Experts puzzled by continuing South Carolina earthquakes before the sixth seal: Revelation 6

Experts puzzled by continuing South Carolina earthquakes

Another earthquake has struck near South Carolina’s capital city

  • By MEG KINNARD – Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Yet another earthquake has struck near South Carolina’s capital city, the nintExperts puzzled by continuing South Carolina earthquakes before the sixth seal: Revelation 6  h in a series of rumblings that have caused geologists to wonder how long the convulsions might last.

Early Wednesday, a 2.6-magnitude earthquake struck near Elgin, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) northeast of Columbia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was measured at a depth of 0.5 kilometers, officials said.

That area, a community of fewer than 2,000 residents near the border of Richland and Kershaw counties, has become the epicenter of a spate of recent seismic activity, starting with a 3.3-magnitude earthquake on Dec. 27.That quake clattered glass windows and doors in their frames, sounding like a heavy piece of construction equipment or concrete truck rumbling down the road.


Since then, a total of eight more earthquakes have been recorded nearby, ranging from 1.7 to Wednesday’s 2.6 quake. No injuries or damage have been reported.

According to the South Carolina Emergency Management Division, the state typically averages up to 20 quakes each year. Clusters often happen, like six small earthquakes in just more than a week last year near Jenkinsville, about 38 miles (61 kilometers) west of the most recent group of tremors.

Earthquakes are nothing new to South Carolina, although most tend to happen closer to the coast. According to emergency management officials, about 70% of South Carolina earthquakes are located in the Middleton Place-Summerville Seismic Zone, about 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) northwest of Charleston.

In 1886, that historic coastal city was home to the largest recorded earthquake in the history of the southeastern United States, according to seismic officials. The quake, thought to have had a magnitude of at least 7, left dozens of people dead and destroyed hundreds of buildings.

That event was preceded by a series of smaller tremors over several days, although it was not known that the foreshocks were necessarily leading up to something more catastrophic until after the major quake.null

Frustratingly, there’s no way to know if smaller quakes are foreshadowing something more dire, according to Steven Jaume, a College of Charleston geology professor who characterized the foreshocks ahead of Charleston’s 1886 disaster as “rare.”

“You can’t see it coming,” Jaume told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “There isn’t anything obvious moving or changing that you can put your finger on that you can say, ‘This is leading to this.’”

Typically, Jaume said that the recent quakes near Elgin — which lies along a large fault system that extends from Georgia through the Carolinas and into Virginia — would be characterized as aftershocks of the Dec. 27 event, since the subsequent quakes have all been smaller than the first.

But the fact that the events keep popping up more than a week after the initial one, Jaume said, has caused consternation among the experts who study these events.

“They’re not dying away the way we would expect them to,” Jaume said. “What does that mean? I don’t know.”

Meg Kinnard can be reached at

Iranian Nukes More Dangerous Than Russia: Daniel 8

Sen. Graham: Iranian Nukes More Dangerous Than Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan

United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is interviewed by The Media Line’s President & CEO, Felice Friedson.

Felice Friedson


US Senate leader tells reporters in Jerusalem that Iran nuclear pact needs “guard rails” and clarity so Tehran knows what it is facing

Wasting no time anticipating the obvious question – why, with news cycles overwhelmed by Russia’s pending invasion of Ukraine, and Chinese salivation over Taiwan, did he choose to visit Israel – US Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, told reporters in Jerusalem on Monday to imagine that Iran could create but one single nuclear weapon. “Where,” he asked, “would Tehran target? Washington? Israel? Riyadh?”

Graham was clear in his often-repeated assessment of the unfolding of international threats: there simply is no greater imperative facing the world than the need to place “guard rails” on Iran’s ability to fulfill its nuclear weapons quest. Once Tehran has crossed the nuclear threshold, not only is untold destruction in the hands of religiously extreme zealots capable to the point of being expected to use nuclear weapons against its enemies, but the nefarious achievement would trigger a nuclear arms race with every Sunni Muslim nation demanding its “rightful” nuclear inventory.

The senator reiterated his signature Middle East initiatives: the need for a formal defense treaty between the US and Israel; and the creation of a nuclear fuel bank as a mechanism for allowing the proliferation of nuclear power among nations whose use will be peaceful – if not by intent, as in Iran’s case, then by international control.

For Israel, a nuclear-capable Iran is a non-starter

Graham nodded toward bipartisanship in virtually each of his proposals, from his references to Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who shares his South Carolina colleague’s confidence in the fuel bank. Asserting that legislators on both sides of the aisle can agree that nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are unacceptable, the challenge is to “work on articulation of what the red lines would look like” to provide Tehran with the “clarity needed to avoid conflict.”

Israel, he argues, does not lack clarity. “For Israel, a nuclear-capable Iran is a non-starter,” he said, adding his certainty that, for Jerusalem, war is the inevitable option under such circumstances. To that end, the Graham again called for the creation of an American-Israeli mutual defense treaty with a provision – à la NATO – that would provide, de jure, that “an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.”

Asked by The Media Line why he believes Israel’s government has been almost mute in voicing its objections to the American-led effort to reinvent the Iranian nuclear agreement, a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action version 2, Graham expressed confidence that the silence will end “in a matter of days.” Speaking in his role as a key lawmaker, he expressed his belief that lacking enough votes to pass as a treaty in the Senate, the new Iranian nuclear agreement could function only as an executive order, which would not survive the administration.

En route to his next stop – the United Arab Emirates, Graham complimented President Joe Biden for recognizing and building on the Abraham Accords, the series of normalization agreements between Israel and Sunni-majority Arab Gulf states.

Horror simulation of the Bowls of Wrath: Revelation 16

Map showing how Russia could invade Ukraine

Will there be a nuclear war? Horror simulation shows what happens if Russia bombs Ukraine

WAR in Eastern Europe is looking increasingly likely as Vladimir Putin ignores calls to back down over the Ukraine border crisis. Will there be a nuclear war, and could Russia bomb Ukraine?

By Pip Murrison

 11:49, Mon, Feb 14, 2022 | UPDATED: 16:34, Mon, Feb 14, 2022

Russia: Attack on Ukraine ‘highly likely’ says Howarth

Despite desperate attempts by western powers to avert disaster on the Ukraineborder, Russian leader Vladimir Putin still refused to withdraw an estimated 130,000 troops from the border. Many see this as a prelude to invasion. If President Putin decided to bomb Ukraine what would the fallout look like?

James Heappey, the armed forces minister, has sparked alarm as he warned that bombs could drop on Ukraine within minutes of President Putin giving the order.

He told Sky News: “My fear is [an invasion] is very imminent, that’s not to say it’s definitely going to happen.

This is a warning because minutes after Putin gives the order, missiles and bombs could be landing on Ukrainian cities.”

His warning came after he told British citizens to flee Ukraine immediately on February 11.

Picture of Mr Putin with military officials
Picture of Putin looking at Russian troops

Russia has a range of deadly nuclear weapons at its disposal. A worrying simulation by Nukemap showed the horrifying fallout that could occur if President Putin decided to bomb Ukraine.

The exact capabilities of Russia’s nuclear arsenal remain unclear. However, if it launched a nuke with the same capabilities as “Tsar Bomba”, the largest designed bomb under the USSR, then the fallout would be catastrophic.

This nuke has capabilities of 100 megatonnes. If it were to be launched on the Ukrainian capital, then its consequences would be devastating.

The fireball radius of the bomb would engulf the entire city. According to Nukemap, it would cover 6.1km² (117km²).

It said: “Anything inside the fireball is effectively vaporised.”

But the effects of such a weapon would be felt far beyond the city, as the thermal radiation radius would cover an estimated area of 73.7km² (17,080km²).

This would stretch almost as far as Bila Tserkva to the north of the capital.

Nukemap stated thermal radiation would cause “third-degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves”.

It added: “They can cause severe scarring or disablement and can require amputation. 100 percent probability for third-degree burns at this yield is 13.9cal/cm2.”

The effects of the blast could stretch as far as Chernobyl and to the Belarusian border.

According to Nukemap, the “light blast damage radius” would cover a 91.8km² (26,450km²) area.

Those within this area would expect to see their windows smashed, which would cause “many injuries in a surrounding population who comes to a window after seeing the flash of a nuclear explosion”.

During a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, President Putin said allowing Ukraine to join NATO would increase the chances of a Russia-NATO conflict. He added such an event could turn nuclear.

He confirmed that a war with Europe and Russia would likely happen if Ukraine joined NATO and then attempted to take back Russian-occupied Crimea.

He said: “Of course, NATO’s united potential and that of Russia are incomparable.”

He then stressed that: “[Russia] is one of the world’s leading nuclear powers and is superior to many of those countries in terms of the number of modern nuclear force components.”

The Risk of Nuclear War in Ukraine

ramberg20 Sean GallupGetty Imagesnuclear ukraine

The Risk of Nuclear Disaster in Ukraine

Bennett RambergFeb 14, 2022

LOS ANGELES – Russia’s large-scale military mobilization on Ukraine’s border has grim historic precedents. But should the Kremlin pull the trigger, it will encounter a hazard that no invading army has ever faced before: 15 nuclear power reactors, which generate roughly 50% of Ukraine’s energy needs at four sites.

The reactors present a daunting specter. If struck, the installations could effectively become radiological mines. And Russia itself would be a victim of the ensuing wind-borne radioactive debris. Given the vulnerability of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors and the human and environmental devastation that would follow if combat were to damage them, Russian President Vladimir Putin should think again about whether Ukraine is worth a war. 

Power plants are common targets in modern conflict, because destroying them inhibits a country’s ability to carry on fighting. But nuclear reactors are not like other energy sources. They contain enormous amounts of radioactive material, which can be released in any number of ways. Aerial bombing or artillery fire, for example, could break a reactor’s containment building or sever vital coolant lines that keep its core stable. So, too, could a cyberattack that interrupts plant operations, as would a disruption of offsite power that nuclear plants rely on to keep functioning.

Were a reactor core to melt, explosive gases or belching radioactive debris would exit the containment structure. Once in the atmosphere, the effluents would settle over thousands of miles, dumping light to very toxic radioactive elements on urban and rural landscapes. And spent nuclear fuel could cause further devastation if storage pools were set afire. 

The health consequences of such fallout would depend on the population exposed and the toxicity of the radioactive elements. The UN Chernobyl Forum estimated that the 1986 Ukraine accident would inflict 5,000 excess cancer deaths over 50 years, though some environmental groups think that figure grossly understates the likely toll. Indeed, thousands of thyroid cancers emerged in the years immediately following the accident.

In the midst of a pandemic that has killed millions, nuclear-reactor fatalities may seem trivial. But that would be an unconscionable misreading of the risk. To reduce the uptake of radiation that settled on the ground after Chernobyl, Soviet authorities had to relocate hundreds of thousands of people and remove large swaths of agricultural land and forests from production for decades. 

In and around the reactor, 600,000 “liquidators” were deployed to clean up the site. Engineers built a giant “sarcophagus” over the reactor building to contain further releases. Millions of people suffered psychological trauma, and some seven million received social compensation. Eventually, the economic losses mounted into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Japan is still counting the hundreds of billions that the 2011 Fukushima disaster will cost, and that incident released only one-tenth of the radiation that Chernobyl did, mostly into the ocean.

A war would magnify these risks, because the reactor operators who might mitigate the fallout would be more prone to flee for fear of being shot or bombed. If a reactor is in the middle of a chaotic battlefield, there may not even be any first responders, and ill-informed populations hearing rumors would be on their own wandering – and panicking – in contaminated zones.

Israeli troops kill Palestinian outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Israeli troops kill Palestinian in West Bank clashes

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian during clashes in the occupied West Bank late Sunday, hours after police fanned out in a tense east Jerusalem neighborhood trying to contain violence between ultranationalist Jewish activists and Palestinian residents.

Early Monday, the Palestinian Health Ministry said Akram Abu Salah, 17, died from a gunshot to his head.

The clashes erupted after Israeli forces rolled into Silat al-Harithiya village near Jenin to destroy homes of two Palestinian detainees accused of opening fire at a car traveling near a West Bank settlement outpost and killing a settler in December.

Earlier in Jerusalem, unrest took place in Sheikh Jarrah, a flashpoint neighborhood where clashes last year helped spark an 11-day war between Israel and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Dozens of Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah and other east Jerusalem neighborhoods are at risk of eviction by Jewish settler organizations, and tensions between the sides often escalate to violence.

The latest unrest erupted after a settler’s home was torched over the weekend. Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist lawmaker, responded to the fire by setting up a makeshift office early Sunday near the home of a family facing possible eviction. Palestinians moved in on Ben-Gvir’s tent, throwing plastic chairs in the afternoon and scuffling with his supporters.

Late Sunday, riot police sprayed putrid-smelling water to break up Palestinian protests. One video on social media showed an Israeli policeman kicking a young Palestinian man. Police reported at least 12 arrests.

The Palestinian Red Crescent medical service said 14 Palestinians were wounded, including four people shot with rubber bullets. Explosions from stun grenades used by police to disperse crowds could be heard during the evening.

Ben-Gvir, a follower of a radical rabbi who called for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel, accused police of using “extreme brutality” against his followers. He said he would spend the night in the area “so they will learn.”

In addition to the threatened evictions, thousands of Palestinians live in homes in east Jerusalem that face the threat of demolition because of discriminatory policies that make it extremely difficult for Palestinians to build new homes or expand existing ones. Threatened evictions, tied up in decades-old battles between Palestinian residents and Jewish settlers, set off protests and clashes last May that helped ignite the Gaza war.

Israel captured east Jerusalem, along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. It later annexed east Jerusalem, home to the city’s most sensitive holy sites, in a move that is not recognized by the international community.

Israel considers the entire city to be its capital, while the Palestinians claim east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state. The city’s fate is one of the most divisive issues in the century-old conflict.

Russia’s Nukes in Europe: Daniel 7

Russia Will Modernize its Artillery Weapons "Pion" and "Tulpan"
Howitzer 2S7M Malka | Photo credit: RIA Novosti

Russia deployed 203mm howitzer firing nuclear 3BV2 shells up to 37km

By TOC On Feb 13, 2022

MOSCOW, ($1=76.79 Russian Rubles) — The Turkish online portal reports that 17 km from the border with Ukraine, Russia has deployed several divisions of 203mm chain self-propelled howitzer 2S7M Malka. The howitzers are located in the town of Vesyolaya Lopan, which is 8 km from the capital of the Belgorod region.

The news was confirmed both by our sources in the area and by Russian civilians who shot an amateur video of one of the separate military parking lots in the city [between 15 and 25 seconds on the left you can see several 2S7M small howitzers parked on the left]. The user’s tweet says: Vesyolaya Lopan, Belgorod region, Unloading, today. In 2014, the armed forces of the Russian Federation also unloaded there and went to the Donbass.”

You should know: Russian missile divisions are leaving for Crimea
Photo credit: NYT

In December 2021, the first upgraded 2S7M Malka self-propelled howitzer, according to Uralvagonzavod, was delivered to the Russian Ministry of Defense. The statement did not disclose the number of upgraded howitzers and noted that this delivery was the first batch of 2S7M Malka self-propelled howitzers to be overhauled.

The modernization was carried out in Uraltransmash. During the modernization the gearbox, the distribution bodies, the power supply, the monitoring device, the guidance system, the intercom equipment, the communication stations were replaced, the CBRN protection system was updated. In addition, it became possible to target a UAV target.

In April 2020, Uralvagonzavod announced its readiness for a large-scale modernization of its first self-propelled howitzer 2S7M Malka and serial modernization of self-propelled howitzers. It seems that the Russian Ministry of Defense has signed a contract with Uralvagonzavod for modernization.

Using the 203 mm 20A44 cannon, the 2S7M Malka can fire a variety of munitions, including special munitions with active-jet and nuclear warheads. Such ammunition is the 3BV2 nuclear artillery shells, which were developed specifically for this model of howitzers and have a range of 18 to 30 km [37 km after the renewal of the howitzer].

Russia deployed 203mm howitzer firing nuclear 3BV2 shells up to 37km
Photo credit:

Large-caliber self-propelled howitzers were once developed as a weapon for a possible tactical nuclear attack. The first model produced was the 2S7 Pion in 1975. This howitzer was upgraded to the 2S7M Malka version in 1986.

The combat weight of 2C7M is 46.5 tons and the crew is 6 people. The R-173 communication equipment is standard and carries 8 rounds. He can be ready to shoot in 7 minutes when you are brought to the field. After the upgrade, the 2S7 Malka can fire more than 2 shots per minute in an effective range of 37 km.

In 2020, the Russian state-owned company Rostek announced that it had begun developing a new artillery shell for this howitzer, but there was still no information on the progress of the artillery engineers.

The French Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7:7

Macron: France to build up to 14 nuclear reactors by 2050

Robert Besser
14th February 2022, 01:39 GMT+11

PARIS, France: French President Emmanuel Macron has said France will build as many as 14 nuclear power plants, claiming this would help end France’s reliance on fossil fuels.

In a speech in the industrial town of Belfort, Macron said, “What our country needs is the rebirth of France’s nuclear industry,” lauding the country’s technological prowess.

Centrist Macron is expected to announce his campaign for re-election this month, and is conscious of a growing debate about energy, as energy costs are rising for consumers.

Nuclear energy provides some 70 percent of electricity in France, and low-cost nuclear power has been a mainstay of the French economy since the 1970s.

However, recent attempts to build new-generation reactors to replace older models have been affected by delays and cost overruns.

Right-leaning presidential candidates have supported more nuclear power plants and stressed that France should have “sovereignty” over its electricity, but those on the left have warned of the cost and complexity of building new reactors.

Environmentalists have also raised safety concerns over the dangers of radioactive waste.

French nuclear regulators are “unequalled” in their rigor and professionalism, Marcon said, stressing the decision to build new nuclear power plants was a “choice of progress, a choice of confidence in science and technology.”

He also announced a major acceleration in the development of solar and offshore wind power, adding that he would aim to extend the operational use of all existing French nuclear plants, if safe to do so.

Macron also announced the construction of at least six new reactors by 2050, with an option for another eight.

As the start of his presidency, Macron promised to reduce the share of nuclear power in France’s energy mix, so his recent focus on nuclear power marks a policy shift.

This month, the French government successfully lobbied the European Commission to label nuclear power as “green.”