Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Authorities Expecting The Sixth Seal? (Revelation 6:12)

Earthquake
New York Times
Earthquake!
By SAM ROBERTS
JULY 17, 2014
Here is another reason to buy a mega-million-dollar apartment in a Manhattan high-rise: Earthquake forecast maps for New York City that a federal agency issued on Thursday indicate “a slightly lower hazard for tall buildings than previously thought.”
The agency, the United States Geodetic Survey, tempered its latest quake prediction with a big caveat.
Federal seismologists based their projections of a lower hazard for tall buildings — “but still a hazard nonetheless,” they cautioned — on a lower likelihood of slow shaking from an earthquake occurring near the city, the type of shaking that typically causes more damage to taller structures.
“The tall buildings in Manhattan are not where you should be focusing,” said John Armbruster, a seismologist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. “They resonate with long period waves. They are designed and engineered to ride out an earthquake. Where you should really be worried in New York City is the common brownstone and apartment building and buildings that are poorly maintained.”
Mr. Armbruster was not involved in the federal forecast, but was an author of an earlier study that suggested that “a pattern of subtle but active faults makes the risk of earthquakes to the New York City area substantially greater than formerly believed.”
He noted that barely a day goes by without a New York City building’s being declared unsafe, without an earthquake. “If you had 30, 40, 50 at one time, responders would be overloaded,” he said.
A well-maintained building would probably survive a magnitude 5 earthquake fairly well, he said. The last magnitude 5 earthquake in the city struck in 1884. Another is not necessarily inevitable; faults are more random and move more slowly than they do in, say, California. But he said the latest federal estimate was probably raised because of the magnitude of the Virginia quake.
“Could there be a magnitude 6 in New York?” Mr. Armbruster said. “In Virginia, in a 300 year history, 4.8 was the biggest, and then you have a 5.8. So in New York, I wouldn’t say a 6 is impossible.
Mr. Armbruster said the Geodetic Survey forecast would not affect his daily lifestyle. “I live in a wood-frame building with a brick chimney and I’m not alarmed sitting up at night worried about it,” he said. “But society’s leaders need to take some responsibility.

The Nuclear War by Sea (Revelation 15)

Central Chronicle
China and Pakistan are alarmed at the fast development and deployment of state of art defence missiles and most updated submarines in the defence system. The China has posed a proxy threat that in view of India defence preparedness it would provide missiles and submarines to Pakistan match India’s capability.
The Pakistan has filed a complaint against India with the Missile Technology Control System – a group of 33 nations. India is member of the MTCR while is Pakistan is not there. India recently test fired the updated version of rocket Pinak-2. A Multi-Barrel Rocket launcher can fire launch 12 Pinaks at a time.
The Pinak is a weapon that can target and destroy enemy bunkers in the range of 50 kilometer. India has prepared a submarine Khanderi with French support costing 24 thousand crores of rupees of Scorpion class. It can fire at the sea surface at warships and deep inside can hit enemy submarine.
Two year back in April 2015 India has already inducted Kalbari submarine in the Indian Navy. India has come up in missile system upto the stage that now it will soon supply it to the Vietnam. India is carrying out ‘Bombay High’ type oil exploration in the sea territory of Vietnam. China is facing rough weather on the South China Sea as no nation of the Pacific Ocean accepts claim of China on it.
The nominated Secretary of State Mr.Tillersome of America has said that China would have to dismantle its artificial islands on the Ocean. The Pacific Ocean is having 70 per cent of trade sea-routes of the other nations. The Pacific is International waters. The China has launched a new electronic intelligence naval ship.
The China is expanding its presence in Sri Lanka in building new seaports with Chinese assistance. The former President Mr.APJ Abdul Kalam has started and developed India’s first missile. The Missile programme was approved and launched by the Prime Minister Mrs.Indira Gandhi. India has many series of missiles of Akash, Prithvi, Nag, Pinack etc. India takes into account its mighty presence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Why Russia And The Us Will Not War At The End (Daniel 7)

by BILL NEELY and ALASTAIR JAMIESON
MOSCOW — Russia hopes for cooperation with Donald Trump's administration on "strategic stability" — including nuclear weapons — and the Syria war, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday.
The President-elect "wants every country to be responsible for its own development and this is an attitude we can relate to," he told reporters at a news conference, reiterating Russia's criticism of President Barack Obama's administration, NATO and the European Union.
"Donald Trump has unique views that differ from the views of his predecessors, both Democrats and Republicans," Lavrov said. "And at the core of it is the interest of United States as Donald Trump sees it. When we hear that his main focus is fighting terrorism, of course we will support it because this is actually what our American partners have been missing up until now."
Russia has also come to the fore in U.S. politics amid allegations that it hacked American institutions including the Democratic National Convention. Outgoing CIA director John Brennan said Sunday that Trump lacks a full understanding of the threat Moscow poses to America.
While being broadly positive about the relationship with the new administration, Russia's top diplomat did sound an ominous note on NATO escalation at Russia's borders, especially the Baltic states.
"If the NATO forces do not see any other place for themselves aside from the Russian-Estonian border, it means their Intelligence services are not doing a good job as they don't see what is happening in other areas," Lavrov said.
Syria Talks
"I hope our cooperation in regards to the Syrian crisis and fighting terrorism will be more successful than the one we had with President Obama's administration," Lavrov said.
Russia is a major backer of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, who the United States opposes, and has helped tip the balance of the war in the president's favor.
Lavrov made a point of mentioning Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson's comment at last week's Congressional confirmation hearing that "Russia is a threat but Russia is not unpredictable." That statement is important, said Lavrov.
Lavrov also referred to the alleged of Russian hacking of U.S. organizations, saying the claims were "false."
"We've seen some poor accusations that don't hold water, that since have been shrugged off by the British and their American counterparts who tried to jeopardize the new administration," Lavrov said.
Lavrov also took a swipe at what he called "the messianic obsession of the west" with exporting its values, such as democracy.
Russia isn't trying to export anything, especially not values, he said, adding that the concept of a unipolar world was "obsolete" because there are "many centers of power."

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Ludricous Idea Of Nuclear Reduction

Loren Thompson , CONTRIBUTOR
President-elect Trump has not made up his mind how to deal with the threat of nuclear war, but give him credit for at least acknowledging the problem. Most politicians choose to ignore the 800-megaton gorilla in the room, even though it's the one manmade threat that could wipe out American democracy before inauguration day.
Trump began his candidacy speaking out about the need to modernize the nation's aging nuclear arsenal, a topic on which he was 100% correct. He later suggested that allies like Japan and South Korea might need to develop their own nuclear arsenals, which was unsettling but a logical conclusion if the U.S. ceased extending a nuclear "umbrella" over allies. (Why would the U.S. be willing to risk its own destruction to protect some other country?)
More recently, Trump said the U.S. should "expand" its nuclear capabilities, and then on January 15 he proposed perhaps trading away economic sanctions against Russia in return for reductions in Moscow's own nuclear arsenal.
President-elect Trump has been talking about America's nuclear capabilities since his candidacy began. Nothing he has said so far sounds as outlandish as what President Obama said during his early months in office. (U.S. Department of Energy/Wikimedia)
President-elect Trump has been talking about America's nuclear capabilities since his candidacy began. Nothing he has said so far sounds as outlandish as what President Obama said during his early months in office. (U.S. Department of Energy/Wikimedia)
Clearly, the president-elect hasn't settled on how he wants to contain the greatest threat to U.S. security. But he would have to get a good deal more outlandish to match the position President Obama espoused during the early months of his first term. Obama actually advocated total nuclear disarmament, which would have been a huge windfall for any foreign dictator capable of hiding a few weapons while everyone else went to zero. Obama's position also would have deprived NATO of its most potent deterrent against conventional attack.
So let's not get too worked up about a few Trump sound-bites concerning nuclear weapons. So far, he hasn't said anything as crazy as the newly elected President Obama did. But let's also hope President Trump takes an early brief on why the U.S. has the kind of nuclear arsenal it does, because nuclear arms reductions aren't like getting illegal guns off the street in Manhattan -- if you do it the wrong way, you can make yourself much less safe.
A coherent nuclear strategy must acknowledge two fundamental facts: (1) Russia has enough nuclear weapons to wipe out our country, and (2) we have no real defense against that danger other than retaliation. The threat of retaliation is what we call "deterrence" -- Russia restrains itself from attacking because it knows that would be an act of suicide. No kidding, if ordered to do so America's military could destroy pretty much everything of value in Russia by sundown today.
Obviously, avoiding such a fate is the top priority of leaders in both countries. However, what matters in this kind of "mutual hostage" relationship is not how many weapons a country has before it suffers a surprise attack, but how many remain after. It's the weapons that can survive and retaliate that deter a surprise attack in the first place.
Which is why leaders have to be really careful about how they cut their arsenals. If the U.S. were to trade away its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles as former defense secretary William Perry recently suggested, and then the Russians figured out how to track our missile-launching submarines at sea, it would only take two dozen Russian warheads to disarm America in a surprise attack. The Russians have over a thousand warheads capable of doing the job.
Any such operation would be extremely risky, but with only 14 ballistic-missile submarines and a handful of bomber bases in the strategic force, it could be a tempting move in a crisis. Having hundreds of ICBMs in hardened silos that would each require multiple warheads to take out thus is crucial to deterring nuclear Armageddon in an imaginary scenario where the oceans become transparent and Moscow can target our subs.
Nobody seriously expects the Russians will be able to target our undersea deterrent in the foreseeable future. In fact, the next-generation Columbia class of ballistic-missile subs will probably be the most secure part of our nuclear force through the end of the century. But as Trump himself has learned in the business world, it doesn't make sense to put all your eggs in one basket. You need to have options if your enemy scores a major breakthrough in the targeting department.
The bottom line here is that America needs a diverse array of nuclear forces to assure the Russians are deterred from launching a surprise attack, because if they figure out how to disarm us in a first strike, heaven knows we've given them a good reason for doing so.
So let's not confuse cutting weapons stockpiles with becoming safer. What makes us safe from nuclear attack is the certainty our enemies have that any act of aggression would be suicidal. We need all three legs of the nuclear triad -- missiles on land, missiles at sea, and long-range bombers -- to make sure Moscow has no illusions. Modernizing this force over the next several decades will require about 1% of the federal budget. If Washington tries to save money by skipping a few steps on nuclear modernization, we could lose everything.

Obama Warns Trump Not To Mess With His Nuclear Legacy

Obama said in a statement that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) “has achieved significant, concrete results in making the United States and the world a safer place.”
Obama stressed that Iran's nuclear program “faces strict limitations and is subject to the most intrusive inspection and verification program ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.”
He added that Iran has reduced its uranium stockpile by 98 percent, has removed two-thirds of its centrifuges, has not enriched any uranium at the Fordow facility and has not used advanced centrifuges to enrich.
“In short, Iran is upholding its commitments, demonstrating the success of diplomacy.”
The JCPOA, reached between the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, Russia, the European Union and Iran, placed specific limits on Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for easing global oil, trade and financial sanctions.
Obama added, however, that the U.S. remains “steadfast in opposing Iran's threats against Israel and our Gulf partners and its support for violent proxies in places like Syria and Yemen.”
He said officials are “deeply concerned” about U.S. citizens unjustly imprisoned in Iran, adding that sanctions will remain until Tehran “pursues a new path,” citing its human rights abuses, support for terrorist groups and its ballistic missile program.
“There is no question, however, that the challenges we face with Iran would be much worse if Iran were also on the threshold of building a nuclear weapon,” Obama said.
He said the Iran deal “must be measured against the alternatives - a diplomatic resolution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is far preferable to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program or another war in the Middle East.”

Fracking Won't Stop New York's Fukushima

In an ironic twist, fracking has been cited as a prime reason for shutting down New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant, as cheap natural gas eroded the economics of generating nuclear power in the region. New York’s Governor Cuomo is a fracking critic who supported banning the practice, a step taken by the state in 2015. But Cuomo has also opposed Indian Point – located about 30 miles north of New York City – on safety grounds for years. Last week’s announcement that the plant would close 14 years early is being touted by the governor as a major victory, but his unlikely ally in that win is natural gas produced from the Marcellus and Utica shale resources located in nearby Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
Hydraulically fracturing wells to produce natural gas has unleashed new supplies of the fuel in volumes that have turned the power generation business on its ear. Natural gas has flooded the US market and consistently depressed natural gas, coal and wholesale power prices. Power generation companies typically turn to the least expensive fuel to produce electricity and that’s been natural gas in recent years. As their feedstock prices have come down so have wholesale power prices, which account for the bulk of the revenue they receive from selling power.
The situation is compounded by the fact that natural gas and power price forecasts remain depressed over the short and even medium term.
This poses tough questions for investor-owned utilities that need to make long-term investments in power generation assets, i.e. new and existing power plants. If a plant is losing money today, and anticipated to continue losing money for at least the next several years, it’s hard to tell investors that’s where you are putting their money. This is Entergy’s position with Indian Point.
Key considerations in our decision to shut down Indian Point ahead of schedule include sustained low current and projected wholesale energy prices that have reduced revenues, as well as increased operating costs,” Bill Mohl, president of Entergy Wholesale Commodities said in a statement. “Record low gas prices, due primarily to supply from the Marcellus Shale formation, have driven down power prices by about 45 percent, or by about $36 per megawatt-hour, over the last ten years, to a record low of $28 per megawatt-hour,” he added.
The elephant in the room, however, is the prospect of becoming overly reliant on a single power generation fuel. Utilities have typically strived to maintain a diverse energy supply portfolio – much like investing in a wide range of security products – in order to insulate against extreme price volatility affecting a single commodity. As more coal and nuclear plants close due to a combination of market and regulatory forces, power generators are increasingly being pushed toward gas for baseload power. Renewables are becoming cheaper and gaining market share, but still lag fossil fuels in most US markets. If this trend continues and natural gas prices increase over the longer term – perhaps due to greater consumption and exports, another recent trend – gas-heavy utilities will face challenges.

The Evacuation Map For the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

According to a recent report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the California Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant  (built in proximity to the San Andreas fault) which everyone always points to as the biggest earthquake risk in the US, is actually ranked 9th in the US in terms of earthquake risk (we somehow really doubt this). The top one? The same we wrote about yesterday as having had a leaking seal for the past 18 years according to the Union of Concerned Scientists - Indian Point in Buchanan, NY. Of course its proximity to New York City has immediately stirred cries of concern from the world's most banksterous city and demands for a shutdown by Andrew Cuomo. It has also prompted Reuters to release an evacuation map of the surroundings should "something" go wrong with Indian Point, an event which will likely only further instill a sense of soothing calmness and a "tranquility effect" in the New Yorker community.
From Reuters:
That has stirred concerns about protecting the city's eight million residents in the event of a disaster.
The plant sits about 40 miles (64 kilometers) north of New York City, inside a 50-mile radius that U.S. authorities have recommended be evacuated around the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.
And above is the map:
As to how New York could be the next Fukushima, here is the original report from MSNBC:
 What are the odds that a nuclear emergency like the one at Fukushima Dai-ichi could happen in the central or eastern United States? They'd have to be astronomical, right? As a pro-nuclear commenter on msnbc.com put it this weekend, "There's a power plant just like these in Omaha. If it gets hit by a tsunami...."
It turns out that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has calculated the odds of an earthquake causing catastrophic failure to a nuclear plant here. Each year, at the typical nuclear reactor in the U.S., there's a 1 in 74,176 chance that the core could be damaged by an earthquake, exposing the public to radiation. No tsunami required. That's 10 times more likely than you winning $10,000 by buying a ticket in the Powerball multistate lottery, where the chance is 1 in 723,145.
And it turns out that the nuclear reactor in the United States with the highest risk of core damage from a quake is not the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, with its twin reactors tucked between the California coastline and the San Andreas Fault.
It's not the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a four-hour drive down the Pacific coast at San Clemente, surrounded by fault lines on land and under the ocean.
It's not on the Pacific Coast at all. It's on the Hudson River.
One in 10,000
A ranking of the 104 nuclear reactors is shown at the bottom of this article, listing the NRC estimate of risk of catastrophic failure caused by earthquake.
The chance of a core damage from a quake at Indian Point 3 is estimated at 1 in 10,000 each year. Under NRC guidelines, that's right on the verge of requiring "immediate concern regarding adequate protection" of the public. The two reactors at Indian Point generate up to one-third of the electricity for New York City. The second reactor, Indian Point 2, doesn't rate as risky, with 1 chance in 30,303 each year.
The plant with the second highest risk? It's in Massachusetts. Third? Pennsylvania. Then Tennessee, Pennsylvania again, Florida, Virginia and South Carolina. Only then does California's Diablo Canyon appear on the list, followed by Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island.
The odds take into consideration two main factors: the chance of a serious quake, and the strength of design of the plant.
Nuclear power plants built in the areas usually thought of as earthquake zones, such as the California coastline, have a surprisingly low risk of damage from those earthquakes. Why? They built anticipating a major quake.
Other plants in the East, South and Midwest, where the design standards may have been lower because the earthquake risk was thought to be minimal, now find themselves at the top of the NRC's danger list.
The chance of serious damage from a quake ranges from Indian Point's 1 chance in 10,000 each year, a relatively higher risk, to the Callaway nuclear plant in Fulton, Mo., where the NRC set the lowest risk, 1 chance in 500,000 each year.
The full list of top 10 riskiest NPPs in the US:
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Increase in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1 and 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 141 percent.
4. Sequoyah 1 and 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Increase in risk: 420 percent.
5. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Increase in risk: 269 percent.
6. Saint Lucie 1 and 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739. Old estimate: N/A.
7. North Anna 1 and 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Increase in risk: 38 percent.
8. Oconee 1, 2 and 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Increase in risk: 330 percent.
9. Diablo Canyon 1 and 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810. Old estimate: N/A.
10. Three Mile Island, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Increase in risk: 82 percent.