Indian Point’s Final Days Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

Earth Matters: Indian Point’s Final Days – Nyack News and Views

by Barbara Puff

Indian Point has been the crown jewel of the nuclear industrialist complex and closing it is a big step to a sustainable energy future. — Susan Shapiro, environmental lawyer.

When scientists began exploring nuclear power in the 1950s, pollsters didn’t ask the public their opinion as support was almost unanimous. By the ’60s, there had been a few protests and opposition increased to 25%. So when Indian Point opened on September 16, 1962, it was greeted with enthusiasm, fanfare, and, in hindsight, naivete.

Within a few years, increased pollution, loss of wildlife, and accidents at the plant elicited concern. In response, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater and Riverkeeper were formed in 1966. After incidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986, public opinion began to turn against the use of nuclear power.

In 1984, her first year as a legislator, Harriet Cornell formed the Citizens Commission to Close Indian Plant. A glance at her press releases over the years shows her convictions regarding closing the plant. In a recent speech she noted: “Were it not for the superhuman efforts of concerned individuals and dedicated scientific and environmental organizations focusing attention on the dangers posed by Indian Point, who knows what might have happened during the last 40+ years.”

Simultaneously Riverkeeper began documenting incidents, including:

1 An antiquated water-cooling system killed over a billion fish and fish larvae annually.

2 Pools holding spent nuclear fuel leaked toxic, radioactive water into the ground, soil, and Hudson River.

3 Recurring emergency shut-downs.

4 27% of the baffle bolts in Unit 2 and 31% in Unit 3, holding the reactor core together, were damaged.

5 The plant was vulnerable to terrorist attack.

6 Evacuation plans were implausible.

7 No solution for spent nuclear fuel, posing the risk of radioactive release and contamination of land.

8 The plant was near two seismic zones, suggesting an earthquake over 6.2 could devastate the area.

9 Asbestos exposure.

These and other issues led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rate Indian Point in 2000 as the most trouble-plagued plant in the country. Lamont-Doherty Observatory agreed, calling it the most dangerous plant in the nation.

As individuals realized the seriousness of the situation, urgency for a solution grew and Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition was formed in 2001. Comprised of public interest, health advocates, environmental and citizen groups, their goals were to educate the public, pass legislation, and form a grassroots campaign with hundreds of local, state, and federal officials.

Clearwater also began monitoring the plant around that time. Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Action Director, recalls, “We were concerned when one of the planes that struck the WTC flew over the plant, including several buildings that hold huge fuel pools, filled with spent fuel rods and radioactive waste.” Had anything happened, the nuclear power industry had provided protection for themselves while neglecting surrounding communities. Powerful lobbyists, backed by considerable financing, induced Congress to pass the Price-Anderson Act in 1957. This legislation protected nuclear power plant companies from full liability in the event of an accident, natural disaster or terrorist attack.

With such warnings, it’s hard to believe as late as 2010, The New York Times stated, “No one should be hoping for a too hasty shutdown.” Over time, the cost of litigation by New York State proved more fatal to the continuance of plant operations than protests, though they were a crucial factor and led to initial filings. Attorney General Schneiderman was very active in filing contentions, legal reasons the plant shouldn’t be relicensed, and won several important court cases on high-level radioactive storage.

In 2016, The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation denied Entergy a discharge permit for hot water into the Hudson River, part of their once-through cooling system. This permit was necessary for continued operation of the plant and a requirement for relicensing. The New York State Department of State, Bureau of Coastal Management, denied Entergy a water quality certificate the same year, which it also needed to relicense. After more than four decades of danger to the environment and residents, Governor Cuomo announced in January 2017 the plant would finally be closing. Unit 2 would cease production on April 30, 2020 and Unit 3 would end productivity on April 30, 2021.

Later that year, in March 2017, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board allowed Entergy to renew the plant’s licenses until 2021, dismissing final points of contention between the company, New York State, and Riverkeeper. Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino attempted to sue the state and reopen the plant in April 2017 but failed.

Ellen Jaffee, NYS Assemblywoman, stated, “After 46 years of operation, I am glad to finally see the closure of Indian Point. Since joining the Assembly, I have long fought for its closure. I would not have been able to pursue these efforts if not for the environmental advocates, like the Riverkeeper, who fought long and hard beside myself to close the plant. The plant’s closure must be conducted in a safe manner, where all radioactive materials will be properly disposed of, without inflicting further harm on our environment. The closure of Indian Point shows that we can reduce our impact on the environment.”

Harriet Cornell said, “We have waited years for this to happen and frankly, it can’t happen soon enough. The facts have long shown there is no future for this dangerous plant.”

“The closure of Indian Point marks the shutdown of dirty polluting energy,” noted Susan Shapiro.

Holtec, the company chosen to oversee decommissioning of the plant, has a horrific track record. New York State Attorney General Tish James released a statement in January expressing multiple grave concerns about them. According to Riverkeeper, they have a scandalous corporate past, little experience in decommissioning, dubious skills in spent fuel management, workplace safety infractions, and health violations. Another fear is the cost will exceed a decommissioning fund set aside by Entergy, Holtec will declare bankruptcy, and the public will absorb the difference.

“Entergy made huge profits from Indian Point,” said Manna Jo Greene. “They’ve hired Holtec, a company with a poor record of decommissioning, to complete the work. Entergy plans to declare bankruptcy, thereby having taxpayers foot the bill. We are not out of danger. It is a different danger.”

Richard Webster, Legal Program Director at Riverkeeper, adds, “Decommissioning must be done promptly, safely and reliably. Selling to Holtec is the worst possible option, because it has a dubious history of bribes, lies, and risk taking, very limited experience in decommissioning, is proposing to raid the decommissioning fund for its own benefit, and is proposing leaving contaminated groundwater to run into the Hudson River.”

State Senator David Carlucci warned, “The NRC Inspector General Report shows there is much to be done by the NRC to gain the confidence of myself and the public, as the commission is charged with overseeing the decommissioning of Indian Point and ensuring the health and safety of Hudson Valley Communities. We demand answers from NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki. The Chairman needs to come to the Hudson Valley immediately and outline the steps being taken to address our safety and explain how the commission will properly inspect and guard the pipeline near Indian Point moving forward.”

One of the gravest dangers in decommissioning is the storage of spent fuel rods. A fuel rod is a long, zirconium tube containing pellets of uranium, a fissionable material which provides fuel for nuclear reactors. Fuel rods are assembled into bundles called fuel assemblies, which are loaded individually into a reactor core. Fuel rods last about six years. When they’re spent and removed they are placed in wet storage, or pools of water, which is circulated to reduce temperature and provide shielding from radiation. They remain in these pools for 10 years, as they are too hot to be placed in dry storage, or canisters. Even in dry storage, though, they remain extremely radioactive, with high levels of plutonium, which is toxic, and continue to generate heat for decades and remain radioactive for 10,000 years.

“Elected officials and government groups became involved once they understood the fatal environmental dangers nuclear energy creates for millenium,” said Susan Shapiro. “It is the only energy that produces waste so dangerous that governments must own and dispose of it.”

Robert Kennedy, Jr., of Waterkeeper, explained “If those spent fuel rods caught on fire, if the water dropped, the zirconium coatings of the spent fuel rods would combust. You would release 37 times the amount of radiation that was released at Chernobyl. Around Chernobyl there are 100 miles that are permanently uninhabitable. I would include the workplaces, homes of 20 million Americans, including the Financial District. There’s no evacuation plan. And it’s sitting on two of the biggest earthquake faults in the northeast.”

On April 24, 2020, Beyond Indian Point Campaign was launched to advocate for a safe transition during decommissioning. Sponsored by AGREE, Frack Action, Riverkeeper, NIRS and Food and Water Watch, they’re demanding Cuomo hire another company, opposing a license transfer before the State Public Service Commission and NRC and pushing state legislation to establish a board to supervise the decommissioning fund. When decommissioning is finished Beyond Indian Point hopes to further assist the community in the transition to renewable energy. These include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydrothermal power. Sign an online petition on their website to support their work, future generations and earth at, Facebook, or Twitter.

“Bravo to everyone involved in making this historic day come to pass,” said Susan Shapiro.

Raised in the Midwest, Barbara Puff is a writer who lives in Nyack, NY.

Why a US Russia war will never happen: Zechariah 13:8

US-Russia nuclear war would wipe out 75% of humanity due to global famine, study says

Apocalyptic scenario would lead to global average caloric production decreasing by about 90%

A nuclear war between the US and Russia would result in a global famine that would kill more than five billion people — about three quarters of the world’s population — a study published in the journal Nature Food predicted on Monday.

Climate scientists at Rutgers University in New Jersey said such a conflict would disrupt food production worldwide and destroy the ozone layer.

“The data tell us one thing: we must prevent a nuclear war from ever happening,” said study-co author Alan Roebuck.

The scientists calculated the levels of sun-blocking soot expelled into the atmosphere by nuclear detonations of six different sizes, the largest based on a war between the US and Russia.

In the smallest scenario, the model showed global average caloric production decreasing by 7 per cent within five years of the conflict, which would be the biggest shortfall ever recorded.

And in the largest scenario, it would decrease by about 90 per cent between three and four years afterwards.

The unprecedented destruction of crop yields would lead to 75 per cent of the world’s population dying within two years — partly due to the attendant unavailability of proteins and nutrients humans need to survive.

The effect on climate change would be even more apocalyptic, said study co-author Lili Zia, assistant research professor at Rutgers.

“The ozone layer would be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, producing more ultraviolet radiation at the surface, and we need to understand that impact on food supplies,” she said.

The warning came as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said “humanity is just one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from nuclear annihilation” in response to military activity around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power complex in Ukraine, as Moscow and Kyiv blamed each other for shelling in the area.

Russian troops have occupied the Zaporizhzhia plant in south-eastern Ukraine since March, and Kyiv has accused Moscow of basing hundreds of soldiers and storing weapons there.

The nuclear plant has come under fire repeatedly over the past week, raising fears of a nuclear catastrophe.

“What is happening there is outright nuclear terrorism and it can end unpredictably at any moment,” Dmytro Orlov, mayor of the town of Energodar in the Zaporizhzhia region, told AFP.

Mr Orlov said there was mortar shelling on the plant “every day and night”.

“The situation is hazardous and what causes the most concern is that there is no de-escalation process,” he said.

Updated: August 15, 2022, 11:33 AM

Iraq judiciary dismisses Antichrist’s demand to dissolve parliament

Iraq judiciary dismisses Sadr's demand to dissolve parliament

Iraq judiciary dismisses Sadr’s demand to dissolve parliament

15 August,2022 07:52 am

Iraq’s judiciary said Sunday it lacks the authority to dissolve parliament.

BAGHDAD (AFP) – Iraq s judiciary said Sunday it lacks the authority to dissolve parliament as demanded by populist Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada Sadr, who is engaged in an escalating standoff with political rivals.

Followers of Sadr, in defiance of his Shiite rivals of the pro-Iran Coordination Framework, have been staging a sit-in protest at Iraq s parliament.

In the latest twist to the political turmoil, the firebrand cleric has urged the judiciary to dissolve parliament by the end of this week to pave the way for new legislative elections.

But the judiciary replied that “the Supreme Judicial Council has no jurisdiction to dissolve parliament”, citing “the principle of a separation of powers”.

Under the constitution, parliament can only be dissolved by an absolute majority vote in the house, following a request by one-third of deputies or by the prime minister with the approval of the president.

Nearly 10 months on from the last elections, Iraq still has no government, new prime minister or new president, due to disagreement between factions over forming a coalition.

In the latest turmoil to strike the oil-rich but war-scarred nation, Sadr has called for “early democratic elections after a dissolution of parliament”.

Although it did not endorse the dissolution of parliament, the Supreme Judicial Council said it agreed with Sadr s criticism of the system s “failure to elect a president of the republic, a prime minister and the absence of a government formed within the constitutional timeframe”.

“This is an unacceptable situation that must be remedied,” it said.

The Coordination Framework opponents of Sadr launched their own Baghdad sit-in on Friday, nearly two weeks after the cleric s supporters stormed parliament and began an open-ended protest, first inside, then outside the legislature.

The opposing encampments are the latest turn in a standoff which has so far remained peaceful.

On Twitter, a close associate of Sadr, Saleh Mohamed al-Iraqi, said it was time to show “which of the two sides has the most support” among the Iraqi people.

He called on Sadr s supporters across the country to rally in Baghdad for a “million-man demonstration”.

The demonstration would take place at 5:00 pm (1400 GMT) on Saturday, he said, calling for it to be “unprecedented in terms of numbers”.

Sadr s camp launched the sit-in two weeks ago after the Coordination Framework nominated a candidate they saw as unacceptable for prime minister.

The cleric s bloc emerged from the October elections as parliament s biggest, but still far short of a majority.

In June, 73 of his lawmakers quit in an aborted bid to break the months-long political logjam.

Nuclear war would cause yearslong global famine: Revelation 16

A 150-megaton thermonuclear explosion
Nuclear bombs, including this one detonated on Bikini Atoll during a U.S. military test in 1954, inject soot into the atmosphere. New modeling shows how thousands of detonations could disrupt Earth’s climate and cripple global food supply.Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images

Nuclear war would cause yearslong global famine

Billions of people could starve to death after even a regional conflict, latest nuclear winter modeling indicates

A nuclear war would disrupt the global climate so badly that billions of people could starve to death, according to what experts are calling the most expansive modeling to date of so-called nuclear winter. Although the exact effects remain uncertain, the findings underscore the dangers of nuclear war and offer vital insights about how to prepare for other global disasters, researchers say.

The study comes as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put the world in “one of the top three most worrisome time periods” for the threat of nuclear war, says Seth Baum, executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute—behind only the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and the 1983 Able Archer incident, when the Soviet Union mistook a NATO military exercise for a real attack. “It’s a continued reminder that [nuclear war] is really terrible.”

Scientists have long known massive explosions can throw enough dust, ash, and soot into the air to affect the global climate. In 1815, Mount Tambora in what’s now Indonesia unleashed the largest known volcanic eruption in history. In the following months, its ash rose and spread worldwide, blocking enough sunlight to produce “the year without a summer”—a cold spell in 1816 that resulted in massive crop failures and famine across the globe.

For decades, scientists have warned a similar catastrophe could follow a nuclear war, as fires ignited by hundreds or thousands of nuclear explosions would release millions of tons of soot, blocking sunlight and inducing global environmental effects. Worries about climate effects of nuclear warfare emerged soon after World War II, and studies took off during the Cold War.

Over the past decade, two pioneers of nuclear winter studies, Alan Robock and Brian Toon, have assembled a cross-disciplinary team of scientists to take the calculations further. They turned to the same climate models that underlie global warming studies—but used the models to simulate global cooling instead. “Now, we have the computational capacity to simulate these kinds of things in a sophisticated way,” says Jonas Jägermeyr, a climate change scientist, crop modeler, and team member at NASA and Columbia University.

In the new study, out today in Nature Foodnone, the team has attempted to quantify the potential impact of nuclear war on the global food supply by coupling the climate models with simulations of global food production. A previous analysis, led by Jägermeyr in 2020, showed that even a small regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan could result in global crop shortages. The new study includes six nuclear war scenarios and incorporates models of fisheries as well as farming to get a broader picture of the impact.

The researchers estimated that the various nuclear exchanges would inject between 5 million and 150 million tons of soot into the atmosphere. They simulated the resulting changes in sunlight, temperature, and precipitation, which they then fed to the crop and fishery models. By tracing the reductions in corn, rice, soybean, wheat, and fish harvests, the team estimated the total loss in calories. From there, they calculated how many people would go hungry—assuming international food trade would cease and resources would be distributed optimally in each country.

A few years after a nuclear war between the United States, its allies, and Russia, the global average calories produced would drop by about 90%—leaving an estimated 5 billion dead from the famine, the researchers report. A worst-case war between India and Pakistan could drop calorie production to 50% and cause 2 billion deaths. The team tried to simulate the impact of food-saving emergency strategies, such as converting livestock feed and household waste to food. But in the larger war scenarios, those efforts did little to save lives.

Baum urges caution in interpreting the estimates. Although the climate models are “excellent,” he says, there’s too much uncertainty in how humanity would react to such a global catastrophe to get an accurate read on the death toll. Still, the study “makes a very worthy contribution” to envisioning these scenarios, he adds.

Lili Xia, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and lead author on the paper, agrees there’s lots of room to improve the models—including factoring in the effects of soot on ultraviolet radiation and surface ozone and implementing more effective food management techniques. Rather than aiming to forecast exactly how the food catastrophe might play out, she says her group wanted to understand the level of risk humanity faces.

The nightmarish prospects have already inspired others to look for ways to fight the hypothetical famine. David Denkenberger, who co-founded the nonprofit Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters, is exploring ideas including scaling up “resilient foods” such as seaweed, repurposing paper factories to produce sugar, converting natural gas into protein with bacteria, and relocating crops to account for an altered climate. He and his research associate Morgan Rivers think those approaches could dramatically increase the amount of food available to humans. “Even if [a substitute] doesn’t taste as good as sweet corn, it’s better than starving,” he says.

Such thought exercises can also help humanity prepare for the effects of climate change and other disasters, Denkenberger adds. “It’s not just nuclear winter; resilience helps us with a lot of other catastrophes … such as a supervolcanic eruption.”

Still, the obvious takeaway for all these scientists is that nuclear war should be avoided at all costs, Rivers says. “Their analysis is showing something really critical to transmit: that nuclear winter is really, really bad.”

Iranian Horn ‘must explain’ uranium at three secret nuclear sites

Iran ‘must explain’ uranium at three secret nuclear sites

Iran ‘must explain’ uranium at three secret nuclear sites

Dr. Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg 

June 01, 2022 00:33

JEDDAH: Authorities in Tehran were told on Tuesday to explain the presence of uranium particles at three undeclared nuclear sites in Iran after a critical report by the UN nuclear watchdog.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had not credibly answered long-standing questions about apparent nuclear activity at the sites in Marivan, Varamin and Turquzabad.

“We call on Iran to respond without delay to the questions and needs of the IAEA under its safeguards agreement,” France’s Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday.

The dispute may herald a new diplomatic clash when the agency’s 35-nation board of governors meets next week.

If Western powers seek a resolution criticizing Tehran, it could deal a further blow to stalled eforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Those powers have until now repeatedly shied away from admonishing Iran at the board on the same issue, because of fears that it could jeopardize the nuclear talks in Vienna.

However, with those talks stalled and hopes fading for a revived nuclear deal, the French Foreign Ministry said: “We are in close consultation with our partners on the follow-up to be given to this situation at the next board of governors.”

Iran and the agency agreed in March on an approach for resolving the issue of the sites. Under that agreement, agency chief Rafael Grossi is due to “report his conclusions” to the watchdog’s board of governors next week. 

While most of the activities concerned are thought to date back to the early 2000s, one of the sites, in the Turquzabad district of Tehran, may have been used for storing uranium as recently as 2018.

Iran said the agency’s latest report was “unfair,” and blamed Israeli influence.

“It is feared that the political pressure exerted by the Zionist regime and some other actors has caused the normal path of the agency’s reports to change from technical to political,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said.

Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Mohammad Reza Ghaebi, said the report “does not reflect Iran’s extensive cooperation with the agency.”

He said: “Iran considers this ap- proach unconstructive to the current close relations and cooperation between the country and the IAEA. The agency should be aware of the destructive consequences of publishing such onesided reports.”

Meanwhile, Israel on Tuesday accused Iran of stealing documents from the IAEA to hide evidence of its plans to build a nuclear bomb.

“Iran stole classified documents … and used that information to systematically evade nuclear probes,” Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said.

“How do we know? Because we got our hands on Iran’s deception plan.”