By Graham Vanbergen

One of the biggest scandals of our time is heading towards Britain. At the heart of Conservative energy policy is a white elephant of epic proportions – the Hinkley Point Nuclear power station in Somerset. You may have read something about it – but probably not this.

This power station has been described as the most expensive single “thing” on earth, although other power projects such as energy ports come even more expensive. Originally budgeted to cost around £14 billion three years ago, then £18 billion last year and revised up to nearly £22 billion this year. The EU Commission has estimated its final cost to be £24 billion.

Electricité de France or EDF the French state owned energy company is the biggest stakeholder. The project to build this power station is more expensive than the entire market capitalisation value of EDF and is effectively one huge gamble, and a gamble in more ways than one.

The Financial Times reported that the French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron said that he “had every confidence that a final investment decision would be made ‘rapidly’ after a consultation with the central works committee of EDF.” He also happened to point out that EDF would not guarantee delivery date of 2025 – already estimated to be 8 years behind delivery date.

In the same article the French unions “have sought a delay of two to three years to the scheme, after EDF’s chief financial officer quit earlier this year, warning that the large investment could bring down the state-owned utility.”

Trade union representatives hold six of the 18 seats on EDF’s board and have openly stated, “The trade unions are unlikely to give their blessing to the project in its current state”. The EDF chief executive Vincent de Rivaz also admitted to MPs that he did not know when a final decision on the project would be made.

The British government for their part have made guarantees on the price of energy output once operational. That price is currently a guarantee worth 300 per cent of current wholesale energy prices for the following 35 years and by the time of delivery, this could easily have escalated to 400 or 500 per cent as alternative power sources continue to get more cost effective. Britain’s power needs have declined 13 per cent in the last ten years, a trend that looks set to continue all over Europe.

Angus MacNeil, chair of the energy committee, said it represented “spectacularly bad value for bill payers in the UK”.

In the meantime, Moody’s the rating agency, has downgraded EDF not because of the financial strain the project is putting on the company but because the technology being used in the project has never been proven to work at all – ever – anywhere. Not one power station, anywhere in the world uses this technology and two currently under construction in France and Finland have dramatically failed.

This is highlighted in a Guardian report of March this year,

EDF has been building a European pressurised reactor (EPR) plant in Normandy, France. The latest EPR has been dreamed up by EDF in conjunction with its engineering partner Areva. It was meant to be a showcase to the world, allowing EDF and Areva to market and build these plants globally, not least at Hinkley in Somerset. But Normandy has turned into a nightmare project with endless delays, regulatory problems and cost overruns. The situation has been made worse by another scheme involving EPRs at Olkiluoto in Finland. This too has turned into a huge public relations embarrassment. It has been plagued with contract disputes, broken budgets and is 10 years behind schedule.

However, it appears the situation has just got much worse than that as the nuclear reactor manufacturer Areva has in fact gone bankrupt and the French government is now forcing EDF to take it over adding even more financial woes to the ever more stricken energy firm.

The share price for EDF has collapsed 80 per cent over recent years presenting its own problems. This was not helped by RBC Capital Markets who said: “To proceed with Hinkley Point C at this juncture would be verging on insanity”.

In a desperate attempt to help EDF’s financial position, it has in turn said it is willing to sell a bundle of €6bn worth of assets to raise cash. And who turned out to be the only buyer – the French state. This has caused energy companies from Austria, Luxembourg and Germany to threaten legal challenges as it is tantamount to unlawful state aid according to EU rules.

The Chinese have been beckoned as investor of last resort and you might wonder why they would want to be involved anyway in such a disaster. Well, for their investment, expected to be worth up to one third of the total project cost they want guarantees as well. However, they want payment even if the project fails, now or in the future, for whatever reason, including if no power is generated ever. And the British government on behalf of the taxpayer, has decided to give those guarantees.

You would think that this was all bad enough. Not so! It appears that nuclear power stations around the world have been falsifying safety certificates and documents for nuclear reactor components for some time now. In fact, of the 400 falsified certificates known to have been given to critical reactor components, 50 are still in operation, a risk that humanity should not be taking given the damage that Fukushima is currently doing to Japan and the Pacific Ocean.

If history and building nuclear reactors is anything to go by, a sane person might think to steer clear. America is the world’s largest producer of nuclear energy with 99 power stations in operation producing one quarter of energy needs. For 75 of those nuclear power reactors built, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants. A decade later, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is still the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.

To make matters worse, of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were cancelled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and only 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable. Many are now considered at high risk from acts of terrorism.

Again, history should teach us some lessons, especially of untried, untested and unknown technology in this particular industry. One of the greatest cover-ups of our time is the disaster at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The former has already killed one million and will continue killing many more so for some time yet, the latter has the potential to eclipse even Chernobyl as it is three times in scale according to the foremost recognised expert in this area, Dr Helen Caldecott.

Once again, history helps to build a graphic picture of this scandal laden industry. From Global Research –

Thirty-five years ago, Dale G. Bridenbaugh and two of his colleagues at General Electric resigned from their jobs after becoming increasingly convinced that the nuclear reactor design they were reviewing (For the Fukushima plant) — the Mark 1 — was so flawed it could lead to a devastating accident. Questions persisted for decades about the ability of the Mark 1 to handle the immense pressures that would result if the reactor lost cooling power, and today that design is being put to the ultimate test in Japan. Five of the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has been wracked since Friday’s (March 2011) earthquake with explosions and radiation leaks, are Mark 1s.

The Nuclear Corruption report from Nautilus Institute tells us something else. “Fukushima will teach many lessons, but one that does not seem to have sunk in yet is the global link between nuclear power and corruption. There is plenty of evidence that the corruption, collusion and nepotism that characterized the Japanese “nuclear village” contributed to what former Japanese PM Kan Naoto called the “myth of nuclear safety” in his country. Yet, this is far from being something peculiar to Japan with its squirrelly politics and industry-regulator-politics with feet happily inter-twined under the kotatsu.”

Aside of the enormous costs of construction is decommissioning, which for this plant is unknown but certainly running into the £billions. This is a 100 per cent liability cost to the British taxpayer. In addition, one of the major costs is the safe disposal of highly radioactive waste, which will never be safe and most of which is held in temporary storage at the Sellafield reprocessing facility in Cumbria. Home to “the most hazardous industrial building in western Europe” according to George Beveridge, Sellafield’s deputy managing director. It houses an ageing cooling pond whose contents is not entirely known, even to the managers at the site, being a collection of spent fuel rods and other reactor parts from Britain’s earliest experiments into nuclear power. The contents of this site is not known and is too radioactive to be properly investigated as the technology does exist to do so. Cleanup of this site would also run into £billions, again, a number that is actually unknown.

The British government is in effect guaranteeing enormous profits for foreign state organisations and underwriting huge losses on unproven dangerous technology that has so far failed, has a history of being massively over-budget, way behind target delivery by at least a decade and presents the country with a strategic threat both in terms of energy security and the wellbeing of its people.

Knowing all of the above, there is no logic or sense for authorising the building of the world’s most expensive “thing” – unless of course there’s something in it for the decision makers.

Graham Vanbergen writes for truepublica.org.uk

(activistpost.com)

What could be the most racist advert ever is about to offend your eyes.

A commercial for Chinese laundry detergent brand Qiaobi shows a black man, speckled with white paint after presumably undertaking some DIY, flirting with a Chinese woman. After beckoning him closer with an alluring look, the woman stuffs a detergent capsule into the man’s mouth and shoves him into a washing machine.

A few seconds later and after some comical shrieking, the man emerges—hey presto, he’s transformed into a pale-skinned Asian male, to the woman’s obvious delight.

The advert sparked mass criticism online from people outside China, but little from the country’s residents. It has attracted few comments from Chinese users on social media and only some 2,000 views on China’s popular video-sharing site Youku, AFP reported.

Follow Tom Gara ✔‎@tomgara I had high expectations for how racist this Chinese laundry detergent ad would be, and it massively exceeded them:http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11785124/china-laundry-detergent-racist-qiaobi … 11:37 AM - 26 May 2016 This Chinese laundry detergent commercial is jaw-droppingly racist WTF? vox.com 226226 Retweets 451451 likes

The advert was reportedly shown at cinemas in China earlier in May. China has historically had very little migration of people of African descent, despite being the continent’s biggest trading partner and having business interests in a number of African countries, including Zimbabwe.

As well as being apparently racist, the advert is also remarkably similar to a previous commercial for Italian laundry detergent Coloreria Italiana, which shows a white man being transformed into a black man after being thrown into a washing machine by a woman. The Italian ad ran with the slogan, “Colored is better.” Qiaobi’s commercial even uses the same music as its European inspiration.

The Shanghai Leishang cosmetics company, which produces the detergent, did not respond to AFP’s request for comment. A senior Qiaobi official reportedly told Campaign Asia-Pacific, which reports on the advertising industry in Asia, that the advert used “a little artistic exaggeration” for “comic effect” and that there was “no intention to stir up emotions or show disrespect to other nationalities.” The official also said that Qiaobi only became aware of the Italian advert after production on its own commercial was complete.

(Newsweek)

Members of the sect also will be in Lancaster to support local Steve Hill, billed as the first Satanic Temple member to run for public office around these parts. He's vying for a state Senate seat.

"We will be hitting five different points around the city, performing various rituals," Nguyen said. "When we're finished it will all connect together for the magic hour around sundown."

A statement from the temple explains the fun in more detail:

The Pentagram is a star with five points. Using GPS technology we will place the five points of the star so that the Pentagram will encompass your entire city. When all of the points are in place, the Pentagram is completed. Drawing this symbol around your city represents a solemn promise from us, the Satanic Temple of Los Angeles. We will stand with the good people of the City of Lancaster and struggle for our constitutional right to individual liberty, freedom of expression and the separation of church and state in your community.

Members also plan to deliver their Bible, so to speak, The Seven Tenets, to Lancaster city leaders. Or at least they'll try to, Nguyen said.

If you're looking for ill behavior, you're probably better off at a Donald Trump rally.

This sect, with roots at Harvard and Cambridge, is decidedly intellectual. Animals are respected; people, even more so.

The group once had a barbecue where a Trump piñata was bashed, Nguyen said. That's downright civil and just.

"We stand up for human rights and civil rights," she said. "We get together on a social and political level."

Yawn. Sounds like a real riot. At least the music's cool.

By Kristan T. Harris

25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible rules of Operation Mockingbird

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors.” If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviants”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain critical reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows,” and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminality which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas that have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism.”

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can ensure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Kristan T. Harris writes for American Intelligence Report, where this article first appeared.

(activistpost.com)

It's the moment we've all been dreading. Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency (RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.

The findings from a $25 million study, conducted over two and a half years by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), showed that male rats exposed to two types of RF radiation were significantly more likely than unexposed rats to develop a type of brain cancer called a glioma, and also had a higher chance of developing the rare, malignant form of tumor known as a schwannoma of the heart. The effect was not seen in females.

The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to when they use cellphones, said Chris Portier, a former associate director of the NTP who commissioned the study.

As the intensity of the radiation increased, so did the incidence of cancer in the rats. (The highest radiation level was five to seven times as strong as what humans typically receive while using a phone.) Although ionizing radiation, which includes gamma rays and X-rays, is widely accepted as a carcinogen, the wireless industry has long noted that there is no known mechanism by which RF radiation causes cancer. The researchers wrote that the results "appear to support" the conclusion that RF radiation may indeed be carcinogenic.

The findings should be a wake-up call for the scientific establishment, according to Portier, who is now a contributing scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. "I think this is a game changer," he said. "We seriously have to look at this issue again in considerable detail."

"The NTP does the best animal bioassays in the word," Portier added. "Their reputation is stellar. So if they are telling us this was positive in this study, that's a concern."

Past animal studies have been inconclusive. Most of those suggesting a connectionbetween cellphone radiation and cancer had first exposed rodents to toxic chemicals to induce tumors, which were then shown to grow in response to radiation exposure. But the new study did nothing in advance to stimulate cancer in the animals.

The NTP first decided to investigate the carcinogenicity of cellphone radiation in 2001, partly in response to epidemiological studies showing a correlation between gliomas and cellphone use. Some of the studies even showed that the cancers were ipsilateral—meaning they tended to appear on the same side of the head where users held their phones. But other epidemiological studies haven't found links between cancer and cellphones.

The Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with regulating the health aspects of consumer products, says on its website that there is "no evidence linking cell phone use with the risk of brain tumors." It does acknowledge some riskassociated with carrying cellphones too close to the body, but only due to the phones' heating effect.

The NTP findings cast doubt on that conclusion: The study was designed to control for heating effects by ensuring that the body temperature of the exposed rats increased by less than 1 degree Celsius. "Everyone expected this study to be negative," a senior government radiation official toldMicrowave News, which was shown partial results from the study earlier this week. "Assuming that the exposures were carried out in a way that heating effects can be ruled out, then those who say that such [carcinogenic] effects found are impossible are wrong."

The study was expensive in part because it required the construction of special exposure chambers that allowed thousands of mice and rats to receive standardized dozes of radiation. For about nine hours per day, for periods ranging from two months to the lifetime of the animal, the rodents were exposed to the RF radiation frequencies used by second generation (2G) phones—the standard at the time the study was initiated.

Only the test results for rats have been released so far. Female rats didn't experience significantly higher than normal cancer rates. However, among male rats that received the highest radiation exposures, 2 percent to 3 percent contracted gliomas and 6 percent to 7 percent percent developed schwannoma tumors in their hearts, depending on the type of radiation used. None of the male rats in the control groups developed those cancers.

Potentially confounding the results, the rats exposed to radiation on average lived longer than those that weren't. Some outside reviewers argued that the study's authors should have given more weight to that caveat. Reviewers were also puzzled that the unexposed control rats didn't exhibit the usual number of brain tumors. "I am unable to accept the authors' conclusions," wrote Michael Lauer, the deputy director of the National Institute of Health's office of extramural research.

In the United States, of about 25,000 malignant brain tumors diagnosed each year, 80 percent are gliomas. Malignant brain tumors are the most common cause of cancer deaths in adolescents and adults ages 15 to 39.

The authors of the NTP study did not say how their results might translate into cancer risk for humans. But "given the extremely large number of people who use wireless communication devices," they wrote, "even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR resulting from those devices could have broad implications for public health."

The wireless industry and many media outlets—particularly tech sites, which depend on the industry for advertising—have confidently proclaimed that the science on cellphone safety is settled. You "can't choose to 'believe' in facts because they are, well, facts," Charlie Sorrell wrote in Wired in 2011, after detailing the results of a Danish epidemiological study showing no link between cellphone use and cancer. "So there you go, people. Finally you can ditch that dorky Bluetooth headset. Your brain isn't being microwaved after all."

But Portier says there still isn't enough data to consider the case closed. "There are arguments in the literature now that we are at the beginning of an epidemic of cancers," he told me. "There are arguments against that. It is not clear who is right. I have looked through it. It's a mixed bag."

"We spend as a nation god-awful billions of dollars using our cellphones," he adds. "We are significantly exposed on a constant basis and yet we spend almost nothing on research in this area. We need an influx of research dollars if we want to understand what may be happening, and hopefully be able to prevent it while we still have the time."

This article was updated to reflect criticism of the study's conclusions by outside researchers.

(motherjones.com)