NUCLEAR RADIATION CRISIS: Japan is Poisoning Other Countries By Burning Highly-Radioactive Debris

Fukushima to Burn Highly-Radioactive Debris Fukushima will start burning radioactive debris containing up to 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram. As Mainchi notes: The state will start building storage facilities for debris generated by the March 2011 tsunami as early as May at two locations in a coastal area of Naraha town, Fukushima Prefecture, Environment Ministry and town officials said Saturday. About 25,000 tons of debris are expected to be brought into the facilities beginning in the summer, according to the officials. If more than 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium are found per kilogram of debris, the debris will be transferred to a medium-term storage facility to be built by the state. But if burnable debris contains 100,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium or less, it may be disposed of at a temporary incinerator to be built within the prefecture, according to the officials. Within the 20-km-radius no-go zone spanning across Naraha and five other municipalities along the coast, debris caused by the magnitude 9.0 quake and the subsequent tsunami has amounted to an estimated 474,000 tons, much of remaining where it is. How much radiation is that? It is a lot. Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen has said that much lower levels of cesium – 5,000-8,000 bq/kg (20 times lower than what will be allowed to be burned at Fukushima) – would be sent to a special facility in the United States and buried underground for thousands of year. See this and this. It is comparable to the levels of radioactivity found within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. See this and this. And even the Japanese – who have raised acceptable levels of radiation to absurd levels – would normally demand that material with this radioactivity be encased in cement and buried:

SHARP RISE IN U.S. EARTHQUAKES: Manmade?

A U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team has found that a sharp jump in earthquakes in America’s heartland appears to be linked to oil and natural gas drilling operations. As hydraulic fracturing has exploded onto the scene,…

Sceptics’ case melts more

  A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans. The reports, published in…

Message and the Medium

Nation needs to mobilize its soft power resources to win more hearts Kung fu, pandas or Peking Opera are what one would commonly associate with China – but they are also vital cogs in a…

Chinese hunt for traditional UK treasures

An inspection of antiques reflected in a mirror of an antique French wardrobe. Western furniture is getting increasingly popular in China. The number of Chinese browsing for antiques in UK auction houses is also growing…

From Cold War to NATO’s Humanitarian Wars: The Complicity of United Nations

Humanitarian wars, especially under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect (R2P),” are a modern form of imperialism. The standard pattern that the United States and its allies use to execute them is one where genocide and ethnic cleansing are vociferously alleged by a coalition of governments, media organizations, and non-governmental front organizations. The allegations – often lurid and unfounded – then provide moral and diplomatic cover for a variety of sanctions that undermine and isolate the target country in question, and thereby pave the way for military intervention. This is the post-Cold War modus operandi of the US and NATO. In facilitating this neo-imperialism, the United Nations has been complicit in the hijacking of its own posts and offices by Washington. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been appointed a “special peace envoy” with a mediating role in Syria. Yet, how can Annan be evaluated as an “honest broker” considering his past instrumental role in developing the doctrine of R2P – the very pretext that has served to facilitate several US/NATO criminal wars of aggression? Furthermore, the evidence attests that the US and its allies – despite mouthing support for Annan’s supposed peace plan – are not interested in a mediated, peaceful solution in Syria.