Thursday, February 20, 2014

VIDEO: Eminem, Ice Cube & Korn Team Up w/#Anonymous to Call For Global Revolution on 4.4.14




New remixed music video features Eminem, Ice Cube, Korn and Anonymous aligning forces to set off the Worldwide Wave of Action ~ https://WaveOfAction.org/ ~ 4.4.14

https://twitter.com/WaveOfAction

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Worldwide-Wave-of-Action/176294759231015

This video is made in accordance to Fair Use laws for non-profit, non-commercial, educational and socially beneficial use only. It is political speech, as protected by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. This artist supported transformative video contains original and remixed material, with over 100 clips from many different videos. It is also protected by Anonymous and supported by the Digital Hip Hop Collective.  Fair Use

~ Video created by Jah Marley ~



The word "epic" long ago lost all its linguistic potency when Burger King and Hot Topic began to use it in the advertisement of their products. Yet if ever if there was an occasion to resurrect the term, it would be to describe the music video released today by elements of Anonymous along with Ice Cube, Eminem, and Korn...

more > VIDEO: Eminem, Ice Cube and Korn Team Up with Anonymous to Call For Global Revolution | Alternet


Wednesday, February 12, 2014

FUKU+3 Event Calendar :: FUKUSHIMA 3rd YEAR ANNIVERSARY EVENTS WORLDWIDE





watch for many events to be added before the week of 311





Open as FULL PAGE: FUK 3 Event Calendar

other places where this is found and can be viewed on a larger page -
Fukushima Emergency what can we do?: International 3rd Aniversary of Fukushima Event Calendar
What are your plans for FUKU 3? | Fukushima Is Here
Calendar | Coalition Against Nukes

FUKUSHIMA 3rd YEAR ANNIVERSARY EVENTS WORLDWIDE - facebook
We create this page so that everyone may add the events that they organizing in their own country or city for this coming Fukushima 3rd Anniversary.
The events can be any days before or after March 11th or on March 11th.

NORTH AMERICA CALENDAR: <iframe src="https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=info%40radiationtruth.org&ctz=America%2FNew_York" style="border: 0" width="800" height="600" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

EUROPE CALENDAR: under construction

AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC CALENDAR: under construction

3.11&15 ‪#‎NYC‬ NO NUKES ACTION: Marches at Japanese Consulate & Union Square





March 11: March at Japanese Consulate

March 15: March at Union Square 






Thursday, January 23, 2014

The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld



On January 8, 2014, 311 mostly grassroots organizations from around the world sent a letter to four climate scientists, including the well-known Dr. James Hansen, in response to their November 3, 2013 open letter to the environmental movement calling for our support for new nuclear power as a tool to help address the climate crisis these scientists have so ardently brought to public attention. Our GreenWorld post about the January 8 letter can be found here, and it includes links to the letter itself and the November 3 scientists’ letter.
The January 8 letter was spearheaded by NIRS and the Civil Society Institute and essentially argued that nuclear power is not only too dangerous and presents too many problems ranging from radioactive waste disposal to the environmental devastation caused by uranium mining and processing, but that it is uniquely ineffective at addressing climate both for economic reasons and because the “safer” reactors the scientists’ advocate don’t exist and, even at a best-case scenario for the concept, won’t exist in any meaningful time frame–e.g. the time frame these same scientists effectively argue is necessary to drastically reduce (or, as we’d prefer) essentially eliminate carbon emissions from the electricity sector.
Our letter also included an invitation to debate these issues with us in a public forum.
That’s the quick background. Read the previous post for the details. Well, we’re still waiting (not exactly with bated breath) for a formal response–a response that is actually to us (and we did include our contact information) from the scientists.
But one of the scientists, Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, did respond to an e-mail requesting comment from Grist. While we appreciate the indirect feedback, it seems to us that Dr. Caldeira missed the key points of our position even while casting some tacitly snide aspersions on our motivations and expertise.
For example, as reported by Grist, Dr. Caldeira begins his e-mail this way, “It is time for people to rethink their positions on nuclear power, and make arguments based on facts rather than prejudices.”
Actually, as someone who collaborated on the letter and with nearly 30 years experience on nuclear power issues, I kind of resent the implication that our arguments were not based on facts. Indeed, it is precisely the facts that lead us to the conclusion that nuclear power not only will not and can not be useful in making any substantial reductions in carbon emissions, but therefore spending limited resources on trying to make nuclear power succeed would divert those resources from much more effective technologies. That would make nuclear power actually counterproductive as a climate strategy...


more > The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld


The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld



On January 8, 2014, 311 mostly grassroots organizations from around the world sent a letter to four climate scientists, including the well-known Dr. James Hansen, in response to their November 3, 2013 open letter to the environmental movement calling for our support for new nuclear power as a tool to help address the climate crisis these scientists have so ardently brought to public attention. Our GreenWorld post about the January 8 letter can be found here, and it includes links to the letter itself and the November 3 scientists’ letter.
The January 8 letter was spearheaded by NIRS and the Civil Society Institute and essentially argued that nuclear power is not only too dangerous and presents too many problems ranging from radioactive waste disposal to the environmental devastation caused by uranium mining and processing, but that it is uniquely ineffective at addressing climate both for economic reasons and because the “safer” reactors the scientists’ advocate don’t exist and, even at a best-case scenario for the concept, won’t exist in any meaningful time frame–e.g. the time frame these same scientists effectively argue is necessary to drastically reduce (or, as we’d prefer) essentially eliminate carbon emissions from the electricity sector.
Our letter also included an invitation to debate these issues with us in a public forum.
That’s the quick background. Read the previous post for the details. Well, we’re still waiting (not exactly with bated breath) for a formal response–a response that is actually to us (and we did include our contact information) from the scientists.
But one of the scientists, Dr. Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science, did respond to an e-mail requesting comment from Grist. While we appreciate the indirect feedback, it seems to us that Dr. Caldeira missed the key points of our position even while casting some tacitly snide aspersions on our motivations and expertise.
For example, as reported by Grist, Dr. Caldeira begins his e-mail this way, “It is time for people to rethink their positions on nuclear power, and make arguments based on facts rather than prejudices.”
Actually, as someone who collaborated on the letter and with nearly 30 years experience on nuclear power issues, I kind of resent the implication that our arguments were not based on facts. Indeed, it is precisely the facts that lead us to the conclusion that nuclear power not only will not and can not be useful in making any substantial reductions in carbon emissions, but therefore spending limited resources on trying to make nuclear power succeed would divert those resources from much more effective technologies. That would make nuclear power actually counterproductive as a climate strategy...


more > The ongoing debate on nuclear power and climate change | GreenWorld


Monday, December 30, 2013

GreenWorld | News, Views, & Musings for a Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free future


GreenWorld is published by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS,http://www.nirs.org). As you might expect, we will be covering nuclear power in all its manifestations and issues: nuclear reactors, old and new; radioactive waste; uranium and the front end of the nuclear fuel chain, the effects of radiation, and more. We make no effort to shroud our position: NIRS was founded in 1978 to work with grassroots groups and individuals across the world for the speediest possible end to nuclear power. In short, we’re against it–and for good reason: the facts show that it is a dangerous, dirty and expensive way to produce electricity, among other drawbacks.
But it’s not, of course, enough to be simply against something. If nuclear power were the only way to generate electricity, the facts might look differently. Context matters. Electricity is a necessity, and we’re not Luddites. For that matter, no one who publishes an internet blog could seriously claim such a title anyway. Fortunately, there are many ways to generate electricity, and increasingly many ways to store and distribute electricity. Some, like coal, are also dangerous and dirty. We’re against those too.
What we’re for, what we strive for, is a clean, sustainable, affordable energy future; one that we encapsulate in the phrase “nuclear-free, carbon-free.” That means renewable energy, especially solar and wind, but also geothermal in appropriate locations, and some types of biomass–though certainly not the industrial, forest-clearing, polluting technologies that currently encompass far too much of what is termed “biomass” these days. It means energy efficiency and distributed generation; energy storage too, which is becoming increasingly practical on almost a daily basis.
As we move further into the 21st century, it’s clear we are beginning to develop entirely new models of electricity production and distribution. The model that initially served well to electrify the nation and much of the world last century, that relied on large “baseload” power plants with their electricity distributed through centralized electric utilities private and public to homes and businesses, is growing obsolete, as are the technologies–nuclear, coal and the like–that formed the basis for the model. Too much electricity–about two-thirds of that generated–is simply wasted as heat or on long-distance power lines. Too much carbon is emitted into the air, endangering our entire planet. Too much radioactive waste is created and radiation routinely released into our air and water. There are better ways to meet our planet’s need for power.
We’d like to say that the sustainable energy future we envision is inevitable. And in the long run–if indeed our planet still has a long run to go despite the best efforts of some to destroy it–it probably is inevitable. But the electric utility industry is large and powerful–in many Congressional districts for example, the local utility is the largest single employer. That gives them clout. And the nuclear, coal and other polluting energy industries are also large, powerful, and persistent. They’re not going to just give up. The natural gas fracking revolution shows that dirty industries can take advantage of new technology just as clean ones can: change is always inevitable; the right change requires people to care, to learn, and to act.
All of which makes this, from the perspective of an advocate and an author, an exciting time. Times of great transition and conflict usually are–and that’s what GreenWorld will be covering and commenting upon.
We’ll be linking to the most interesting and/or important news stories of the day, and often writing about them–providing background journalists and other scribes either leave off or don’t know themselves. We’ll be providing in-depth coverage of issues otherwise entirely uncovered. We hope we’ll be doing this in a manner that is both informative and fun to read. You, the readers, will be the ones who will let us know if we’re accomplishing those goals.
At the onset, GreenWorld will be written and produced by NIRS’ President, Michael Mariotte. In the coming weeks and months, all of NIRS’ staffers will be provided their own pages on this site to write about their own areas of expertise and their own opinions. While this is a NIRS site, opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of NIRS–we want to give our staff free reign to comment how they please...

GreenWorld | News, Views, & Musings for a Nuclear-Free, Carbon-Free future