Giving a Sh*T About Fresh Water

Water, the Commons and NAFTA...

This blogpost was inspired by  Give A Shit About Fresh Water, a wonderful FB page everyone will instantly LOVE (and should now go to and LIKE!)   For each graphic,  I have taken the image from  Give A Shit About Fresh Water, added my own comment  and repeated the original post...

Thank you Jesse for hosting Give A Shit About Fresh Water   http://www.facebook.com/GiveAShitAboutFreshWater

We need to grow this issue...
  
For a deep background on the water/trade issue, go to http://www.wendyholm.com and click on the WATER tab.  Be sure to look carefully at the shelf-ready Farmers Resolution to Exempt Water from the NAFTA signed by hundreds of farm organizations (click here to see who:   http://theholmteam.ca/farmers.signatories.FREWN)
 
_______________________________________________________

The Water Cycle:

How its SUPPOSED to work. Absent inter-basin diversions, fracking, water flooding, pollution of ground water (did you know, in Alberta, toxic fluids from the oil patch are being pumped into old mine tunnels to GET RID of them?)

On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Jesse says:

This would be wonderful ...and logical, and true....if mankind did not ruin or was in the process of ruining almost all, if not every factor in this picture.......

-Jesse

_______________________________________________________

Treating our farmers like dirt is as criminal as deforestation because it drives farmland out of production. Increasingly, these lands are being snapped up by global investment funds targeting Canada's foodlands for factory farms or non-farm development.

 

On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Jesse says:

Deforestation. You may not think of this as an issue related to freshwater, but it is. Deforestation can alter the hydrology of a region, causing it to dry up. 

As you can see in this diagram, the majority of land precipitation comes from water that has evaporated or transpired from plants (73/113), not from the ocean (40/113). When plant biomass is removed from a region, the water that those plants store within their tissues is also removed. When done on a large scale, this can alter the climate of the region. 

The bottom line is that deforestation can cause wet places to become dry.

_______________________________________________________


Unsustainable use of water by Canada's oil and gas sector also threatens Canada's food future. In Alberta, we are using water at an unsustainable rate to extract oil and gas. If the companies holding the rights are American or American investors, NAFTA rights attach. Farmers on whose land they are drilling hold inferior rights.

  

On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Jesse says:

This is a map depicting the areas around the world where ground water is being pumped for irrigation at an unsustainable rate. Over-pumping creates an artificially inflated food bubble, as it allows people to produce more food in the short term than they will be able to continue producing in the long term. Once these aquifers have been depleted, global food production will decrease.

Currently, with our artificially high food production, we fail to feed about 1 billion of the Earth's inhabitants. Oh, and we'll have another 2 billion people to feed by 2050. Shit...

_______________________________________________________

Water need for food...

What a concept.   Without water, we have no food...    So why exactly are we granting oil and gas companies licenses for water use in perpetuity? To pump into the ground? For millenia?

Getting up-to-speed and active on the water/trade file will be far more effective than cutting back on beef production.  NAFTA rights attach yet government continues to issue water licenses to American firms.  Why?   Because a) the public is uninformed, and b) having purged all policy capacity, Harper sees raw resource extraction as the only option.

Ottawa is so scared of the water/trade issue they "dare not speak its name" because too many hands are dirty.

Imagine this:  If Canada were truly a democracy, the public interest in this matter would dictate that we immediately extinguish all privately held water rights and start from scratch. With communities shepherding allocations. A national water cooperative...  NAFTA challenges? Well, Canadians never gave permission to include water in the trade deal (in fact we loudly said no)... Push comes to shove? Either Americans agree to exclude water from the NAFTA or we threaten to pick up our considerable marbles and walk...   Radical? I think not. Water is the commons. We collectively own it and must collectively manage it.  In all our interests.

 

 On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Chris says:

The other inconvenient truth. Meat production is extremely wasteful in terms of water use. This is particularly true for beef. I am not a vegetarian, and I don't expect you to become one after seeing this infographic, but if we all cut back our beef consumption just a little bit it could go a long way to preserve our planet's freshwater resources.

-Chris

 
 _______________________________________________________

Climate change and population growth means demands on Canada's water resources will only increase.  It is time to recognize how NAFTA rights to Canadian water ties the hands of policymakers and do something about it. 

 

On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Jesse says:

Here are some interesting facts I found online....
-Jesse

According to the United Nations, by 2020 water use is expected to increase by 40% to support the food requirements of a worldwide population that will grow from 6.7 billion people to 7.5 billion people. The U.N. estimate is that 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with extreme water scarcity. Even though 70% of the globe is covered by water, most of it is not useable because it is saltwater. Only 2% of the earth’s water is considered freshwater. Most of the freshwater is locked up in glaciers, permanent snow cover and in deep groundwater.

Desalinization is a process that can convert saltwater into freshwater, but it is only practically useful on the coastlines and it is 15 times more expensive. The middle of the United States is considered their breadbasket, where the majority of their food is grown. Drought and/or over-consumption of existing sources of water in this sensitive area would have worldwide implications, as the U.S. is a huge exporter of wheat, soybeans, rice and corn. The United States exported $115 billion of agricultural products in 2008 while importing $80 billion, according to the USDA. This is one of the few remaining businesses where the U.S. is a net exporter. Population growth and water shortages could change that equation...

_______________________________________________________

Yuck ... :(   Bottled... :(     As my students and farm groups well know, I have a "no Nestle on the bus" rule in Cuba....

  

On Give A Shit About Fresh Water  Jesse says:

Ironically, the 40% of bottled water that is really just tap water is likely the safest bottled water for you to drink. This is because municipal water sources are subject to much stricter regulation.

_______________________________________________________

click here for a pdf of the July 2012 OECD report on Environment: The Water Challenge:  Sharing a precious commodity.

Sapping Greece: "Nonsense Economics"

“Nonsense Economics” and the Deepening Greek Crisis

Costas Lapavitsas: Greece is being destroyed as all the players prepare for next stage of austerity measures
Watch full multipart Greece

Laying on the Lard: War Pimp Renaissance

Rhymes with Swine: Paul Ryan's Philosphical Mentor Explained

Paul Ryan And The Fountainhead

by Uri Avnery

I was not interested in Paul Ryan, the man about to be nominated by the Republican party for the office of vice-president, until the name Ayn Rand popped up.

Ayn Rand, it was said, was one of the main inspirations for his particular philosophy. Since Ryan is being represented not as an ordinary, run-of-the-mill politician, like Mitt Romney, but as a profound political and economic thinker, the inspiration deserves some scrutiny.

Like most people in this country, Ayn Rand first entered my life as the author of The Fountainhead, a novel that came out four years before the birth of the state of Israel. It quickly became a bestseller. The movie based on it, with Gary Cooper playing the main role, was even more popular.
Glorifying selfishness

It is the story of an architect of genius (roughly similar to Frank Lloyd Wright) who follows his own individual style and disdains the tastes of the masses. When his architectural design for a housing project is altered by the builders, he blows the buildings up, defending his actions in court in a stirring speech in defence of individualism...

I started to read her second bestseller, Atlas Shrugged, in which she set out her philosophy in detail. But I must confess, to my eternal shame, that I never finished it. It bored me.

One day in 1974, my friend Dan Ben-Amotz called me and demanded that I immediately meet a young genius he had discovered called Dr Moshe Kroy...

He brought Kroy to my home and I was impressed. Here was an unusually erudite 24-year-old youngster, already a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, with thick glasses and very outspoken philosophical views.

It appeared that he was a true believer in the teachings of Ayn Rand, which she called objectivism. This proclaimed that egoism was the basic duty of every human being. Any kind of social commitment was a sin against nature. Only by serving his own interest and cleansing himself of any trace of altruism can a person truly fulfill himself. Society at large can progress only when it is based on such individuals, each one striving to serve only himself (or herself).

Such an outlook can be hugely attractive to a certain kind of individual. It provides them with a philosophical justification for the extreme exercise of egoism, not giving a damn for anyone else.

Kroy, and of course Ben-Amotz, were religiously devoted to this new creed. (This is, of course, an oxymoron, since Ayn Rand was a total unbeliever, condemning any form of religion, including the Jewish religion of her parents.) When I caught Ben-Amotz doing something which could be construed as beneficial to others, he went to great lengths in justifying it by proving that in the long run it was to his own ultimate advantage.

Kroy himself was obviously a very disturbed being. At the age of 41 he committed suicide. I was not certain whether Ayn Rand disturbed his mind or whether he was attracted to her because he was disturbed to start with.

Ayn Rand was born as Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum in Saint Petersburg, which later became Petrograd, which later became Leningrad. She was 12 years old when the Bolshevik revolution broke out in that city. The pharmacy of her parents was taken over by the regime, and the bourgeois family fled to the Crimea, which was held by White Russian forces. Later they returned to their native city, where Alisa studied philosophy and even published a book in Russian. In 1926 she reached the US, leaving her parents behind.

She adopted the name of Ayn (rhymes with “swine”, as she herself was wont to explain). She probably took the word from the Hebrew, where it means “eye”. The surname Rand may be a contraction of her original German-Jewish family name.

Her early history may in some measure explain her abiding hatred for Communism and any kind of collectivism, including social democracy, as well as any kind of religion or statism. For her, the state was the enemy of the free individual. This led her naturally to embrace an unbridled laissez faire capitalism ... and to reject any form of welfare state or safety net.

All this was well structured in her philosophy, which was adopted by believers all over the world. She once called herself “the most creative thinker alive”. On another occasion, she asserted that in all the annals of philosophy, there were only three great thinkers, all starting with an A: Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn Rand.
Unabashed racist

She must have been an unabashed racist, too: during the 1973 Yom Kippur War she said that it was “civilized men fighting savages”, comparing Israelis to the white Americans fighting the Red Indians.

No wonder that she posthumously became the darling of the Tea Party fanatics who are now dominating the Republican Party. And no wonder that Paul Ryan proudly cites her as one of his most important mentors. (Ayn Rand herself died in 1982 at age 77. Her funeral was attended by her devotees, including Alan Greenspan, one of the gravediggers of the US economy.)

There is something in the teachings of this Jewish White Russian preacher of extreme egoism that appeals to the primitive American myths of rugged individualism, gun-toting Wild West self-reliance, suspicion of the domination-hungry state (going back to King George III). But this is not the 18th century, for God’s sake.

I never studied philosophy, though on my path I have picked up a few dozen books about it here and there. But Ayn Rand’s theories always struck me as, well, juvenile...

I have seen in my life innumerable acts of altruism, large and small. Indeed, what is love, real love, but a pure form of altruism?

Sure, every person is, to some extent, an egoist. But every person is also, to some extent, an altruist. Human beings are social animals, their social instincts deeply imbedded in their nature. Without them, human society could not function...

Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson – financier of Netanyahu and Romney

Binyamin Netanyahu is an American-style Republican, a strong supporter of Mitt Romney... But not even he would advertise himself as a disciple of Ayn Rand. He has, however, one thing in common with Paul Ryan: both are pushed forward and financed by Sheldon Adelson.

I can think of no purer personification of Ayn Rand’s vision than this Casino billionaire. She would have adored him. He is the perfect egoist. He has become super-rich by exploiting the pitiful addiction of weak human beings. His business practices have been questioned. Yet even here there is some room for doubt: does Adelson spend hundreds of millions on people like Romney, Ryan and Netanyahu only to further his own business interests? Or do we detect even here a trace of altruism, a desire to fulfill his national and social visions, objectionable as they may be?

Since Ayn Rand was an atheist and abhorred anything that was not purely rational, while the Tea Party is strictly religious (never mind what religion), Ryan is now compelled to distance himself from his mentor, who was also a militant advocate of abortion.

Actually, I don’t believe in either the intellectual prowess or the political honesty of the man. He looks to me slightly phony. I am not sure that Ayn Rand would have liked him either. If only Gary Cooper could play him, he might look more convincing.

U.S. Troops Dying to Get Obama Reelected

America’s military is being sacrificed for a larger good

by Matthew J. Nasuti  www.kabulpress.org

Some must die so that the political careers of others can flourish. That is Article 1 of the Obama Administration’s new Code of Military Justice. Barack Obama has made the Afghan war, his war. This means that while more American men and women must die, it is all for a good cause because victory is around the corner (at least until after the November elections).

Independent sources continue to detail grim war news. As America continues its retreat from Afghanistan, Taliban attacks are increasing, as are U.S. casualties. There is a decline in all of the key nation-building metrics. One reason for this growing debacle is the absence of a coherent strategy. U.S. forces are fighting day to day, with nothing but darkness visible at the end of the tunnel. The Kabul Press has championed a viable and professional counterinsurgency strategy, but nothing will seemingly deter the Pentagon and State Department from defeat. A new book by Rajiv Chandrasekaram called “Little America” details some of the frustrations of those American officials who understand the conflict and want to win, but have been prevented from doing so.

The only Obama Administration strategy that can be discerned from its comments and actions is that it is in prayer mode. The President and his Secretaries of State and Defense are praying that the Taliban either surrenders or just goes away. If a Taliban victory is inevitable, then lives are being lost, and service men and women are being horribly maimed every day for nothing. The President of the United States owes a special duty to military members and their families not to send forces into hostilities where the effort is futile or where crucial U.S. strategic interests are not at risk. Once put into danger, they must not be kept there a moment longer than necessary.

Senior officials at the Pentagon, beginning with the lackluster General Marty Dempsey, have chosen to support the reelection of President Obama at the expense of their duty to their troops in the field. President Obama has boosted their pitiful careers, so they have opted to reply in kind. As politics has replaced leadership and honor, the theme is that the war in Afghanistan remains on-course, with progress everywhere to be seen. As the war seems likely lost, admitting such, withdrawing our forces and preventing unnecessary casualties is not an option because it would highlight the fact that President Obama has misled the American public and that he has badly botched the war effort.

To America’s general officer corps, providing an honest battlefield assessment would be unthinkable.

If solders, Marines and sailors have to die or face the rest of their life maimed, that is acceptable collateral damage. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

The rash of killings of American troops by Afghan security forces provides a textbook example of a general officer corps that is resistant to change or criticism, and incapable of decisive action. It is a corps of consensus-driven politicians obsessed with their own petty careers instead of the safety of U.S. forces.

America has a first class military, commanded by a third-rate general officer corps.

That corps’ solution is to ignore all negative news about the Afghanistan “success” story. As the casualties mount the official silence has never been so loud.
Last week General Dempsey flew into Bagram airbase for a briefing on the upsurge in American deaths. His C-17 transport was promptly rocketed by the Taliban and knocked out of commission. Officially, base officials claimed that the rocket was a lucky shot, but the evidence suggests otherwise. The Taliban fired two rockets into the sprawling base and one just happened to strike next to the aircraft of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A recurring problem for the U.S. military is that its statements regarding Afghanistan have little credibility. The Taliban have once again demonstrated their ability to strike anyway, anytime and at any target they wish.

Marty’s trip of course produced nothing. He did not hold a press conference; no new initiatives were announced and General John Allen (U.S. Commander in Afghanistan) then issued his canned press release announcing that the Afghan war effort remains on-track (which no one believes). Marty then hobbled out of Afghanistan on a second C-17. He returned to the Pentagon where he huddled with his other generals and admirals in an attempt to try and reach a consensus on what to do next. To them, leadership means endlessly staffing an issue until all objections to a new half-hearted compromise policy are resolved.
On August 23, 2012, General Allen, desperate to shift blame away from the Administration’s failed policies in Afghanistan, bizarrely pointed the finger at Ramadan fasting as the cause for the wave of killings.

Allen claimed that fasting can cause someone to pick up a weapon and murder people!

If this ridiculous theory was true, countries where fasting is common, such as India, Nepal and Tibet, would have the world’s highest murder rates. The American news media reported on Allen’s claims without any reputable editor pronouncing the comments as nonsense.

The American news media helps to foster this charade. On August 24, 2012, the Boston Globe selected Pentagon insider Peter Brooks to provide an opinion piece on the “green on blue” attacks. Mr. Brooks promptly pronounced the attacks as “cowardly” (without explaining why that is so). His article had no statistics, analysis or solutions, leaving the reader to wonder about the Globe’s editorial policy.

The new U.S. Ambassador to Kabul, James Cunningham, held a news conference last week in which he stated, “We have a chance now of a path forward with a long term perspective that will produce the results.” Boiled now to honest speaking, Cunningham is saying that there is a possibility of achieving success in the long term. The U.S. Government should not be risking American lives on such a flimsy hope.

The belief within the Pentagon is that positive speeches and press releases will translate into battlefield victories. In reality, the truth should spur innovation and adaptation, which may lead to battlefield victories. It has been said that truth is the first casualty in war. That is accurate as long as wars continue to be waged by dishonest generals and politicians.

In ancient Rome, when Roman Legions were sent on foolhardy campaigns, the Legions had the option of returning to Rome, “crossing the Tiber” and changing the government. With an election scheduled for November, a change in government remains a viable option.


The Kabul Press authorizes any other media source to reproduce this article as long as there is a source reference to The Kabul Press.

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Tom Swanky, Zoe Blunt, Janine Bandcroft Aug. 27, 2012

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook

The late American writer, Kurt Vonnegut set the record straight in his great novel, Breakfast of Champions, where he wrote of the "discovery" of America by Columbus:

 "1492. As children we were taught to memorize this year with pride and joy as the year people began living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America. Actually, people had been living full and imaginative lives on the continent of North America for hundreds of years before that. 1492 was simply the year sea pirates began to rob, cheat, and kill them."

1862 is the date Victoria City would have us all remember with pride and joy, for that was the year "people" began living here. But actually, 1862 is the year pirates whose names grace our streets and byways yet executed a plan that rightly belongs atop the annals of world infamy; a plan that destroyed not only the lives of more than 100,000 individuals, but one meant to destroy entirely the peoples of the Pacific coast of what we now call British Columbia.

Genocide is a term loosely used today, but there is none better to describe the beginnings of European settlement at this place, and after 150 years, no better time to finally face the truth of it.

Tom Swanky is perhaps an unlikely historian. The retired businessman took on the research end of his son Shawn's film project on the Tslihqot'in War, and the hanging by the colonials of their Chiefs in 1864. It was during the research for that project, Tom noted the great gulf separating the victors' narrative from that of the vanquished, and discovered a paper trail leading to revelations he could hardly believe.

Over ten years of research culminated in his book, 'The True Story of Canada’s ‘War’ of Extermination on the Pacific'. Tom will be presenting some of his research at the Seventh Annual Anarchist Bookfair, beginning September 8th.   

Tom Swanky in the first half.

And; it's been said, "History doesn't repeat, but it does echo." and the echoes of the original colonial sins are ringing throughout the interior of British Columbia now. Though their suits may have changed in 150 years, the cut of the cloth has not; at this very moment, marauders cloaked in propriety plot to dispossess the natives, driving through their lands rightofways as paths to enrich themselves, and profit the distant government. It's not gold for Empire this time, but energy they crave; the new coin of the realm.

The Enbridge pipeline project hopes to make of the province a conduit for Alberta's bitumen mines, sluicing the toxic goo through pipes to the sea at Kitimat. Last week, the project sprung another leak, with VanCity announcing divestiture of all investments in the companies behind the scheme.

Zoe Blunt is a Victoria-area based environmental activist, organizer, and facilitator. She's a citizen journalist whose work has been instrumental in the implementation of myriad campaigns locally, and throughout the province designed to protect the ecological integrity of B.C.'s wild lands, ensuring habitat viabililty for the animals in it, and cultural continuity for the people depending on it. Zoe was front and centre in efforts to convince VanCity to change their investment portfolio options, excluding Enbridge related vehicles.

Zoe Blunt and plugging the pipeline's progress in the second half.

And; Victoria Street Newz publisher and CFUV broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will join us in the second half to bring us up to speed with some of the good things going on in and around Victoria in the coming week. But first, Tom Swanky and the Great Darkening at the heart of our colonial beginnings.

Listen. Hear.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, 104.3 cable, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca. He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/

Courts Back Police Surveillance State - Again

Another Day, Another Shameful Ruling on Police State Spying

by Tom Burghardt - Antifascist Calling...

Recently, federal district court Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California, dismissed a civil rights lawsuit filed against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on grounds of bogus "state secrets privilege" claims made by the Obama administration.

That suit, Fazaga v. FBI, was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The plaintiffs forcefully argued that the Bureau illegally spied on Muslim residents in southern California, targeting them for "special handling" solely on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The atrocity played out in Carney's court against a citizens' right to due process under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, constitutional guarantees that extend to all government actions and proceedings that can result in harm to an individual either civilly or criminally, is only the latest in a long line of capitulatory rulings by a diminished Judicial Branch.

Under Bush, and now Obama, the Justice Department demanded that Fazaga be thrown out on the most specious grounds: that presidential authority in all matters relating to national security cannot be challenged by those who are the victims of predatory actions, regardless of their egregious nature, by the secret state.

Denouncing Carney's cave-in to the Justice Department, Ahilan Arulanantham, the deputy legal director for the ACLU of Southern California said: "Under today's ruling dozens of law-abiding Muslim Americans in Southern California will never know if the government violated their constitutional rights. Every American should be deeply troubled when the government can win dismissal of a case involving the most basic constitutional rights by claiming that it is acting, in secret, in the interests of national security. The notion that our basic safety requires relinquishing our most cherished liberties is as inconsistent with the Constitution as it is frightening."

But in a collapsing Empire, where the indefinite detention or even the liquidation of "terrorism" suspects, alongside illegal warrantless spying, the trampling of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, the persecution of government whistleblowers who bring high state crimes to light, are now deemed unreviewable by any court by a quasi-fascist "Unitary Executive."

According to a case summary posted by the ACLU of Southern California, Peter Bibring informed us: "From the term 'state secrets,' you might think the case involved spies, hush-hush arrangements with foreign governments, or people detained at secret foreign prisons--as some state secrets cases do. But this one involves the FBI's investigation into law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents in Orange County, California, called 'Operation Flex'."

"In June 2006," Bibring wrote, "FBI agents recruited Craig Monteilh, a man with a file full of felony convictions, to pose as a convert to Islam at one of the largest mosques in the area. The FBI paid Monteilh to spend the next fourteen months meeting as many members of the Muslim community as he could. He made audio recordings of every interaction, as he gathered names, telephone numbers, e-mails, political and religious views, travel plans, and other information on hundreds of individuals in the Muslim community. According to Monteilh's own sworn statement, he was told to pay special attention to community leaders and those who seemed especially devout."

FBI snitch Monteilh, a steroid-enhanced "fitness freak" and con man, who the Orange County Weekly reported had once told an unwitting dupe of one of his scams, "my body is my business card," that is, before "liberating" her of tens of thousands of dollars even as he pocketed upwards of a quarter million more from the Bureau, was eventually sent back to state prison for grand-theft.

"When asked if the FBI had particular targets in the Muslim community that they wanted to have investigated, Monteilh said, 'No. They said the targets would come to me.' In other words," Bibring averred, "Operation Flex was a fishing expedition that targeted people because of their religion. But in the end, after Monteilh began incessantly about jihad and violence, members of the community did exactly what you're supposed to do: they reported him to the FBI. After hundreds of hours of Monteilh's time and thousands of taxpayer dollars 'Operation Flex' resulted in zero criminal convictions. No one was ever even charged with a terrorism offense."

Monteilh's "cover" was blown when members of the Islamic Center of Irvine grew increasingly suspicious--and disturbed--by his provocative chatter about "jihad" and "terrorism." Two members of the Orange County mosque contacted Hussam Ayloush, executive director of CAIR's Southern California chapter, and told him that during a car ride Monteilh said he "wanted to blow up buildings."

Ayloush contacted J. Stephen Tidwell, an FBI assistant director who mendaciously told a gathering at the Islamic Center of Irvine in 2006 that the FBI "would never spy on mosques."

"'I am calling to report a possible terrorist'," Ayloush told the assistant director, the Weekly disclosed. "'He is a white convert in Irvine.' As soon as Ayloush uttered those words, he says Tidwell cut him off. 'Okay,' he reportedly replied. 'Thanks for letting us know'."

"Ayloush offered to provide the FBI with the man's name and address, but, he says, Tidwell told him to give the information to the Irvine P.D., which he promptly did. 'Neither the FBI nor the Irvine P.D. ever bothered to talk to the guy after he was reported,' Ayloush says."

Instead of "preventing terrorism" however, Operation Flex like a score of other filthy entrapment exercises run by the FBI worked precisely as intended: as a means to terrorize the Muslim community and let the "hajis" know who's boss.

As Pulitzer Prize winning Associated Press investigative journalists Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo reported last week, the New York City Police Department's sinister Demographics Unit, tasked with "spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on conversations and cataloguing mosques ... never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation."

"The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program," Goldman and Apuzzo wrote, and was "built with help from the CIA." With millions of taxpayer-provided "homeland security" handouts, the unit "assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames."

"But in a June 28 deposition as part of a longstanding federal civil rights case," AP reported, "Assistant Chief Thomas Galati said none of the conversations the officers overheard ever led to a case."

"'Related to Demographics,' Galati testified that information that has come in 'has not commenced an investigation'."

But when it comes to evidence of widespread FBI abuse uncovered in Fazaga, we're supposed to believe that none of this can be discussed, let alone litigated in open court, since to do so would let the "terrorists" win!

The court, caving-in to arguments made by Hope and Change™ fraudster Barack Obama's Justice Department, tossed the case on the basis of assertions made by government attorneys that to allow the plaintiffs their day in court "would require or unjustifiably risk disclosure of secret and classified information regarding the nature and scope of the FBI's counterterrorism investigations, the specific individuals under investigation and their associates, and the tactics and sources of information used in combating possible terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies."

In ruling against victims of the Bureau's anti-Muslim witchhunt, Judge Carney averred that "the state secrets privilege is specifically designed to protect against disclosure of such information that is so vital to our country's national security."

"The state secrets privilege strives to achieve a difficult compromise between the principles of national security and constitutional freedoms," Carney wrote.

But as Shahid Buttar, the executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee BORDC), wrote: "First, by invoking the state secrets privilege, the decision extends the judiciary's capitulation to executive lawlessness across the Bush & Obama administrations. Since initially emerging as a narrow evidentiary doctrine (in a 1953 case that ultimately proved to be part of a Pentagon coverup), federal courts have recently accepted the privilege as a wholesale immunity doctrine, a 'get out of jail free' card for executive abuses of various kinds."

If we were inclined to believe the good judge (we're not), with logic worthy of a Monty Python skit, Carney claimed that "The state secrets privilege can only be invoked and applied with restraint, in narrow circumstances, and infused with judicial skepticism. Yet, when properly invoked, it is absolute--the interest of protecting state secrets cannot give way to any other need or interest."

Accordingly, Carney, appointed to the federal bench by that champion of civil liberties and human rights, George W. Bush, asserted that "the proper application of the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security."

Seeking to immunize himself from charges that he is little more than a toady for Executive Branch mandarins, Carney went to great lengths to cover his juridical assets: "Plaintiffs raise the specter of Korematsu v. United States... and protest that dismissing their claims based upon the state secrets privilege would permit a 'remarkable assertion of power' by the Executive, and that any practice, no matter how abusive, may be immunized from legal challenge by being labeled as 'counterterrorism' and 'state secrets.' But such a claim assumes that courts simply rubber stamp the Executive's assertion of the state secrets privilege. That is not the case here."

Perish the thought! After all, only anti-patriotic, terrorist-loving, constitutional "extremists" would countenance otherwise! Never mind that the Bush and Obama regimes have raised the specter of "state secrets" to dismiss a score of cases relating to kidnapping and forced disappearance ("extraordinary rendition"), indefinite detention, torture, illegal wiretapping and state murder.

Last year, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, filed a declaration on the case which claimed that various aspects of the case would be "too sensitive" to be aired in open court. Indeed, according to Holder several categories of information that would be presented by plaintiffs' attorneys "could reasonably be expected to cause significant harm to the national security."

This is the same Eric Holder who as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, pimped himself out to secure the last-minute pardon of fugitive financier and Democratic Party money man Marc Rich before the Great Triangulator left office.

Commenting on Holder's role in securing Rich's pardon, investigative journalist Jim Hougan wrote: "Other than Richard Nixon, I can think of no other felon, or quasi-felon, who has been pardoned for his crimes without having first been convicted of them. Perhaps the explanation is that Rich and [Pinky] Green have been helping their countries--the United States and Israel--behind the scenes. Like Hollywood tycoon Arnan Milchan, who is widely alleged to have long used his businesses to help finance the operations of the Mossad, former 20th Century Fox honcho Rich may well have done the same...if not for the Mossad, then perhaps for the CIA."

But wait, there's more!

Proving once again that crime pays, if you're well-connected, upon leaving office Holder, a shrewd operator who knows which side his bread is buttered, joined the white shoe law firm of Covington & Burling. From his D.C. perch, Holder helped negotiate an agreement with the Justice Department over charges that Chiquita Brands International had ponied-up "protection money" to the drug-dealing Colombian death squad, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC.

Close allies of former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, three of whose relatives were recently extradited to the United States where they face cocaine trafficking charges, only after American taxpayers had doled out billions of dollars to "fight drugs" under Plan Colombia that is, Chiquita hired far-right AUC killers to murder trade unionists, peasant activists and human rights' campaigners to protect their blood-soaked "investments."

According to case files, Chiquita arranged payments totaling millions of dollars during a 1997 meeting between late AUC, Israeli-trained führer Carlos Castaño and officials from Chiquita subsidiary Banadex.

At the time, Colombia's attorney general, Mario Iguarán, charged that Chiquita had used one of its ships to smuggle some 3,400 AK-47 assault rifles and 4 million rounds of ammunition to AUC drug lords. Although Iguarán had sought the extradition of Chiquita executives over these charges, none were. It is unknown whether or not cocaine was transported into the United States by that ship on its return voyage. In the wake of the $25 million "settlement" with the Justice Department, Holder then represented Chiquita in a civil action that followed the criminal case.

More recently, as financial journalist Matt Taibbi pointed out in Rolling Stone, Holder's "predictable decision" not to criminally pursue Goldman Sachs for massive fraud is "not just because Holder has repeatedly proven himself to be a spineless bureaucrat and obsequious political creature masquerading as a cop, and not just because rumors continue to circulate that the Obama administration--supposedly in the interests of staving off market panic--made a conscious decision sometime in early 2009 to give all of Wall Street a pass on pre-crisis offenses."

"No," Taibbi wrote, "the real reason this wasn’t surprising is that Holder's decision followed a general pattern that has been coming into focus for years in American law enforcement. Our prosecutors and regulators have basically admitted now that they only go after the most obvious and easily prosecutable cases."

Like the persecution of Muslims, antiwar activists, national security whistleblowers or anyone else who's rocked the boat: easy prey for an FBI stitch-up.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers, scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

DU Legacy and Iraq's Dying Children

The Children Are Still Dying: Violence is Not News

by Ramzy Baroud

Somewhere in my home I have a set of photo albums I rarely go near. I fear the flood of cruel memories that might be evoked from looking at the countless photos I took during a trip to Iraq. Many of the pictures are of children who developed rare forms of cancer as a result of exposure to Depleted Uranium (DU), which was used in the US-led war against Iraq over two decades ago.

I remember visiting a hospital that was attached to Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The odor that filled its corridors was not the stench of medicine, but rather the aroma of death. At a time of oppressive siege, the hospital lacked even basic anesthetic equipment and drugs. Children sat and stared at their visitors. Some wailed in inconceivable pain. Parents teetered between hope and the futility of hope, and at prayer times they duly prayed.

A young doctor gave a sweeping diagnosis: “No child that ever enters this place ever leaves alive.” Being the young reporter I was at the time, I diligently made a note of his words before asking more questions. I didn’t quite grasp the finality of death.

Several years later, Iraq’s desolation continues. On August 16, 90 people were killed and more were wounded in attacks across the country. Media sources reported on the bloodbath (nearly 200 Iraqis were killed this month alone), but without much context. Are we meant to believe that violence in Iraq has transcended any level of reason? That Iraqis get blown up simply because it is their fate to live in perpetual fear and misery?

But the dead, before they were killed, were people with names and faces. They were fascinating individuals in their own right, deserving of life, rights and dignity. Many are children, who knew nothing of Iraq’s political disputes, invited by US wars and occupation and fomented by those who feed on sectarianism.

We often forget this. Those who refuse to fall into the trap of political extremes still tend to process and accept violence in one way or another. We co-exist with tragedy, with the belief that bombs just go off randomly and that surviving victims cannot be helped. We somehow accept the idea that refugees cannot be repatriated and the hungry cannot be fed.

This strange wisdom is most apparent in Sudan. In the Upper Nile state, people are dying from sheer exhaustion before they reach refugee camps in Batil. Some walk for weeks between South Kordofan and the Blue Nile, seeking respite and any chance of survival. Those who endure the journey – compelled by fighting between the Sudanese army and rebels groups – might not survive the harshness of life awaiting them at Batil. The BBC News reported on August 17, citing a warning by Medecins Sans Frontieres, that “[p]eople are dying in large numbers in a refugee camp in South Sudan.”

I almost stumbled on the ‘humanitarian catastrophe’ in Batil (as described by MSF’s medical co-ordinator, Helen Patterson) while reviewing reports of the deteriorating situation in some Darfur refugee camps. Batil now hosts nearly 100,000 of the estimated 170,000 refugees who recently fled their homes. According to the medical charity, 28% of the children are malnourished, and the mortality rate is twice that of the accepted emergency threshold.

Darfur is, of course, a festering wound. Many of the internally displaced refugees often find themselves in a constant state of displacement, as was the case earlier this month. UN officials say that ‘all’ 25,000 people in a single refugee camp, Kassab, went on the run again after armed groups clashed with government forces. They settled in another ‘shelter’ nearby, the town of Kutum. According to the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), the supposed new shelter ‘lacks water, food and sanitation’ (CNN, August 9).

Since then, the story has somewhat subsided. Not because the fleeing refugees are in a good standing, but because this is all the attention that 25,000 refugees can expect from a media awash with news of two-faced politicians and celebrity scandals. It might take a ‘peacemaking’ celebrity to place Batil or Kassab on the media map for another day or two, and surely nothing less than a sizable number of deaths to make the refugees a relevant news item once again.

That said, no attention-seeking VIP is likely to venture out to Mali anytime soon. While the humanitarian crisis in West Africa is reaching frightening levels, the media continues to address the conflict in Mali in terms of the logic of Western interests being threatened by rebels, coups and jihadists. Aside from the fact that few ask of Western complicity in the chaos, 435,000 refugees are flooding neighboring countries. This was the most recent estimate by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on August 16, but the fact is ignored by most media.

The World Food Program says that the food crisis is devastating – not only for distraught refugees, but also for millions within the country. Malian children are, of course, outnumbering all other victims. They are helplessly dragged around through endless deserts. When they die, they merely leave a mark as yet another statistic, estimated without much certainty, and, sadly, without value.

However, here may lay the moral to the story. Every Malian, Sudanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Palestinian, Yemeni or Rohingya child matters immensely to those around him. His or her life – or death – might conveniently serve to fortify a political argument, make a good National Geographic reportage, or a Facebook photo with many ‘shares’ and ‘likes’. But for parents, families, friends and neighbors, their children are the center of their universe, however poor and seemingly wretched. Thus, when UNICEF or UNRWA complains about a shortage of funds, it actually means that thousands of innocent people will needlessly suffer, and that centers of many universes will dramatically implode, replacing hope with bottomless despair, and often rage.

It may be convenient to assign conventional political wisdom to explain complex political issues and violent conflicts. But protracted conflicts don’t make life any less precious, or children any less innocent. It is a tragedy when Iraqis seem to be on a constant parade of burying their loved ones, or when the Sudanese seem to be on a constant quest to save their lives. It’s a greater tragedy, however, when we get so used to the unfolding drama of human violence that we can accept as destined the reality of children crossing the Sahara in search of a sip of water.



Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London.)

How Green Was My Economy?

A Green Full Employment Economy Requires Mass Mobilization

by TRNN

A Green Full Employment Economy Requires Mass Mobilization Bob Pollin Pt6: The first steps towards full employment is to create a green engine of jobs growth Watch full multipart Is Full Employment Possible in Capitalism?

Fracking the Province: What LNG and Site C Boondoggles Mean for the Province's Future

LNG, Fracking and Site C Dam: BC's Looming Energy Boondoggle

by Damien Gillis - The Canadian.org

The proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan bitumen pipelines through BC are finally receiving the attention they deserve - as is the much-needed corollary conversation on the Alberta Tar Sands and their true impact on Canada's economic future, elevated to national prominence by Official Opposition leader Thomas Mulcair.

Yet, as big of a game-changer as oil pipelines and tankers would be for BC, one could argue that the collection of proposed natural gas-related developments on the table is, taken together, at least as transformative for the province's future - though you wouldn't know it from the relative silence on the topic.

Until recently, that is. The past several months have seen a number of highly significant events related to this matter.

First, in mid-June, Apache Canada announced a massive new shale gas find in the Liard Basin, which stretches from northeast BC into the southeast corner of the Yukon. The Liard play, being touted as the "best shale gas reservoir in North America", is west of the Horn River basin play, already one of the world's largest. The find is undoubtedly a game-changer, elevating northeast BC to the world's mecca for the relatively new, yet highly controversial process for breaking open shale gas formations deep underground, known as "fracking".

The next big development came the day after Apache's announcement, when the NDP, led by Energy Critic and likely future Energy Minister John Horgan, came out fully supporting an expanded natural gas industry in Northeast BC, downplaying environmental concerns about fracking. In the same breath, the Official Opposition showed clear support for the Liberal plan to build a number of Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants in Kitimat to export the resource to Asia.

The party's position was solidified last week when the Georgia Straight reported it was fully backing a new pipeline from Summit Lake, north of Prince George - Encana, EOG and Apache Canada's joint venture Pacific Trails Pipeline - to carry natural gas from northeast BC to three proposed LNG refineries in Kitimat.

Finally, Premier Christy Clark announced a week later that her government will be reclassifying previously dirty natural gas as "clean" - but only when it's burned to power these proposed LNG plants in Kitimat. The Campbell/Clark Government previously banned the development of new gas-fired electrical plants, putting the emphasis on renewable or so-called "clean" energy alternatives - wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro.

The premise for these new multi-billion dollar LNG plants is to access new markets in Asia which currently pay far more for gas than North American customers. Prices in China, Japan and Korea range up to $17 per thousand cubic feet versus a historic low of two to three dollars in North America today - largely thanks to the glut of natural gas flooding the domestic market as a result of new shale gas plays. The idea is to turn some of BC's plentiful gas supply into liquid, put it on tankers and ship it to Asia to reap big profits. Without these prices, big finds like Apache's in the Liard Basin simply don't make sense to develop.

While the plan looks financially (though certainly not environmentally) promising on the surface, it's fraught with complications:

1. The process of converting gas to liquid is enormously energy intensive. According to Christy Clark, all the the power from BC Hydro's proposed new 1,100 Megawatt Site C Dam on the Peace River would be required for just Shell's one proposed LNG plant in Kitimat. That may have changed, now that these plants are allowed to burn their own cheap gas for power, but, curiously, Site C Dam has not been taken off the table in the wake of that announcement. The otherwise energy self-sufficient BC has nowhere near enough electrical supply to power three new LNG plants and all the new mines the Clark Government is pushing forward.  

2. The whole plan is contingent on this high price differential carrying forward - which is doubtful for a number of reasons. China's economy is already showing signs of slowing down, while Japan is looking to restart its nuclear program; where will its energy demand be in 10 years when these plants are built and supplying the Asian market with LNG?

3. We're not the only horse in the race. China has its own shale gas plays - which it is now starting to develop. Moreover, a number of other countries are thinking the same way we are - chief among them Australia, which is much further along and has already secured contracts to sell LNG to China. 

4. The main method of supplying these plants - gas from fracking operations - is coming under increased scrutiny globally, with various moratoria having been instituted in other regions, relating to concerns over water use and contamination, earthquakes, and myriad human and animal health concerns. Fracking producers may well (and should) face increased regulation - meaning added costs and further reduced profits - or, worse, outright restrictions and shutting down of operations as awareness and evidence build against this controversial technique.

LNG and Mines Mean Site C

As befuddled and full of flip-flopery as the Liberals have been on this file, the NDP are in quite a pickle too. First, they give their environmental seal of approval to shale gas, while supporting the massively risky undertaking that is building and fueling multi-billion dollar plants on BC's coast to turn this gas into liquid and ship it to new markets in Asia. But when the Liberals reclassify gas as "clean" (remember, the NDP just did as much themselves not a week previous) in order to allow these plants to use their own gas to power the enormously energy-intensive liquid compression process, the Opposition cries foul. Why? Because burning gas isn't clean. So which is it, Mr. Dix?

I filmed a rally in Victoria two years ago led by First Nations and farmers from the Peace Valley in opposition to Site C Dam. NDP Energy Critic John Horgan, to his credit, attended the rally and spoke - but he stopped short of outright opposing the dam. He would only say that it required a full environmental assessment and that it should only proceed if the science supports it.

Then, in January, 2011, Horgan told the Georgia Straight that he didn't think Site C was "necessary" at the time - though still leaving the door open to the project:

They want some peace in the valley, and as long as the spectre of Site C hangs over their head, there’s never going to be a comfort level in the community,” Horgan said. “They want a full-fledged, full-on environmental assessment, so that they can put on the table the science of the sloughing, the costs of dredging, and the total costs on ratepayers of a $6- to $7- to $8- or even $9-billion project.

Earlier this year, my colleague at the Common Sense Canadian, Rafe Mair put NDP leader Adrian Dix on the spot regarding Site C and got more of the same fence-sitting.

To my understanding, the NDP is on the fence or publicly committed to the above schemes - Site C, fracking, LNG - for three main reasons:

1. It is conscious of not allowing itself to be branded by its political opponents as "anti-progress" or "anti-industry", especially after having taken a strong position against the Enbridge pipeline

2. It is wary of not stepping on the toes of First Nations who have signed onto to the LNG scheme - particularly the Haisla Nation of Kitimat, who have also been vocal opponents of the Enbridge pipeline.

3. It recognizes how much the province's coffers have come to depend on royalties, licenses and other fees related to the natural gas industry and doesn't want to disturb that flow, leading to big deficits that will play into its opponents' hands.

While these are all politically understandable reasons for supporting this massive industrialization of northern BC, they do not excuse the arguments against this program.

In the very least, the environmental and health concerns associated with fracking and the loss of vital farmland and fish and wildlife habitat from Site C - not to mention the notion of massive public subsidies for an industry on less than solid ground going forward - should argue for a more mature position from the province's government-in-waiting. They know this whole scheme is fraught with complications and this outright endorsement of it shows the NDP is ready to put short-term politics ahead of reasoned, long-term policy for the province.

Subsidizing Energy for Industry

Clearly, Site C, mining, fracking, LNG are all interrelated. Even if Site C isn't used to power LNG, there are over a dozen proposed new mines in northern BC - each of which is hungry for taxpayer-subsidized electricity. This begs the question - one answered by economist Erik Andersen in a recent interview with Rafe Mair: should the public be subsidizing new industry at all, with skyrocketing power bills and new $10-plus billion dam projects like Site C?

One of the key bones of contention at this year's failed Rio climate conference was the matter of ending subsidies for hydrocarbon production. Plainly, this is a no-brainer, if we are to get on with the necessary transition away from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. Moreover, the wealthiest corporations in history are the last entities that should be receiving public subsidies. And yet, we learned through a leaked memo that the Harper Government was leading the charge against the move to end hydrocarbon subsidies. So much for the "free market" Stephen Harper and his fellow Milton Friedman disciples keep railing on about!

So in that regard, it makes abundant sense for the natural gas industry to use some of its own product to supply the enormous energy needs of these LNG plants. And yet, anyone should be able to recognize the environmental folly of reclassifying gas as "clean" to enable its burning, to ship more gas half way around the world to be...burned. And that's ignoring the myriad environmental problems associated with the initial extraction of the gas through fracking.

A Looming Boondoggle

No matter the degree to which Site C or our public hydroelectric system are used to power this LNG program, the taxpayers of BC, as shareholders in our gas resource, are impacted by the choices the industry makes on numerous levels. We need to ask whether this LNG-Asian market vision is an economically viable, environmentally responsible idea, or an epic resource boondoggle in the making, as we have seen in the past with similar forays into the Asia market with our coal and timber.

These political parties and the industry are banking on achieving a higher price for their gas in Asian markets - particularly China and Japan. But China has its own shale gas potential and is only just beginning to develop it. On top of that, China's economy - and thus energy demand - is showing real signs of faltering. It will take us 5-10 years to build all these LNG plants and the additional energy assets to power them. Will China still be paying premium prices for LNG a decade from now, given the volatility of the various factors which enable that pricing today?

There are other players, such as Korea and Southeast Asia who might. Petronas Energy of Malaysia recently scooped up Candian gas company Progress Energy for over $5 Billion.

But this raises another question: how will this benefit the BC and Canadian economy - especially in light of new labour laws from the Harper Government that allow companies like Petronas to import foreign workers and pay them 15% less than Canadian employees. So under this system, we could see many jobs going to foreigners (excepting those that are too technical to be done by cheap, imported workers), while these new profits flow out of Canada, along with the energy resource.

This LNG scheme - as with plans to export Alberta bitumen to Asia - should be viewed as a hail mary pass to try and get the Canadian oil and gas industry out of the financial pit into which it is presently sinking. With prices where they are, there is a real danger that BC's once-thriving industry could collapse, without a North American market willing to pay a reasonable price for its product. And yet, Site C, LNG and fracking, taken together - as they should be - constitute a massive gamble for the citizens of Birtish Columbia, both environmentally and economically. As such it's time we have a frank  conversation about the issue before rushing headlong into a potential boondoggle of unprecedented proportions for our province.

Perhaps what needs to happen here - from both an environmental and economic perspective - is a planned ramping down of the North American natural gas supply, until prices begin to stabilize again. As energy economists like Jeff Rubin argue, the most effective way to regulate energy consumption is through price. Clearly, at $2-3/unit of energy, there is no incentive for the North American public or industry to conserve natural gas. Nor does this price point benefit the gas industry or the public, who are partners in the resource through the royalties and tax dollars we receive from its sale - all of which are significantly diminished in this climate. And yet, reducing supply in the North American market would be a tremendous undertaking that requires a level of collusion - and may not be practical, regardless, with hundreds of companies looking out for their own short-term interests.

In any event, while the public reaction and much-needed discussion around these issues have been delayed, there are signs they are now developing quickly. The political discussion surrounding the issue is intensifying, as is the media's coverage of it. Already, the bubble shows signs of bursting, as Kitimat LNG - the joint venture between Encana, EOG and Apache - was recently delayed by another year as the consortium has yet to sign the contracts it needs with Asian buyers to finance the project. Meanwhile, some First Nations and environmentalists are beginning to organize protests against the consortium's Pacific Trails Pipeline - the primary connector between fracked gas of northeast BC and this and other proposed LNG plants on the coast. Opposition to Site C Dam has been steadily growing as well, as I documented at this year's record-setting 'Paddle for the Peace'.

It's high time this issue generated some of the intensity that the Enbridge project has received - as it would likely have as big, if not an even greater cumulative impact on the future of this province, environmentally and socioeconomically.


Damien Gillis is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker with a focus on environmental and social justice issues - especially relating to water, energy, and saving Canada's wild salmon.

Daiichi Questions: Can Spent Fuel Pools Catch Fire?

Can Spent Fuel Pools Catch Fire?

In this Fairewinds’ feature, Fairewinds Associates Chief Engineer Arnie Gundersen analyzes a US government national laboratory simulation video that shows nuclear spent fuel rods do catch fire when exposed to air. This simulation video proves Fairewinds’ assertions that nuclear fuel rods can catch fire when exposed to air, and Arnie discusses the ramifications of this phenomena if the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4 spent fuel pool were to lose cooling water.

The Sandia National Laboratories video in its entirety can be seen here.

Associated Material

Video

Nuclear Engineer Arnie Gundersen demonstrates How Fukushima's Fuel Rods Melted and Shattered

Video transcript

Arnie Gundersen: Hi, I'm Arnie Gundersen from Fairewinds and today I would like to talk to you about fuel pool fires:  are they possible, what causes them and what are the consequences.  Related to that is why is everybody focused on Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4.  Before I get into the details, I need to go back and touch on a couple of basics.  Inside a nuclear reactor, uranium splits and when it splits, it gives off 95% of the heat.  That is what makes nuclear fission so neat is that one atom can give off an incredible amount of heat.  The problem is that 5% of the heat remains in these pieces called fission products.  That heat gradually decays away over 5 years, but for at least 5 years, these pieces, these fission products, have to be cooled.  That part of the reaction does not occur in the nuclear reactor, it occurs in the spent fuel pool.  Remember now, that the uranium is in a pellet, about the size of my pinkie, and these pellets are put into about 12 foot long rods.  The rods are made of a material called zircaloy and that is the problem.  Zircaloy can burn in air if it gets hot enough.  And it is called pyrophoric, so when it starts to burn, water cannot put out the combustion.

Now these pellets and rods are put into bundles.  The bundles are about that big and 12 feet high.  And those bundles are then lifted out of the nuclear reactor and put into the spent fuel pool.  Now we know zircaloy can burn.  Back in April of 2011, Fairewinds put a video up where we showed a single zircaloy rod burning in air.  And on that video, you can actually see the piece of zircaloy bouncing across the table top.  And it was combusting on it's own, there was no flame, and it was basically burning in air with no internal source of heat.

The question is, can that happen in a nuclear fuel pool?  And what is it about Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4 that has everyone concerned?  There are 4 reactors in jeopardy at Fukushima-Daiichi.  But everyone's attention now has been focused on the fuel pool at Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4.  Why is that?  Well, in the Mark I design, there is no containment over the fuel pool.  And that means that if there is a problem in the fuel pool, there is nothing to trap the radiation and prevent it from going airborne.  At Fukushima-Daiichi, Unit 4 though, an entire nuclear fuel core had just recently been removed from the containment, from the nuclear reactor, and was put into the spent fuel pool.  That is what makes Daiichi Unit 4 unique.  It has got an entire nuclear core, out of the reactor, out of the containment, and in the fuel pool.  Related to that though, is the fact that Fukushima-Daiichi 4 is also damaged.  There is a bulge in the bottom of it and I believe it is something called a first mode Euler strut bulge.  And it clearly is an indication of a seismic damage.  This is not something that happened from the explosion.  The building has been damaged from a seismic event.  So Daiichi Unit 4 has an entire nuclear core out of the containment in a spent fuel pool and the building it is housed in, has been previously damaged by the explosions in the building and by the seismic events that occurred since March 11th of 2011.  That is why all eyes in the world are focussed on what is going on in Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wanted to know if a fuel bundle can burn in air too.  And they commissioned Sandia National Labs to run a test.  Just by coincidence, the test was done about 2 weeks before the Fukushima-Daiichi accident.  Now this was a test of a nuclear fuel bundle, but I need to be clear:  there was no spent nuclear fuel in the bundle.  The heat from the pellets was simulated using electric resistance heaters, pretty similar to what you have got inside your toaster.  So, this was a test to create the same amount of heat that the fuel pellets would create, but it was done with electricity, not with spent nuclear fuel.  Other than that though, the fuel bundle was identical to the bundle that is in a nuclear fuel pool.

Now, this is a 5 hour video that we've condensed down to about 1 minute. The screenshots that we've taken for this show, in the upper left, a picture of a fuel bundle with wires going into it - that's the electricity - that's designed to heat the fuel and wires coming out - those are monitoring wires. And, on the far right, is top to bottom looking at the fuel bundle from the side. There's an enormous amount of data collected in these 5 hours and all of it is on the Sandia site which we linked to/from the Fairewinds site. The first video shows a bundle immediately before the heat was applied. Shortly after, it's the same bundle, the heat is on, and it's already beginning to smoke. A little further on is the bundle, again, smoking considerably. Well, where's there smoke there is fire. The last one in the sequence shows the bundle on fire. Now, what you're seeing is zircaloy burning in air. There was no match applied to start this fire, it just got hot enough so that it began to combust of its own volition - in air.

Just to be clear one last time, that was a simulated test we just watched using electricity in place of spent nuclear fuel.  But it is clear that a single nuclear fuel bundle can burn in air.  Now Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4 would be even worse.  Inside Daiichi's fuel pool, are 1500 fuel bundles, not one, 1500 fuel bundles, 300 of which are just removed from the nuclear core.  So instead of one very hot bundle, we have got 300 very hot bundles.

Now it is even worse than that.  The Japanese put all of their nuclear fuel from this latest core offload in a very confined space in the pool.  In America, we do not do that.  We call it checker-boarding.  We will put hot nuclear fuel next to cold nuclear fuel in a checkerboard pattern so that there is a gap between them.  But the Japanese did not do that.  This entire nuclear core is side by side by side with other physically hot bundles.

So, is a fuel pool fire possible at Fukushima-Daiichi?  We have got the video evidence to show it is.  What can make it happen is the real question.

In early July, the fuel pool cooling system failed at Fukushima-Daiichi.    Both the primary pump and the back-up pump failed and for a period of several days, there was no water circulating in the fuel pool.  During those days, the pool began to heat up and it heated up at about 18 degrees Fahrenheit or 10 degrees Centigrade every day.  This is a huge pool, it is 300,000 gallons of water.   And to think about 300,000 gallons of water heating up at 18 degrees a day gives you a feel for the amount of heat that is in that pool.  So after about a week, the pool would begin to boil, and after about another week, the pool would begin to boil to the point where the top of the nuclear fuel was exposed.  And an event like we saw on the Sandia Labs video would indeed become possible.

So the Japanese have about 2 weeks in the event of the fuel pool cooling system fails to fix it.  I do not think that that will be a problem.  I think they could fix almost every cooling problem in two weeks.

The real problem is if there is an earthquake.  The building is already structurally damaged and if the pool were to drain from an earthquake, then all bets are off.  There is no way to cool the pool and we know that the heat source is astronomical.  The fuel in the pool would catch fire, and the uranium that is then encased in the zircaloy, would go airborne.

Brookhaven National Labs did a study back in 1998 about this and they estimate that over 180,000 cancers would result from a fuel pool fire and that an area of about 40 mile radius would have to be permanently evacuated.  Now the Brookhaven study had less uranium in it than the Fukushima fuel pool.  So the odds are that if a fuel pool fire were to occur at Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4, it would, in fact, be worse than the Brookhaven study.

Regardless of what the nuclear industry claims, a fuel pool fire is possible if the water were to drain from a seismic event.  Now this is not just a Fukushima-Daiichi Unit 4 problem.  There are 23 Mark I reactors in the United States and they have even more nuclear fuel in them than Unit 4 at Fukushima-Daiichi.  This is an international problem, especially in the United States, because we have the most of these Mark I reactors.  What can we do about it?  We can put the pressure on Tokyo Electric and on the Japanese Government to get the fuel out of that pool just as quickly as possible.  We cannot wait for an earthquake to be proven right or wrong.  In the United States, we can demand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take the fuel out of these fuel pools in the 23 nuclear reactors that are identical to Fukushima-Daiichi.  Right now, industry pressure to save money is preventing those fuel pools from being emptied.

Fairewinds Energy Education has tried to bring forward several really important worldwide technical issues since the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi.  One of them is the condition of spent fuel pools in the Mark I design.

This August, again, we are asking for your help to continue with our energy education efforts.  Maggie and I take nothing from Fairewinds Energy Education.  But it does cost money to produce these videos and to do the research and development that support the videos.  We are very grateful for the donations we have received so far, and we would appreciate your considering a donation now in August again, so we can continue into the future.

Thank you very much.  I will keep you informed.

Seventh Annual Victoria Anarchist Bookfair

150 YEARS OF COLONIALISM; 150 YEARS OF RESISTANCE

Announcing the 7th Annual Victoria Anarchist Bookfair, 

September 8 & 9, 2012

Bookfair Location:
Fernwood NRG Community Hall
1240 Gladstone Ave, Victoria, BC, 

 Songhees Territory

We are pleased to announce the seventh annual Victoria Anarchist Bookfair, located on unceded Songhees Territory in Victoria, British Columbia. The Bookfair is for anarchists and non-anarchists, with participants from all over North America and beyond.

This year's workshops focus on a variety of historical and contemporary Indigenous issues, notably efforts to stop proposed pipeline developments on Indigenous territories in British Columbia. Speakers will also  address topics such as the Quebec student movement; anarchism; radical labour struggles, alternative parenting, and activist media.

Participating publishers, bookstores and distros from the United States, Canada and elsewhere include: Spartacus Books (Vancouver), AK Press (San Francisco), Camas Books (Victoria), Little Black Cart Press (Oakland), ThoughtCrime Inc. Press (Edmonton), Black Raven Records (Victoria), El Libertario Distro (Venezuela) and Red Lion Press (Nanaimo).

We are also featuring tablers with an independent D.I.Y. orientation: zinesters, artists, patch and t-shirt makers, and video/new media producers Medianet.

Additionally, Victoria author Tom Swanky, who is well known for his research exposing the colonial use of small-pox as an early form of germ warfare on indigenous peoples, will be giving a talk to launch his book,
'The Great Darkening: Canada's 'War' of Extermination on the Pacific Coast'.

For more information, including the full bookfair workshop listings and the Festival of Anarchy schedule, please visit our website: http://victoriaanarchistbookfair.ca



September 8th Saturday: 11 am--6 pm
September 9th Sunday: 11 am--5 pm

###

For Immediate Release

Contact Email: info@victoriaanarchistbookfair.ca

Japan Syndrome: Where is the Daiichi 3 Nuclear Core?

Japan Nuclear Expert: Melted fuel may have gone through cement floor and into ground under Fukushima reactors — I don’t believe Tepco’s claim for one second — Where in the world is it? (VIDEO)

 by ENE

Fell through steel reactor…

So where did the melted material go from there? It fell into the containment vessel and what is that made of? Also steel.

But what Tepco has been telling us is that underneath that steel is a floor of cement and that cement hasn’t melted yet.

But it’s not as if Tepco has gone there and seen if this is the case or anything like that. It’s based on calculations that they claimed to have worked out that way.

But I don’t believe it for one second.

There’s at least a possibility that it’s gone through all of it and leaked into the ground…

If something like that happens, there’s a strong possibility that it leaks into the environment and the ocean is right there.

I’ve been advocating since last May that a wall be built underground…

That’s really all I know at this point. I really hope something is done so the material doesn’t spread to the greater environment and I’m going to do all I can do to prevent that from happening.

Hiroaki Koide, nuclear reactor specialist and Assistant Professor at Kyoto University’s Nuclear Research Institute:

The problem right now is not figuring out what the cause of the explosion [at Unit 3] is, but where in the world is the melted nuclear material that is in the plant right now?

Unfortunately we have no way of figuring this out…

We can’t go in and look… there’s nothing we can do at this point…

Like I said we have no idea where the melted nuclear core is at this point…

100 tons [was in reactor]…