Tokyo Brown Tabby’s latest captioning is over the collection of video clips of three Japanese nuclear researchers, claiming safety for plutonium on the national TV. The first two appeared on TV after the March 11 accident to assure the public that there was nothing to worry about on plutonium, because it was so safe.
I say, the REAL PTB, has a special END set aside for those bloody bastards. “They’ll be turned to ashes from within.” Sounds an awful lot like when someone’s immune system burns them up from the inside out.
Plutonium is the most toxic substance on earth, by far. It is 2,000,000x more radioactive than Uranium dioxide. One pound is enough, properly distributed, to kill every man woman and child on the planet. One pound is about the size of a bloated silver dollar, U.S. Though a particle of plutonium on in-tact external human skin can do no damage because the alpha particle has a very short distance of penetration. The activity is millions of times more than you get from most other radioactive substances. In fact, a particle of Plutonium of only 1 millionth of a gram is a sufficient lethal dose when inhaled and lodged in the single-cell thickness alveoli of the lung where gas exchange takes place. You will die either from scar tissue due to the perpetual irritation and damage to nearby cells, or you will, of course, barring other causes of death, die from cancer. The idiot soulless, or deluded scumbag shill for nuclear power understates the case on Plutonium toxicity by a factor of 32 million. Salt is excreted from the body. If you’re lucky, that might occur from a hot Plutonium particle ingested or inhaled or entering your body through a tear duct, a sinus, or a cut or infection near the surface of the skin. However, once it’s in; it’s not coming out. Salt is excreted. This scientist is an absolute fraud and quack.
This isn’t the whole article, yet two dozen interesting points below:
“The program was cancelled because of the problem, still-present, of disaster happening if such a rocket fell back to Earth.”
In contrast, NASA’s new stress on nuclear power in space “is not only dangerous but politically unwise,” says Dr. Michio Kaku, professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York. “The only thing that can kill the U.S. space program is a nuclear disaster. The American people will not tolerate a Chernobyl in the sky. That would doom the space program.” 13
Although NASA stresses doing interplanetary exploration with nuclear power including propelling rockets on voyages to Mars a military link is seen by Dr. Dave Webb, who had been a scientist in the British space program and is now secretary of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.
Early U.S. space satellites were powered by plutonium. The first nuclear satellite was Transit 4A, a navigational satellite launched on June 29, 1961. It was a time when space and nuclear power were seen by some as coupled.
Along with the national nuclear laboratories – set up during the World War II atom bomb-building Manhattan Project and thereafter run by the Atomic Energy Commission and now the Department of Energy – the corporations involved in building space nuclear systems have also been active in promoting their use.
The Transit 4A’s plutonium system was manufactured by General Electric. The plutonium system – SNAP-9A for Systems Nuclear Auxiliary Power – aboard Transit 5BN-3, launched on April 24, 1964, also was built by GE. But this nuclear satellite failed to achieve orbit, falling from the sky and disintegrating as it burned in the atmosphere. 32
The 2.1 pounds of Plutonium-238 (an isotope of plutonium, 280 times radioactively “hotter” than the Plutonium-239 that is used in nuclear weapons) in the SNAP-9A dispersed widely over the Earth. A study titled Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear-Powered Satellites done by a grouping of European health and radiation protection agencies reported that “a worldwide soil sampling program carried out in 1970 showed SNAP-9A debris present at all continents and at all latitudes.” 33
Long connecting the SNAP-9A accident and an increase of lung cancer on Earth has been Dr. John Gofman, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of California at Berkeley, an M.D. and Ph.D. who was involved in isolating plutonium for the Manhattan Project and co-discovered several radioisotopes. 34
The most recent nuclear space probe mission was called Cassini. It was launched in 1997 with more plutonium fuel – 72.3 pounds – than on any space device ever. NASA conceded the serious dangers of a Cassini accident in its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission. It stated that if an “inadvertent reentry occurred” and Cassini fell back into the Earths atmosphere, it would break up (it had no heat shield) and “5 billion of the . . . world population . . . could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure.” 35 NASA said the “estimated size of the footprint” of radioactive contamination could be as high as 50,000 square kilometers. As for “decontamination methods,” NASA listed as planned remedies: “Remove and dispose all vegetation, Remove and dispose topsoil. Relocate animals . . . Ban future agricultural land uses.” And for urban environments, “Demolish some or all structures. Relocate affected population permanently.” 36 Dr. Gofman estimated the death toll from cancer in the event of the plutonium on Cassini being released at 950,000. 37
The U.S. nuclear-propelled rocket program began at Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1950s with building of the Kiwi reactor for what became known as the NERVA – for Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application – program. Projects Pluto, Rover and Poodle to build nuclear-powered rockets followed.
Westinghouse was a major contractor in the original U.S. nuclear rocket efforts.
A former Westinghouse president, John W. Simpson, related how to get the contracts “we pulled out all the stops – not only technical effort but also marketing and political savvy.” 38
Ground tests of nuclear rocket components were conducted. No nuclear-propelled rocket ever flew. By the early 1970s, the catastrophe that could result if a nuclear-powered rocket crashed to Earth had been recognized and the program ended.
But in the 1980s and the first incarnation of a U.S. Star Wars program under President Ronald Reagan, consideration of a nuclear-propelled rocket resumed – for use to loft heavy Star Wars equipment into space. The project was named “Timberwind” and plans were made for both ground and flight tests. To avoid heavily populated parts of the Earth, the plan was to fly a prototype atomic rocket around Antarctica but the rocket was also to pass over New Zealand and an analysis by Sandia National Laboratories projected the probability of the nuclear rocket crashing on New Zealand at 1-in-2,325. 39
Babcock and Wilcox, builder of the ill-fated Three Mile Island nuclear plant, was selected by the government to build the atomic engine for the Timberwind rocket. The reactor design was based on work done at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York.
The late Dr. Henry Kendall, chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Nobel Laureate, said of the Timberwind rocket that for such a vehicle “the needle just goes up to the end of the [danger] scale and stays there.” Such a rocket would “release a stream of radiation” as it flew, he said, and if it underwent an accident and broke up, “you’ve got radioactive material spraying all over the place . . . the risks are extremely great.” 40
With President Bill Clinton taking office, the Timberwind endeavor was renamed the Space Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Program and the aim changed to using the atomic rocket for voyages to Mars. The project was cancelled in 1993.
The new nuclear-propelled rocket push is seen by Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, as “the foot in the door, the Trojan horse, for the militarization of space” in the Star Wars plans of the George W. Bush administration. “Control and domination of the space program by the Pentagon proceeds apace,” he says. Also, he warns that beyond accidents impacting people, “the production process at Department of Energy laboratories making space nukes will lead to significant numbers of workers and communities being contaminated.” He says: “Serious questions need to be asked: Where will they test the nuclear rocket? How much will it cost? What would be the impacts of a launch accident? These nuclearization of space plans are getting dangerous and out of control.” 41
Gagnon also notes that the U.S. government agency in charge of the production of the radioisotope power systems used on space probes is the Department of Energy’s Office of Space & Defense Power Systems and the devices have long had a military dual use. 42
“Why on Earth,” asks Alice Slater, president of the New York-based Global Resource Action Center for the Environment, “would any sane person propose to take nuclear poisons to a whole new level?” 44
“Nuclear power,” says Sally Light, executive director of the anti-nuclear Nevada Desert Experience, “whether in space or on Earth is a risky business. Why is the U.S. blindly plunging ahead with such a potentially disastrous and outmoded concept? We should use solar-powered technologies as they are clean, safe and feasible. Committing $1 billion for NASAs Nuclear Systems Initiative is unconscionable. Did the people of Earth have a voice in this? One of the basic principles of democracy is that those affected have a determinative role in the decision-making process. We in the U.S. and people worldwide are faced with a dangerous, high-risk situation being forced on us and on our descendents.” 45
Dear Bigisland: I very much learned new things from that excellent article, as well. Nuclear “rockets”…omfg,what idiots there are in the martial and mutton headed end of the space program. Thank you very much for that article.
Old stories but prove that plutonium does travel!
Chernobyl Fallout? Plutonium Found In Swedish Soil
“reactor in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded in 1986 in what was then the Soviet republic of Ukraine, radioactive elements were released in the air and dispersed over the Soviet Union, Europe and even eastern portions of North America.
More than 20 years later, researchers from Case Western Reserve University traveled to Sweden and Poland to gain insight into the downward migration of Chernobyl-derived radionuclides in the soil. Among the team’s findings was the fact that much more plutonium was found in the Swedish soil at a depth that corresponded with the nuclear explosion than that of Poland.”
“Soil samples collected by Matisoff’s team reveal insights based on several conditions, such as how the radionuclides were delivered to the soil, whether from a one-time event like the Chernobyl disaster or from atmospheric bomb testing; the half-life of the radionuclides and whether they were absorbed more heavily onto clay particles (such as 137Cs and 7Be) or organic materials (239, 240Pu and 210Pbxs); and the types of soil which may keep the particles at the surface or allow them to permeate to levels below the surface.
As the team examined a range of soil types from the two countries, they found a spike in 239, 240Pu in Sweden’s soil at a depth that coincides with the Chernobyl disaster, yet no similar blip in Poland’s soil. Meteorological research showed that it rained in Sweden while the radioactive cloud was over that country. Leeched of much of its radionuclides, much less plutonium fell on Poland when the cloud later crossed over its borders.
Matisoff says that his team’s findings are preliminary, having raised as many questions as they have answered. His goal is to use this research for even bigger projects and greater, more definitive findings.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081001130000.htm
and this link/quote not relevant to plutonium but sort of linked…
plutoinium has effects on the genes if im not mistaken?
Increase In Cancer In Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl
“In two studies using different methods, Martin Tondel has shown a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer in northern Sweden, where the fallout of radioactive cesium 137 was at its most intense.
The cancer risk increased with rising fallout intensity: up to a 20-percent increase in the highest of six categories. This means that 3.8 percent of the cancer cases up to 1999 can be ascribed to the fallout. This increased risk, in turn, is 26 times higher than the latest risk estimate for the survivors of the atom bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose exposure was many times higher.
The increase in Tondel’s studies came a remarkably short time after the disaster, since it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop. The dissertation discusses the interpretation of the research findings from the perspective of the theory of science. “ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530080956.htm
interesting article here, bit short though!
How Plants Near Chernobyl Shrug Off Radiation
“Their previous research, for example, showed that soybean plants in the area have adapted to the contaminated soil with certain changes in their proteome. A proteome is the full complement of proteins produced by the genes in a plant or animal. But the broader range of biochemical changes in plants that allow them to thrive in this harsh environment remained unclear.
The scientists grew flax seeds in radiation-contaminated soil in the Chernobyl region and compared their growth to those of seeds grown in non-radioactive soil. Radiation exposure had relatively little effect on the protein levels in the plants, with only about five percent of the proteins altered, they note. Among them were certain proteins involved in cell signaling, or chemical communication, which might help the plants shrug-off radioactivity, the scientists suggest.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208130042.htm
I want to see that man sprinkle plutonium from a salt shaker over his lunch, and eat it. And someone has to test the plutonium with a Geiger counter first, on camera, so we can see that he is not faking it.
From the NASA PDF on the Dec 2011 Rover missison risk evaluation section:
What do results of the DOE Risk Assessment show? For the overall mission, there is a 1 in 220 chance that a failure could result in a release of plutonium.
There is a 1 in 420 chance of a failure resulting in a release of plutonium dioxide in the launch area.
For the overall accident scenario, as opposed to the immediate launch area, if the accident occurs witnin earth’s atmosphere and gravitation, the overall polution can be much greater than if the accident occured in the immediate launch area.
The chance that 10.6 lbs of plutonium could be released into our atmosphere at a rate of somewhere between 1 in 220 and 1 in 420 is not reassuring to me. I don’t think I would take an airplane trip if I thought the odds of crashing were 1 in 220.
We are totally reckless with our uses of nuclear energy.
Titan IV A-20 explodes over Cape Canaveral (8-12-98)
Titan IV mission A-20, the final Titan IV-A to fly, explodes after liftoff from Cape Canaveral when a short circuit resets the rocket’s guidance system. The onboard flight termination system ended the mission, carrying a classified satellite for the National Reconnaissance Office believed to be worth over $1 billion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqlgUuYQU30&feature=related
Delta III explodes over Cape Canaveral (8-26-98)
The maiden flight of the Boeing Delta III rocket ends in disaster shortly after liftoff on August 26, 1998, when an oscillation develops and depletes the engine steering fluid guiding the rocket to orbit. The ill-fated Delta III would fly twice more, with the second mission ending in failure and the third a partial success, before the program was terminated. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpeXODoOIPs&feature=related
Good grief. Been away for 5 days and had no internet, Fuku was non-exisiting in that world!
Now I’m back and it feels like a parallel universe. Try to catch up.
This video is one of the most frightening i’ve seen so far. The 2. guy laughing when saying “we can’t have discussions with those anti-nuclear people”….
Hi arclight, good to see you around as well! Break was good and much needed…feels strange to be back here, while MSM only discusses stock markets. I couldn’t care less – the sooner that system dies, the better.
I’ve been away too, and London’s burning, Canada admits that we have been radiated, and no one knows where the MOX is. It was strange looking at a beautiful lake and thinking that it was probably poisoned.
Hi milk and cheese, I read the Guardian yesterday; 4 pages about Tottenham. People lost their minds obviously. Not one article though about the new NPPs, or the plans to replace the Sellafield MOX site.
And I hear you, looking at the lake…me talking to people about fuku issues, getting as a reply: “Yeah, bad. Where are we going to have dinner today?”
milk and cheese
ive been told by my ex told me to not talk about this subject ever to my daughters! the girls are either worried that i might be “bumped off” or i might be mad! most of my friends refuse to engage, no matter how gentle i am at approaching the subject! all the more reason to carry on trying to highlight the situation!
Now there is a Liberal politician who must drop out of a political race due to cancer. The woman has breast cancer. Two weeks ago Jack Layton had to retire from politics to deal with a recurrence of his prostate cancer.
Am I being overly cynical or is it just a coincidence that only opposition party members seem to be falling ill at this time?
Your identity will not be made public unless you request it
Receive Occasional Enenews Newsletters
ENENews receives no funding from anyone or anything, except 1) People who donate via the button below, and 2) Google, who pays for the two ad spots. Thanks to all who have donated or are planning on doing so, it's nice to know people appreciate your work.