A sense of history makes the present precious.

======
Stanislav Petrov - World Hero
http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/article.html
http://www.brightstarsound.com/world_hero/transcript.html
======
Earthkeeper Hero: Stanislav Petrov
http://myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=Stanislav_Petrov
======
From:
European Public Health Alliance:
Cancer epidemic blamed on nuclear power
http://www.epha.org/a/710
The present cancer epidemic is a result of pollution from nuclear energy and of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout, which peaked in the period 1959-63, according to a report from the European Committee of Radiation Risk (ECRR) published in January 2003. It estimates that radioactive releases up to 1989 have caused, or will eventually cause, the death of 65 million people world-wide...
======
European Committee of Radiation Risk
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/eccr.htm
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/2003/sixtyfivemilliondeaths.htm
...an international body of 30 independent scientists, led by Dr Chris Busby, a member of the Government's radiation risk committee and adviser to the Ministry of Defence on the use of depleted uranium. The findings prompted immediate calls for the Government to rethink its
support for the nuclear industry or share responsibility for millions of deaths worldwide...
======
European Committee on Radiation Risk
http://www.euradcom.org/#english
======
From:
Chernobyl 20 Years On
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobyleflyer.pdf
...true consequences of radioactive exposures...
...the international radiation risk community has ignored the many reports of ill-health...glossed over, marginalized, ignored or denied the existence of the terrible consequences...Research papers have been excluded from official reports. Cries for help have been dismissed as due to
‘Radiophobia’. Research into these effects has been mainly published in Russian language journals; these valuable contributions have (perhaps purposely) rarely been translated into English. To do so would have been fatal to the nuclear industry which routinely discharges the same radioactive substances into the environment under license...
...scientists examine and review the data and show that, rather than fading away, the effects are only beginning to show themselves. The phenomenon of ‘genomic instability’, discovered in the laboratory in the UK in the 1990s, is seen now in its terrible effects on the animals, plants and human victims of the Chernobyl exposures. It is seen at doses that would have been, and still are, dismissed as vanishingly small by the current radiation protection laws...
..."...millions of people in the Northern hemisphere have suffered and will suffer from the Chernobyl catastrophe..."
======
http://faithfulsecurity.org
http://lastbestchance.org
======
Nuclear Threat Initiative
http://nti.org
======
http://ellsberg.net
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.greenpeace.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/doewatch
======
Anna Mae Aquash (of the Mi’kmaq Nation from Nova Scotia, Canada) was a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM) who, in the 1970s, dedicated herself to defending the rights of Indigenous People. In South Dakota and elsewhere, Anna Mae quickly became known for her organizing skills and passionate idealism. She was outspoken and intelligent, keen to talk of treaties and The Peoples' freedom. Her dedication and ability to stand strong in the face of adversity eventually led to her death. She was found murdered in 1976 on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), ultimately responsible through their COINTELPRO tactics for her untimely death, failed to conduct a thorough investigation documenting the cause of death as "exposure" when, it was later found, she had actually been shot in the back of the headbecause she was an Indian and a member of AIM, and perhaps to cover up the Bureau's own role in her death...
http://www.annamaejustice.com
http://www.native-languages.org/mikmaq_culture.htm
======
Society of Professional Journalists
http://spj.org/pressNotes.asp?REF=1852
======
freedom of communication links
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13042
======
http://conflictres.org
http://www.pittsburgh-mediation.org
http://www.independent.org
======
Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition
http://pittsburghdarfur.org/links.html
======
The Debt of the Dictators [film]:
How multinational banks supported dictators in Argentina, South Africa, the Philippines and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
http://www.erlingborgen.com/about.html
http://english.nca.no
4/11/6 7:00 p.m.
University of Pittsburgh, Barco School of Law (Forbes & DeSoto), room 111
======
http://www.jubileeusa.org
http://www.davidcorn.com
http://www.thenation.com
======
Nuclear salvation: ‘We’ve heard it before’
By Rosalie Bertell & Alexey Yablakov
http://www.catholicnewtimes.org/index.php?module=xarpages&func=display&pid=10
So many times nuclear power has put forth its ugly head as the saviour of the world. Remember the discovery of acid rain?
Nuclear power was not the most likely culprit in this dramatic loss of trees and lakes. It was touted as the saviour technology.
It was soon clear that even though nuclear power did not emit sulfuric acid or its precursors, it did emit beta particles which reacted with the nitrogen in the air causing nitric acid. In fact, the atmospheric nuclear testing may well have been the original culprit bringing about the acid rain crisis. Certainly during those years the Ph of our lakes shifted toward acid, and many industrial processes and automobiles then added to the disaster.
Next, nuclear power stepped forward in the 1970’s to save us from OPEC and high gas pricing. The crisis quickly went away, not because of nuclear power, but because the people learned to conserve energy.
Now we have nuclear power standing front and center to save us from the horrors of climate change and global warming. The thinking is again faulty, as so many have shown, but this time the “hype” and lobbying is somewhat more overwhelming. Is nuclear power really our only sane choice, or is this a last ditch stand for a failed industry?
Claims for nuclear power specious
The claims for nuclear power are at best specious, at worst disastrous. Take carbon emission. There is a blithe notion that nuclear power is clean; it emits no CO and therefore does not contribute to global warming. This argument has been systematically refuted over the past five years by two independent experts, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Bartlett Smith. One is a chemist and energy specialist, the other a nuclear physicist, who between them have several lifetime experiences in the nuclear industry. What they have done is look at the entire life cycle of a nuclear power station, from the mining of the uranium to the storage of the resulting nuclear waste. Their conclusions make grim reading for any nuclear advocate.
They say that at the present rate of use, worldwide supplies of rich uranium ore will soon become exhausted, perhaps within the next decade. Nuclear power stations of the future will have to rely on second-grade ore, which requires huge amounts of conventional energy to refine it. For each ton of poor-quality uranium, some 5,000 ton of granite that contains it will have to be mined, milled and then disposed of. This could rise to 10,000 tons if the quality deteriorates further. At some point, and it could happen soon, the nuclear industry will be emitting as much carbon dioxide from mining and treating its ore as it saves from the so-w called clean power it produces thanks to nuclear fission.
At this stage, according to an article in Prospect magazine by the energy writer David Fleming, nuclear power production would go into energy deficit. It would be putting more energy into the process than it could extract from it. Its contribution to meeting the world’s energy needs would become negative! The so-called reliability of nuclear power, which its proponents enthuse over, would therefore rest on the growing use of fossil fuels rather than their replacement.
Even worse, the number of nuclear plants required to meet the world’s needs would be colossal. At present, about 440 nuclear reactors supply about two per cent of demand. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculates that 1,000 more would be needed to raise this even to 10 per cent of need. At this point, the search for new sources of ore would become critical. Where would they come from? Not friendly Canada, which produces most of it at present, but places like Kazakhstan, hardly the most stable of democracies. So much for secure sources of energy! We would find ourselves out of the oil-producing frying pan, right in the middle of the ore-manufacturing fire.
These arguments have to be met before other, more searching questions are answered about what the society suffers from routine emissions of radioactive materials into air and land, where we intend to store waste, what we are going to do to prevent unexpected radioactive leaks, and how we should protect nuclear plants against terrorism. The truth is that this form of energy is no more safe, reliable or clean than the others. That may well mean turning our backs on it. Some good, however, may come from the debate. The decision to go nuclear will, ironically, make the case for renewable energy stronger rather than weaker.
There are sustained local campaigns and derisive columns from the pro-nuclear lobby. They have one great advantage, however; they are genuinely renewable, and they are reversible. A wind turbine, unlike a nuclear reactor, can be removed once it has come to the end of its natural life. A wave machine can simply be towed away.
Nor, in comparison to nuclear power, are they gravely inefficient. Of course a wind farm depends on wind, which may or may not blow, and a wave machine similarly is weather-dependent. But both need to be part of the world’s energy jigsaw puzzle. It is absurd, for instance, that the Government is withholding the millions of dollars of investment that is needed to turn wave power into a commercial proposition. Experiments in the Orkney Islands have proved so promising that the Portuguese Government has bought the technology and is hoping to exploit it industrially in its own waters. Why can’t we do the same? It is only years of government subsidy which has made the nuclear option seem to be cheap!
Nuclear power generation is not trouble-free, and the more you look at it, the more enticing the other choices become.
Sr. Rosalie Bertell is a former winner of the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize
Alexey Yablakov is a prominent Russian environmentalist and former environmental advisor to President Yeltsin.