things like training security forces. It's also not the most recent directive on the subject, but it is the one cited in the sign. I searched for all instances of "deadly force" in the document and found the following relevant passages:
Why assign them such equipment if their mandate is to shoot to kill?
Appendix A-3 details principles for the rules of engagement guards are to employ. It reiterates the language above:
DOE’s Use of Deadly Force Policy, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 1047, defines the circumstances when deadly force is authorized; i.e., self-defense; serious offenses against persons; theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices, or special nuclear material; and apprehension. It also states, “Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed” (emphasis added). DOE has determined that the concept in the policy of, “or cannot reasonably be employed,” needs further site-specific amplification in the post September 11, 2001, environment. To ensure acceptable protection of critical assets, site specific ROE which define the circumstances, e.g., location, time, and distance at each site when lesser means of force cannot reasonably be employed are needed. These ROE must address the concept of hostile intent as described in this Appendix.
In other words, the "must shoot to kill" fantasy is, not surprisingly, unsupported by the laws and regulations on the sign. They are a figment of the imagination, not the orders of our Congress.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112761458#post15
Re removing edit tag for fast edits: why not make the tag green for < 5 minutes? nt
Shifting the goalposts is always a good way to be correct.
Your usual line of rhetoric is that there is nothing we can do. That is substantially different than a statement saying we have to do more. Of course we have to do more.
The ironic part about your position is that one of the biggest obstacles right now is that the nuclear power industry (as the face of the established energy system based on coal) is using their stranglehold over the political conservatives in key countries and sabotaging proven effective policies that have brought renewables to the point where they are actually capable of showing the rate of deployment we need.
I know that DUEE nuclear supporters love to stand on the logical construct that "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".
However what that ignores is that there is another logic found in the fact that this 'by far largest bloc' of conservative support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.
The final aspect of the beliefs of the 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power that is conservative, that supports fossil fuels, and that denies climate change, is that, in the mold crafted by Roger Ailes**, they spend an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy with all kinds of specious facts and defective reasoning.
In my opinion, that leaves a pretty heavy burden of proof for the negative claims made by the liberal supporters of nuclear power (like yourself) who spend a great deal of their time trying to undermine renewable power.
** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504
Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable
BY JOE ROMM ON JANUARY 15, 2014 AT 5:42 PM
A new biography of Fox News Chief (and founding CEO) Roger Ailes suggests that he actually believes a lot of the anti-science, anti-clean energy nonsense he puts on the air. Ailes didn’t just drink the Kool Aid, he apparently mixed it himself.
The book, “The Loudest Voice in the Room,” explains that Ailes would rail against Obama to his neighbors in upstate New York with bizarre arguments, claiming for instance:
… climate change was a “worldwide conspiracy” spun by ”foreign nations” to gain control of America’s resources.
...candidates like Former Utah Governor Huntsman would have to pass the Roger Ailes anti-science litmus test:
In a meeting at Fox news, Ailes flatly told Huntsman, “You are not of our orthodoxy,” citing his stance on climate change. (“To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy,” Huntsman had tweeted)
...
Consider Fox News’ drumbeat attacks on federal support for solar energy, one of the most popular government programs in the country across the political spectrum. A book excerpt on TPM explains why Ailes pushed the attacks during the 2012 campaign, which saw more than 600 Fox appearances by GOP presidential candidates in 2011 alone:
But as Fox’s pundits and anchors pushed the candidates into the conspiracy swamps of … Solyndra, the bankrupt solar panel company, Fox risked alienating independent viewers—and voters.
It was a case of Ailes being unable to put his party’s goal of winning independents ahead of his personal views. “He doesn’t like green energy—period,” a senior producer said. “He says all the time that no one in America has died from nuclear power, but fifteen people have been chopped up by those damn windmills.”
....
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/15/3164221/roger-ailes-bio-fox-news-anti-science/
Company files for bankruptcy after West Virginia spill
Source: AP via Politico
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — The company blamed for a chemical spill that left 300,000 West Virginians without safe drinking water filed for bankruptcy Friday, temporarily shielding it from dozens of lawsuits, many by businesses that were forced to shut down for days.
Freedom Industries Inc. also used its bankruptcy papers as a forum to hypothesize about what caused the spill.
The company filed a Chapter 11 petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of West Virginia, eight days after the spill was discovered.
Company president Gary Southern signed the paperwork, which lists both the company's assets and liabilities as being between $1 million and $10 million. It says the company has at least 200 creditors and owes its top 20 creditors $3.66 million.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/west-virginia-chemical-spill-bankruptcy-102348.html
What If You Went Solar and Nobody Noticed? Spotlight Solar Has an Answer
What If You Went Solar and Nobody Noticed? Spotlight Solar Has an Answer
Tor 'Solar Fred' Valenza, UnThink Solar
January 17, 2014
Normally I don’t write about solar products, since this blog is devoted to solar marketing and solar advocacy. But I’m making the exception this week for Spotlight Solar. Spotlight’s not a typical BIPV solution, but a working aesthetic solar structure that’s also a green PR solution that calls attention to hidden solar.
For example, say you're the St. Louis Rams, and you're greening your operations, from recycling and waste reduction, to energy efficiency and the use of recycled materials.. Congrats! …Except despite these good intentions, nobody notices. That’s where Spotlight comes in.
...CEO Craig Merrigan says their products are meant to be a complementary added value, calling attention to the real solar solution — rooftop or ground-mount panels that are out of site or difficult to see. Alternatively, they could also be calling attention to other invisible sustainability efforts by the building’s architect, such as the St Louis Rams' green initiatives.
Another example for its use are the many renovated buildings today that have achieved LEED Platinum status, but beyond the press release, a LEED medallion, or perhaps a small lobby display, the general public might walk on by and never realize that there are solar panels on the roof or that the structure was built with ultra high-efficiency windows, reclaimed wood, and 100% LED lighting. From the outside, it looks like a normal renovated building.
With a Spotlight tower, the same building’s visitors and tenants know their building is green from two blocks away...
Google creates glucose monitor in contact lens
AP
JAN 17, 2014
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA – Google on Thursday unveiled a contact lens that monitors glucose levels in tears, a potential reprieve for millions of diabetics who have to draw their own blood as many as 10 times a day.
The prototype, which Google says will take at least five years to reach consumers, is one of several medical devices being designed by companies to make glucose monitoring for diabetic patients more convenient and less invasive than the traditional finger pricks.
The lenses use a minuscule glucose sensor and a wireless transmitter to help those among the world’s 382 million diabetics who need insulin keep a close watch on their blood sugar and adjust their dose.
The contact lenses were developed during the past 18 months in the clandestine Google X lab, which also came up with a driverless car, Google’s Web-surfing eyeglasses and Project Loon, a network of large balloons designed to beam the Internet to unwired places.
But research on the contact lenses began several years earlier at the University of Washington, where scientists worked under National Science Foundation funding...
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/01/17/world/google-creates-glucose-monitor-in-contact-lens/#.UtnwfHn0Ay4
Study: US Won’t Act On Climate Change Because Citizens Believe The World Is Ending
A new study concludes many Americans have failed to take action about climate change because they believe that the world will be coming to an end anyway.
In their study, titled “End-Times Theology, the Shadow of the Future, and Public Resistance to Addressing Global Climate Change,” David C. Barker of the University of Pittsburgh and David H. Bearce of the University of Colorado argue that citizens who believe in the end of days “often resist policies trading short-term costs for hypothetical long-term benefits.”
“(T)he fact that such an overwhelming percentage of Republican citizens profess a belief in the Second Coming (76 percent in 2006, according to our sample) suggests that governmental attempts to curb greenhouse emissions would encounter stiff resistance even if every Democrat in the country wanted to curb them,” Barker and Bearce wrote in the study.
.......
That sentiment is not just confined to average citizens. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, Rep. John Shimkus, said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.”
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/study-us-won-t-act-climate-change-because-citizens-believe-world-ending
Posted originally by redfairen in the skeptics group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12311907
Anti-marijuana propaganda from the "Wisconsin Poison Control Center"
October 21, 2013Meg Lesnick
Marijuana can be hidden in food products.
Wisconsin Poison Center wants parents to be aware of a new trend spreading across Wisconsin that’s all trick and no treat.
Suckers and toffee are being melted down purposely and laced with crushed prescription drugs or powdered illicit drugs. In particular, stimulants such as amphetamines have been discovered in these “treats.”
The intent is to mimic an ordinary candy sucker so it’s hard to detect. Lacing candy with drugs also seems to be the latest way teens and young adults are consuming drugs secretly at parties.
Kids are consuming marijuana accidentally
Similarly, with the recent legalization of recreational marijuana use in some states, more kids are consuming marijuana accidentally because it’s laced in brownies, candy or cookies. Trafficking of marijuana from states where it has been legalized has led to the importation of marijuana into Wisconsin, often hidden in food products. During the past year, Wisconsin Poison Center helped manage at least eight cases of unintentional marijuana ingestion by young children.
It’s not always easy to tell if a child has ingested marijuana, especially if the source is not identified or recognized immediately. Right after ingestion, a child might appear overstimulated, but things may slow down quickly, even to the point of dangerous levels of sedation. (emphasis added - k)
http://blog.chw.org/2013/10/beware-disturbing-trend-candy-laced-prescription-illicit-drugs/
Sometimes I just want to slap the sh&@ out of these ah@(#s.
Extensive Interview w/ Key Fukushima Nuclear Official Dr. Madarame
This is a translation from the Japanese of an article that recently appeared in the Japanese equivalent of the Wall Street Journal.
The translation was done by a bilingual blogger in Japan that since the beginning of the disaster has provided some of the best English language coverage available, bar none.
Fukushima I NPP Wasn't Much of a Topic in March 11, 2011 Meeting Despite Station Blackout and Emergency Core Cooling Failure"
Dr. Haruki Madarame was the chairman of the now-defunct Nuclear Safety Commission at the time of the start of the Fukushima nuclear accident on March 11, 2011. He became instantly infamous and reviled in Japan when it was reported that he had reassured then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan on their way to Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant in the morning of March 12, 2011 that there would be no explosion. A few hours later, the Reactor 1 building blew up in a hydrogen explosion.
Nikkei Shinbun interviewed Dr. Madarame recently, who was as candid as he had been in the past few times he had spoken about his role in the early days of the nuclear accident, readily admitting his errors. (In his testimony to the Diet Commission that investigated the Fukushima I NPP accident in February 2012, Dr. Madarame said he didn't remember the 1st week of the accident, as he was so tired from lack of sleep.)
Nikkei's article from the interview is very informative but also quite long, so it will be in 7 installments.
In the first installment below, Dr. Madarame paints a picture of the Kan administration and himself not knowing what was going on and not knowing what to do....
Part 1 continues here:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/01/nikkei-shinbuns-interview-of-haruki.html
Part 2 snip:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/01/nikkei-shinbuns-interview-of-haruki_12.html
Part 3 snip:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/01/nikkei-shinbuns-interview-of-haruki_15.html
Part 4 snip:
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/2014/01/nikkei-shinbuns-interview-of-haruki_16.html
Parts 5, 6, and 7 not yet available.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 19, 2003, 02:20 AMNumber of posts: 29,798
