Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
bananas
bananas's Journal
bananas's Journal
July 21, 2014
The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working - by Theodore A. Postol
http://thebulletin.org/evidence-shows-iron-dome-not-working7318
The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working
Theodore A. Postol
07/19/2014
<snip>
During the November 2012 conflict, a detailed review of a large number of photographs of Iron Dome interceptor contrails revealed that the rocket-defense system's success rate was very low—as low as 5 percent or, perhaps, even less. A variety of media outlets have attributed the low casualty number to the supposed effectiveness of the Iron Dome system, quoting Israeli officials as saying it has destroyed 90 percent of the Hamas rockets it targeted. But close study of photographic and video imagery of Iron Dome engagements with Hamas rockets—both in the current conflict and in the 2012 hostilities—shows that the low casualties in Israel from artillery rocket attacks can be ascribed to Israeli civil defense efforts, rather than the performance of the Iron Dome missile defense system.
The collection of similar data for Iron Dome's performance in July 2014 is still in progress. The data we have collected so far, however, indicates the performance of Iron Dome has not markedly improved.
Historical data on civil defense measures—including those taken to protect citizens from V-1 and V-2 rocket bombings of London during World War II—suggest that Israel’s low casualty rate from Hamas rockets is largely attributable to the country's well-developed early-warning and quick-sheltering system for citizens under imminent rocket attack. That is to say, Iron Dome appears to have had no measurable effect on improving the chances of Israelis escaping injury or death from Hamas artillery rocket attacks in Israel.
<snip>
If Iron Dome doesn't work well, why are Israeli casualties from rocket attacks so low? Israel has a vast system of shelters, arranged so citizens can easily find protection within tens of seconds or less of warning. The Israeli rocket attack warning system is sophisticated; Figure 15 shows warning times published by the Israelis for artillery rockets of varying ranges. Figure 16 shows the screen of a mobile phone warning system that issues an audible alert of an impending artillery rocket impact. This particular phone application is called “red alert.”
The app's message indicates the general area where an artillery rocket impact is expected; depending on the location of individuals receiving the warning message, they know whether or not to take shelter.
<snip>
Another example of the hazards of not taking shelter occurred in November 2012. Three people were out on a terrace; one of them was hoping to observe the Iron Dome system intercepting incoming artillery rockets. An artillery rocket hit the terrace, killing all three people. Had these people followed the simple procedure of taking shelter, they would be alive today.
<snip>
The evidence that shows Iron Dome is not working
Theodore A. Postol
07/19/2014
Editor's note: Images referenced in this article can be viewed in the slide show above; captions appear when a cursor is placed over the images. The images can also be seen in a separate slide show found here, or by clicking on the red button to the right of the story's third paragraph.)
<snip>
During the November 2012 conflict, a detailed review of a large number of photographs of Iron Dome interceptor contrails revealed that the rocket-defense system's success rate was very low—as low as 5 percent or, perhaps, even less. A variety of media outlets have attributed the low casualty number to the supposed effectiveness of the Iron Dome system, quoting Israeli officials as saying it has destroyed 90 percent of the Hamas rockets it targeted. But close study of photographic and video imagery of Iron Dome engagements with Hamas rockets—both in the current conflict and in the 2012 hostilities—shows that the low casualties in Israel from artillery rocket attacks can be ascribed to Israeli civil defense efforts, rather than the performance of the Iron Dome missile defense system.
The collection of similar data for Iron Dome's performance in July 2014 is still in progress. The data we have collected so far, however, indicates the performance of Iron Dome has not markedly improved.
Historical data on civil defense measures—including those taken to protect citizens from V-1 and V-2 rocket bombings of London during World War II—suggest that Israel’s low casualty rate from Hamas rockets is largely attributable to the country's well-developed early-warning and quick-sheltering system for citizens under imminent rocket attack. That is to say, Iron Dome appears to have had no measurable effect on improving the chances of Israelis escaping injury or death from Hamas artillery rocket attacks in Israel.
<snip>
If Iron Dome doesn't work well, why are Israeli casualties from rocket attacks so low? Israel has a vast system of shelters, arranged so citizens can easily find protection within tens of seconds or less of warning. The Israeli rocket attack warning system is sophisticated; Figure 15 shows warning times published by the Israelis for artillery rockets of varying ranges. Figure 16 shows the screen of a mobile phone warning system that issues an audible alert of an impending artillery rocket impact. This particular phone application is called “red alert.”
The app's message indicates the general area where an artillery rocket impact is expected; depending on the location of individuals receiving the warning message, they know whether or not to take shelter.
<snip>
Another example of the hazards of not taking shelter occurred in November 2012. Three people were out on a terrace; one of them was hoping to observe the Iron Dome system intercepting incoming artillery rockets. An artillery rocket hit the terrace, killing all three people. Had these people followed the simple procedure of taking shelter, they would be alive today.
<snip>
July 21, 2014
NASA's Next Giant Leap - a conversation with Morgan Freeman at JPL
NASA's Next Giant Leap
Published on Jul 18, 2014
A live conversation about the future of space exploration with actor, director and narrator Morgan Freeman. He spoke at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, about his personal vision for space. The event also included NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman and Expedition 40 Commander Steve Swanson participating from the International Space Station.
Published on Jul 18, 2014
A live conversation about the future of space exploration with actor, director and narrator Morgan Freeman. He spoke at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, about his personal vision for space. The event also included NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman and Expedition 40 Commander Steve Swanson participating from the International Space Station.
July 19, 2014
Why Are Scientists Building an "Ocean" in the Middle of a Desert?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140718-biosphere-gulf-california-environment-ocean-science/
Why Are Scientists Building an "Ocean" in the Middle of a Desert?
They hope the scaled-down version of the Gulf of California will open doors to exciting new science and outreach opportunities.
By Jane J. Lee
National Geographic
Published July 18, 2014
If you build it, scientists and the public will come. That's the hope researchers are holding on to as they work to revive a defunct artificial ocean in the middle of the Arizona desert.
The ocean belongs to Biosphere 2, the glass-walled structure near Tucson, Arizona, made famous by human experiments in the 1990s. Eight people sealed themselves inside the facility designed as a self-sustaining version of Earth. The two-year mission was supposed to approximate how people would have to live and work on a space colony. (Related: "1994: People Migrate to Biosphere 2."
Biosphere 2's original 676,000-gallon (2,555,894-liter) ocean was designed as a coral reef reminiscent of the Caribbean. But over the years, most of the coral died and a series of Biosphere 2 owners have considered draining the miniature sea entirely. Then the University of Arizona in Tucson took over the site in 2007, the latest in a line of efforts aimed at reviving the facility. After years of watching the ocean lie dormant, marine biologist Rafe Sagarin decided to turn it into a research and education tool.
<snip>
The educational and public outreach opportunities have already started being realized. A new "ocean gallery" allows visitors a peek inside Biosphere 2's marine realm via viewing windows, and exhibits present the ecology and history of the Gulf of California.
<snip>
Why Are Scientists Building an "Ocean" in the Middle of a Desert?
They hope the scaled-down version of the Gulf of California will open doors to exciting new science and outreach opportunities.
By Jane J. Lee
National Geographic
Published July 18, 2014
If you build it, scientists and the public will come. That's the hope researchers are holding on to as they work to revive a defunct artificial ocean in the middle of the Arizona desert.
The ocean belongs to Biosphere 2, the glass-walled structure near Tucson, Arizona, made famous by human experiments in the 1990s. Eight people sealed themselves inside the facility designed as a self-sustaining version of Earth. The two-year mission was supposed to approximate how people would have to live and work on a space colony. (Related: "1994: People Migrate to Biosphere 2."
Biosphere 2's original 676,000-gallon (2,555,894-liter) ocean was designed as a coral reef reminiscent of the Caribbean. But over the years, most of the coral died and a series of Biosphere 2 owners have considered draining the miniature sea entirely. Then the University of Arizona in Tucson took over the site in 2007, the latest in a line of efforts aimed at reviving the facility. After years of watching the ocean lie dormant, marine biologist Rafe Sagarin decided to turn it into a research and education tool.
<snip>
The educational and public outreach opportunities have already started being realized. A new "ocean gallery" allows visitors a peek inside Biosphere 2's marine realm via viewing windows, and exhibits present the ecology and history of the Gulf of California.
<snip>
July 19, 2014
Facts Needed on Malaysian Plane Shoot-Down - by Ray McGovern
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/18/facts-needed-on-malaysian-plane-shoot-down/
Facts Needed on Malaysian Plane Shoot-Down
July 18, 2014
By Ray McGovern
It will likely take some time to determine who downed the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people onboard. Initial speculation is that someone with a missile battery mistook the plane as a military aircraft, but the precise motive may be even harder to discern.
Given the fog of war and the eagerness among the various participants to wage “information warfare,” there is also the possibility that evidence – especially electronic evidence – might be tampered with to achieve some propaganda victory.
<snip>
... the U.S. press might pause to recall how it’s been manipulated by the U.S. government in the past, including three decades ago by the Reagan administration twisting the facts of the KAL-007 tragedy.
<snip>
U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes fired a missile that brought down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan explained as an “understandable accident”).
<snip>
On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council (a prelude to a similar false presentation two decades later by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction).
“The tape was supposed to run 50 minutes,” Snyder said about recorded Soviet intercepts. “But the tape segment we (at USIA) had ran only eight minutes and 32 seconds. … ‘Do I detect the fine hand of (Richard Nixon's secretary) Rosemary Woods here?’ I asked sarcastically.’”
But Snyder had a job to do: producing the video that his superiors wanted. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.
<snip>
Facts Needed on Malaysian Plane Shoot-Down
July 18, 2014
Exclusive: As usual, the mainstream U.S. media is rushing to judgment over the crash of a Malaysian airliner in war-torn eastern Ukraine, but the history of U.S. government’s deceptions might be reason to pause and let a careful investigation uncover the facts, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern
It will likely take some time to determine who downed the Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 over eastern Ukraine on Thursday, killing all 298 people onboard. Initial speculation is that someone with a missile battery mistook the plane as a military aircraft, but the precise motive may be even harder to discern.
Given the fog of war and the eagerness among the various participants to wage “information warfare,” there is also the possibility that evidence – especially electronic evidence – might be tampered with to achieve some propaganda victory.
<snip>
... the U.S. press might pause to recall how it’s been manipulated by the U.S. government in the past, including three decades ago by the Reagan administration twisting the facts of the KAL-007 tragedy.
<snip>
U.S. intelligence also knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes fired a missile that brought down an Iranian civilian airliner in the Persian Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan explained as an “understandable accident”).
<snip>
On Sept. 6, 1983, the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council (a prelude to a similar false presentation two decades later by Secretary of State Colin Powell on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction).
“The tape was supposed to run 50 minutes,” Snyder said about recorded Soviet intercepts. “But the tape segment we (at USIA) had ran only eight minutes and 32 seconds. … ‘Do I detect the fine hand of (Richard Nixon's secretary) Rosemary Woods here?’ I asked sarcastically.’”
But Snyder had a job to do: producing the video that his superiors wanted. “The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” Snyder wrote.
<snip>
July 18, 2014
Scientists "fingerprint" a culprit in depression, anxiety and other mood disorders
"the researchers found a connection between this particular microRNA, (miR135), and two proteins that play a key role in serotonin production and the regulation of its activities."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/278565.php
Scientists "fingerprint" a culprit in depression, anxiety and other mood disorders
Monday 23 June 2014
According to the World Health Organization, such mood disorders as depression affect some 10% of the world's population and are associated with a heavy burden of disease. That is why numerous scientists around the world have invested a great deal of effort in understanding these diseases. Yet the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie these problems are still only partly understood.
The existing anti-depressants are not good enough: Some 60-70% of patients get no relief from them. For the other 30-40%, that relief is often incomplete, and they must take the drugs for a long period before feeling any effects. In addition, there are many side effects associated with the drugs. New and better drugs are clearly needed, an undertaking that requires, first and foremost, a better understanding of the processes and causes underlying the disorders.
The Weizmann Institute's Prof. Alon Chen, together with his then PhD student Dr. Orna Issler, investigated the molecular mechanisms of the brain's serotonin system, which, when misregulated, is involved in depression and anxiety disorders. Chen and his colleagues researched the role of microRNA molecules (small, non-coding RNA molecules that regulate various cellular activities) in the nerve cells that produce serotonin. They succeeded in identifying, for the first time, the unique "fingerprints" of a microRNA molecule that acts on the serotonin-producing nerve cells. Combining bioinformatics methods with experiments, the researchers found a connection between this particular microRNA, (miR135), and two proteins that play a key role in serotonin production and the regulation of its activities. The findings appeared recently in Neuron.
The scientists noted that in the area of the brain containing the serotonin-producing nerve cells, miR135 levels increased when antidepressant compounds were introduced. Mice that were genetically engineered to produce higher-than-average amounts of the microRNA were more resistant to constant stress: They did not develop any of the behaviors associated with chronic stress, such as anxiety or depression, which would normally appear. In contrast, mice that expressed low levels of miR135 exhibited more of these behaviors; in addition, their response to antidepressants was weaker. In other words, the brain needs the proper miR135 levels - low enough to enable a healthy stress response and high enough to avoid depression or anxiety disorders and to respond to serotonin-boosting antidepressants. When this idea was tested on human blood samples, the researchers found that subjects who suffered from depression had unusually low miR135 levels in their blood. On closer inspection, the scientists discovered that the three genes involved in producing miR135 are located in areas of the genome that are known to be associated with risk factors for bipolar mood disorders.
<snip>
Scientists "fingerprint" a culprit in depression, anxiety and other mood disorders
Monday 23 June 2014
According to the World Health Organization, such mood disorders as depression affect some 10% of the world's population and are associated with a heavy burden of disease. That is why numerous scientists around the world have invested a great deal of effort in understanding these diseases. Yet the molecular and cellular mechanisms that underlie these problems are still only partly understood.
The existing anti-depressants are not good enough: Some 60-70% of patients get no relief from them. For the other 30-40%, that relief is often incomplete, and they must take the drugs for a long period before feeling any effects. In addition, there are many side effects associated with the drugs. New and better drugs are clearly needed, an undertaking that requires, first and foremost, a better understanding of the processes and causes underlying the disorders.
The Weizmann Institute's Prof. Alon Chen, together with his then PhD student Dr. Orna Issler, investigated the molecular mechanisms of the brain's serotonin system, which, when misregulated, is involved in depression and anxiety disorders. Chen and his colleagues researched the role of microRNA molecules (small, non-coding RNA molecules that regulate various cellular activities) in the nerve cells that produce serotonin. They succeeded in identifying, for the first time, the unique "fingerprints" of a microRNA molecule that acts on the serotonin-producing nerve cells. Combining bioinformatics methods with experiments, the researchers found a connection between this particular microRNA, (miR135), and two proteins that play a key role in serotonin production and the regulation of its activities. The findings appeared recently in Neuron.
The scientists noted that in the area of the brain containing the serotonin-producing nerve cells, miR135 levels increased when antidepressant compounds were introduced. Mice that were genetically engineered to produce higher-than-average amounts of the microRNA were more resistant to constant stress: They did not develop any of the behaviors associated with chronic stress, such as anxiety or depression, which would normally appear. In contrast, mice that expressed low levels of miR135 exhibited more of these behaviors; in addition, their response to antidepressants was weaker. In other words, the brain needs the proper miR135 levels - low enough to enable a healthy stress response and high enough to avoid depression or anxiety disorders and to respond to serotonin-boosting antidepressants. When this idea was tested on human blood samples, the researchers found that subjects who suffered from depression had unusually low miR135 levels in their blood. On closer inspection, the scientists discovered that the three genes involved in producing miR135 are located in areas of the genome that are known to be associated with risk factors for bipolar mood disorders.
<snip>
July 17, 2014
Dr. Martin Ross: Expanding the Boundaries of Climate Science
"Every time I expressed an interest in something, books would appear, as if by magic."
http://www.aerospace.org/2014/05/08/dr-martin-ross-expanding-the-boundaries-of-climate-science/
Dr. Martin Ross: Expanding the Boundaries of Climate Science
Corporate Staff
posted May 08, 2014
Interviewed by Lindsay Chaney
<snip>
As far as rocket exhaust goes, we looked at gases such as CO2 and H2O, and particles such as soot from hydrocarbon-fueled rocket engines and alumina from solid rocket motors. What we found was that CO2 is a total non-issue by orders of magnitude compared with the particles.
It’s disturbing to see in the press discussions of CO2 from rockets like it means anything substantial. Surprisingly, it’s all about the soot.
The other surprise we found was that alumina particles were known to reflect sunlight, so people thought they would cool the atmosphere. But we found that alumina absorbs upwelling infrared energy from the Earth and this absorption wins out over the reflection of sunlight.
So, alumina is a net warmer of the Earth’s atmosphere, exactly the opposite of the commonly accepted wisdom.
This is important because solid rocket motor use is increasing again after the retirement of the space shuttle, which accounted for much of the solid motor use before 2010.
<snip>
Earth’s Future is a new journal trying to establish a new point of view for Earth systems science. It’s a cross-discipline look at how the Earth will look decades from now if current trends continue.
There’s a little bit of philosophy in the journal, which resonates with my interest in academic philosophy. Since 2004, I’ve been an adjunct professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, where I teach a class in the history of scientific thought.
<snip>
My father read to me in a big green chair every night, this book called “You Will Go to the Moon” and I thought that was the greatest thing ever – going to the moon.
Both of my parents were teachers, so they showered me with books. Every time I expressed an interest in something, books would appear, as if by magic.
<snip>
Dr. Martin Ross: Expanding the Boundaries of Climate Science
Corporate Staff
posted May 08, 2014
Interviewed by Lindsay Chaney
Dr. Martin Ross, senior project engineer in the Launch Systems Division, leads research concerning the effects of space systems on the stratosphere at The Aerospace Corporation.
A 26-year Aerospace employee, he is the lead author of a recently published scientific paper in a new journal from the American Geophysical Union called Earth’s Future. The paper, published April 28, is titled “Radiative Forcing Caused by Rocket Engine Emissions.”
In his own words, Ross discusses his new research and what influenced him to become an engineer.
<snip>
As far as rocket exhaust goes, we looked at gases such as CO2 and H2O, and particles such as soot from hydrocarbon-fueled rocket engines and alumina from solid rocket motors. What we found was that CO2 is a total non-issue by orders of magnitude compared with the particles.
It’s disturbing to see in the press discussions of CO2 from rockets like it means anything substantial. Surprisingly, it’s all about the soot.
The other surprise we found was that alumina particles were known to reflect sunlight, so people thought they would cool the atmosphere. But we found that alumina absorbs upwelling infrared energy from the Earth and this absorption wins out over the reflection of sunlight.
So, alumina is a net warmer of the Earth’s atmosphere, exactly the opposite of the commonly accepted wisdom.
This is important because solid rocket motor use is increasing again after the retirement of the space shuttle, which accounted for much of the solid motor use before 2010.
<snip>
Earth’s Future is a new journal trying to establish a new point of view for Earth systems science. It’s a cross-discipline look at how the Earth will look decades from now if current trends continue.
There’s a little bit of philosophy in the journal, which resonates with my interest in academic philosophy. Since 2004, I’ve been an adjunct professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, where I teach a class in the history of scientific thought.
<snip>
My father read to me in a big green chair every night, this book called “You Will Go to the Moon” and I thought that was the greatest thing ever – going to the moon.
Both of my parents were teachers, so they showered me with books. Every time I expressed an interest in something, books would appear, as if by magic.
<snip>
July 17, 2014
California Public Utilities Commission harasses attorney Mike Aguirre
http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2014/06/video-california-public-utilities.html
Video: California Public Utilities Commission harasses attorney Mike Aguirre
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Last week (June 16th, 2014) I witnessed former San Diego city attorney Mike Aguirre being harassed by the California state police prior to his speaking before the California Public Utilities Commission about the San Onofre steam generator debacle. Fortunately I had my camera handy:
----------------------------------------
Here is a report about the incident by Charles Langley:
Looks like the sort of thing you would expect to see in a Banana Republic or a totalitarian state, but it happened right here in California ....
On June 17, 2014, Karen Miller, a bureaucrat with the California Public Utilities Commission's Public Advisor's Office, ordered armed highway patrol officers to seize documents from Attorney Mike Aguirre as he was preparing to make a presentation at a public hearing to speak out against the $3.3 Billion bailout of the failed nuclear generators at San Onofre. Two of the CPUC's Commissioners have endorsed the bailout which has been fraudulently portrayed as a refund.*
The officers had been ordered to search Mr. Aguirre's work papers, and were instructed to forbid Mr. Aguirre from recording a public meeting.
This unlawful harassment, search, and attempts to muzzle Mr. Aguirre under orders of a Public Utility Commission official were meant to intimidate or silence Mr. Aguirre and create a chilling effect on free speech at CPUC hearings by other members of the public.
<snip>
Video: California Public Utilities Commission harasses attorney Mike Aguirre
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Last week (June 16th, 2014) I witnessed former San Diego city attorney Mike Aguirre being harassed by the California state police prior to his speaking before the California Public Utilities Commission about the San Onofre steam generator debacle. Fortunately I had my camera handy:
----------------------------------------
Here is a report about the incident by Charles Langley:
Looks like the sort of thing you would expect to see in a Banana Republic or a totalitarian state, but it happened right here in California ....
On June 17, 2014, Karen Miller, a bureaucrat with the California Public Utilities Commission's Public Advisor's Office, ordered armed highway patrol officers to seize documents from Attorney Mike Aguirre as he was preparing to make a presentation at a public hearing to speak out against the $3.3 Billion bailout of the failed nuclear generators at San Onofre. Two of the CPUC's Commissioners have endorsed the bailout which has been fraudulently portrayed as a refund.*
The officers had been ordered to search Mr. Aguirre's work papers, and were instructed to forbid Mr. Aguirre from recording a public meeting.
This unlawful harassment, search, and attempts to muzzle Mr. Aguirre under orders of a Public Utility Commission official were meant to intimidate or silence Mr. Aguirre and create a chilling effect on free speech at CPUC hearings by other members of the public.
<snip>
July 17, 2014
The interview starts about 12:20 and ends around 52:20.
Nuclear Hotseat #159 - Interview with USS Reagan's Steve Simmons (Tepco Lawsuit)
Nuclear Hotseat #159 USS Reagan's Steve Simmons & $1 Billion Lawsuit Against Tepco
Published on Jul 14, 2014
INTERVIEW:
Steve Simmons, a 17-year Navy veteran who served on the USS Ronald Reagan when it was called to do humanitarian aid work in Japan following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, which began the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
He is one of 112 sailors currently suing Fukushima Daiichi power plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company -- TEPCO -- to create a $1 billion fund to cover medical expenses for all the armed forces personnel whose health has been devastated by their exposure to radiation.
<snip>
PODCAST #159 http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/2008/
Published on Jul 14, 2014
INTERVIEW:
Steve Simmons, a 17-year Navy veteran who served on the USS Ronald Reagan when it was called to do humanitarian aid work in Japan following the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, which began the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
He is one of 112 sailors currently suing Fukushima Daiichi power plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company -- TEPCO -- to create a $1 billion fund to cover medical expenses for all the armed forces personnel whose health has been devastated by their exposure to radiation.
<snip>
PODCAST #159 http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/2008/
The interview starts about 12:20 and ends around 52:20.
July 17, 2014
What Are Acceptable Nuclear Risks?
http://nuclearrisk.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/what-are-acceptable-nuclear-risks/
What Are Acceptable Nuclear Risks?
Posted on July 15, 2014 by Nuclear Risk
When I read Eric Schlosser’s acclaimed 2013 book, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, I found a tantalizing revelation on pages 170-171, when it asked, “What was the ‘acceptable’ probability of an accidental nuclear explosion?” and then proceeded to describe a 1957 Sandia Report, “Acceptable Premature Probabilities for Nuclear Weapons,” which dealt with that question.
Unable to find the report online, I contacted Schlosser, who was kind enough to share it with me. (We owe him a debt of gratitude for obtaining it through a laborious Freedom of Information Act request.) The full report, Schlosser’s FOIA request, and my analysis of the report are now freely accessible on my Stanford web site. (The 1955 Army report, “Acceptable Military Risks from Accidental Detonation of Atomic Weapons,” on which this 1957 Sandia report builds, appears not to be available. If anyone knows of an existing copy, please post a comment.)
Using the same criterion as this report*, which, of course, is open to question, my analysis shows that nuclear terrorism would have to have a risk of at most 0.5% per year to be considered “acceptable.” In contrast, existing estimates are roughly 20 times higher.**
My analysis also shows, that using the report’s criterion*, the risk of a full-scale nuclear war would have to be on the order of 0.0005% per year, corresponding to a “time horizon” of 200,000 years. In contrast, my preliminary risk analysis of nuclear deterrence indicates that risk to be at least a factor 100 and possibly a factor of 1,000 times higher. Similarly, when I ask people how long they think we can go before nuclear deterrence fails and we destroy ourselves (assuming nothing changes, which hopefully it will), almost all people see 10 years as too short and 1,000 years as too long, leaving 100 years as the only “order of magnitude” estimate left, an estimate which is 2,000 times riskier than the report’s criterion would allow.
In short, the risks of catastrophes involving nuclear weapons currently appear to be far above any acceptable level. Isn’t it time we started paying more attention to those risks, and taking steps to reduce them?
Martin Hellman
* The report required that the expected number of deaths due to an accidental nuclear detonation should be no greater than the number of American deaths each year due to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
** In the Nuclear Tipping Point video documentary Henry Kissinger says, “if nothing fundamental changes, then I would expect the use of nuclear weapons in some 10 year period is very possible” – equivalent to a risk of approximately 10% per year. Similarly, noted national security expert Dr. Richard Garwin testified to Congress that he estimate the risk to be in the range of 10-20 percent per year. A survey of national security experts by Senator Richard Lugar was also in the 10% per year range.
What Are Acceptable Nuclear Risks?
Posted on July 15, 2014 by Nuclear Risk
When I read Eric Schlosser’s acclaimed 2013 book, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, I found a tantalizing revelation on pages 170-171, when it asked, “What was the ‘acceptable’ probability of an accidental nuclear explosion?” and then proceeded to describe a 1957 Sandia Report, “Acceptable Premature Probabilities for Nuclear Weapons,” which dealt with that question.
Unable to find the report online, I contacted Schlosser, who was kind enough to share it with me. (We owe him a debt of gratitude for obtaining it through a laborious Freedom of Information Act request.) The full report, Schlosser’s FOIA request, and my analysis of the report are now freely accessible on my Stanford web site. (The 1955 Army report, “Acceptable Military Risks from Accidental Detonation of Atomic Weapons,” on which this 1957 Sandia report builds, appears not to be available. If anyone knows of an existing copy, please post a comment.)
Using the same criterion as this report*, which, of course, is open to question, my analysis shows that nuclear terrorism would have to have a risk of at most 0.5% per year to be considered “acceptable.” In contrast, existing estimates are roughly 20 times higher.**
My analysis also shows, that using the report’s criterion*, the risk of a full-scale nuclear war would have to be on the order of 0.0005% per year, corresponding to a “time horizon” of 200,000 years. In contrast, my preliminary risk analysis of nuclear deterrence indicates that risk to be at least a factor 100 and possibly a factor of 1,000 times higher. Similarly, when I ask people how long they think we can go before nuclear deterrence fails and we destroy ourselves (assuming nothing changes, which hopefully it will), almost all people see 10 years as too short and 1,000 years as too long, leaving 100 years as the only “order of magnitude” estimate left, an estimate which is 2,000 times riskier than the report’s criterion would allow.
In short, the risks of catastrophes involving nuclear weapons currently appear to be far above any acceptable level. Isn’t it time we started paying more attention to those risks, and taking steps to reduce them?
Martin Hellman
* The report required that the expected number of deaths due to an accidental nuclear detonation should be no greater than the number of American deaths each year due to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
** In the Nuclear Tipping Point video documentary Henry Kissinger says, “if nothing fundamental changes, then I would expect the use of nuclear weapons in some 10 year period is very possible” – equivalent to a risk of approximately 10% per year. Similarly, noted national security expert Dr. Richard Garwin testified to Congress that he estimate the risk to be in the range of 10-20 percent per year. A survey of national security experts by Senator Richard Lugar was also in the 10% per year range.
July 15, 2014
Organic Food Is Healthier Confirms New Analysis
Source: Eco Watch
More nutritional antioxidants, far fewer toxic pesticides; those are the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis on organic foods published yesterday in the British Journal of Nutrition. Led by Carlo Leifort, PhD, at England’s Newcastle University, the analysis is a scientific rebuttal to a previous Stanford University review published in 2012, which found that there was little difference between the nutritional content of organic food over conventionally grown produce. Both studies found there to be fewer pesticides in organic products.
While Stanford University’s review only looked at 200 studies, Dr. Leifert and his team of researchers expanded the scope of their meta-analysis to 343 studies, and also employed more robust analytic tools by analyzing the standardized mean differences of the data from the various studies. “It shows very clearly how you grow your food has an impact,” said Dr. Leifert to The New York Times. “If you buy organic fruits and vegetables, you can be sure you have, on average, a higher amount of antioxidants at the same calorie level.” Antioxidants, compounds such as phenolic acids, flavanones, stilbenes, flavones, flavonols and anthocyanin, have been linked to lower risks of cancer and other diseases.
For many, news of higher nutritional content in organic foods is simply another benefit of buying into a system that eschews toxic pesticides, treats animals with care and protects farmworkers and the surrounding environment. Both the Stanford and Newcastle studies found pesticide residues four times more frequently on conventional crops than on organic produce.
Pesticide exposure, even at low level residues like those found on food, has been linked to a wide range of adverse impacts wildlife and humans, particularly children. In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement advising parents to choose organic in order to avoid pesticide exposure. Also in 2012, a report published by a team of 12 scientists found strong evidence that low doses of endocrine disrupting chemicals influence human diseases, including links to infertility, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cancer and other disorders. “Whether low doses of endocrine-disrupting compounds influence human disorders is no longer conjecture, as epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures are associated with human diseases and disabilities,” the report stated. Research from Tyrone Hayes, PhD, at University of California Berkeley found that a minute dose of the herbicide atrazine (as small as .1 parts per billion) turns tadpoles into hermaphrodites. In 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged that low dose responses to chemicals “do occur in biological systems,” yet has still not begun regulating endocrine disrupters through a finalized Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, as mandated by Congress in 1996.
<snip>
Read more: http://ecowatch.com/2014/07/15/organic-food-is-healthier-confirms-new-analysis/
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Nov 10, 2004, 12:55 AMNumber of posts: 27,509
