Sequestering Carbon/Fukushima Is Increasingly Dangerous

The Day the Earth Nearly Died – YouTube

I watched this BBC show about the Permian Extinction, one of a number of extinction cycles, the worst of them all.  Right now, the blame for this event has been decided by present scientists to be some mysterious combination of events leading to a CO2 excess crisis and ‘global warming’.


It may be one of the elements, of course.  What impresses me the most is how there are so many extinction events and usually this cycle comes when some ‘singular’ event such as an asteroid strike or huge volcanic rift such as the Siberian Trap or Decca Trap event changes the balance of nature.

When we look at events in any system, all systems from galaxies to atoms, all events have a common theme: when they suddenly shoot towards infinity, they all crash.  The higher the surge upwards, the more complete the collapse.


This is an IRON LAW OF NATURE.  It cannot be breeched, avoided or denied.  It always is operational, it always follows the same, harsh path.  So…the world’s worst extinction event happened when the world had the greatest proliferation of life forms.


For the last 100 years, scientists wondered what destroyed the Permian life systems.  At no point have they noticed that this event was inevitable and perhaps necessary.  This is because they think the collapse back then as well as the other collapses were all ‘unnatural’.  Instead, I would say, this is a natural pulse of events that is unavoidable, not unusual at all.


Rays of life? New study shows that life on Earth blossomed when nearby supernovas bathed our planet in cosmic radiation means that perhaps all of those peaks we see preceding the collapses were probably due to some star blowing up nearby and I dare say, this may have also caused more asteroid hits, too.  Something we should also consider when puzzling about extinctions.


Fears that the proliferation of humans will lead to a crash are real.  Even, sensible to understand.  But how can we stop this?  Should we try to stop this?  Or are we basically doomed to play out the ‘infinity/collapse’ game?


The very rich have a solution: carbon pollution trading.  This scheme has to be the most useless trick pulled yet.  It is not only futile and stupid, it is being implemented by the very rich for cynical reasons: they don’t want to curb their own desire to be infinitely rich and to have everything for themselves.  So they cooked up this con game to trick people who are honestly scared of an impending collapse:  Carbon Sense Coalition – on the “climate change” fight from Down Under « The PPJ Gazette


This bubble is set to inflate rapidly. To offset just one day of Qantas operations, CO2 promoters must plant more than 200,000 trees in permanent forests covering 130 hectares. How much land is required to offset all Australian power stations, industry and transport?


…Then as the trees mature, growth stops. The aging forest just sits there, some trees growing, some dying and net carbon sequestration ceases.


In England and Australia, the global warming scam game has hit a wall: the populace is now beginning to see they are being conned.  They are confused about what to do so many are going into the ‘we won’t cooperate’ mode which is usually the only one allowed.  The writer of the above site in Australia, for example, claims that forests cease growing once they are mature.


This is totally silly.  They most definitely grow.  Trees get bigger and bigger in girth over time.  But different types of trees absorb different amounts of CO2.  The trick here isn’t what a mature forest does, it is what planting rows of tiny saplings are doing to fix the CO2 pollution which is…nearly nothing.


90% of the saplings or more will die.  In some places, 100%.  This is all a trick and the people pulling this stunt know this.  My own forest is CO2 valuable: it is fairly dense and has both saplings and mature trees.  But I am not selling CO2 credits to fool people.  My forest exists.  Everyone on earth benefits and not a soul helps me preserve this forest: I am taxed for it.


Giving ‘credits’ to clowns who plant some saplings while basically treating my forest as ‘free oxygen’ infuriates me.  The destruction of the world’s rain forests is a serious problem for all oxygen-consuming animals and even humans but nothing is being done to fix this.  Instead, the game is to cut down the forests while replacing them with corporate saplings.


I saw this out West where huge old trees would be felled and replaced with saplings.  One doesn’t equal the other and preventing wholesale clear cutting has been a huge battle with corporate America siding with the ‘economical’ clear cutting system.


New international land deals database reveals rush to buy up Africa | Global development |

Almost 5% of Africa’s agricultural land has been bought or leased by investors since 2000, according to an international coalition of researchers and NGOs that has released the world’s largest public database of international land deals.


The database, launched on Thursday, lifts the lid on a decade of secretive deals struck by governments, investors and speculators seeking large tracts of fertile land in developing countries around the world.


The past five years have seen a flood of reports of investors snapping up land at rock-bottom prices in some of the world’s poorest countries. But, despite growing concern about the local impacts of so-called “land grabs”, the lack of reliable data has made it difficult to pin down the real extent and nature of the global rush for land.


Because most of the land of Africa isn’t ‘owned’ by anyone except dictators of various sorts, this is the favorite place to play the CO2 swap game which requires driving out the poor to use land for saplings in swap deals made mainly in Europe:  LAND MATRIX

Over 50% of the land ‘buy’ deals for CO2 swaps are in Africa.  This will be a new way to oppress the masses while the rich continue their huge CO2 systems while claiming to be ‘good people’ because, josh, look at how they are carefully saving oxygen via this game they set up which they make profits off of, of course, since they insist we fund this via taxes and fees.


Here is a totally dishonest BBC story about Fukushima.  Fears of global warming coupled with a desire to make lots of money off of nuclear power means lying about nuclear accidents.  The fiction that Fukushima is singular and not a warning is key to telling us to let them fill the planet with nuclear power plants.


This clown tells every lie about how no one is going to die from this mess, how even the workers there are not going to have anything bad happen, etc, etc.  The fool won’t move to Fukushima, of course but he COULD move to the Exclusion zone for Chernobyl and prove to us how nifty this really is!  Fukushima Disaster Documentary: Is Nuclear Power Safe? Chernobyl, and Thorium 16 Sept 11 – YouTube

He excuses everything claiming the reactors were old.  Well, MOST nuclear plants are ‘old’!  And the more that are built, the more ‘old’ ones there will be.  Something he won’t figure out, of course.


Due to Fukushima and looming huge sales tax hikes, Noda Cabinet’s support rating falls to low of 26%  which means that it will fall very soon.  To be replaced with more useless drones who work for the rich elites.  They, in turn, are fleeing Japan entirely because Fukushima is Hanging by a Thread :

The red area above is the exposed fuel rod holding storage tank.  It is entirely exposed to the air!  It is also held up by pillars that are collapsing.  We see the destruction of the steel rods and the crumbling of the cement and this week two more 4.5+ quakes.  The place is being eaten by rain, radiation is destroying the cement and the earthquakes are relentlessly weakening it, cement can’t take repeated earthquakes well.  It slowly turns back into dust.

Photos of Reactor 4 at #Fukushima I Nuke Plant with Senior Vice Minister of Cabinet Office | EXSKF

This inside view freaks me out.  Because the ‘supports’ for the huge water tank is…construction scaffolding.  I have erected more than one scaffolding over the years and this is standard scaffolding which is NOT STRONG ENOUGH to hold up tons and tons of water.


Also, each earthquake shakes the water which then sloshes around and this puts stress on the disintegrating building as well as the flimsy metal scaffolding.

Here is a good video of what is going on there:  Reactor 4 Building (Inside, Top Floor) at Fukushima I Nuke Plant (4/24/2012) – YouTube

The elites want to continue ever onwards so the OECD chief says Japan needs nuclear power.

But here is the saddest part:  With clean-up around Chernobyl abandoned, what can Japan learn from 1986 disaster?- 毎日jp(毎日新聞)

Just after the 1986 disaster — in which one of the Chernobyl plant’s reactors exploded, blowing off the reactor housing roof and spewing radioactive material into the air — Soviet authorities swung into a full-scale decontamination effort, including burying contaminated soil, and washing and then melting down contaminated machinery. However, in the 14 years between the disaster and the year 2000 — when the last operating reactor at the plant was finally shut down — authorities apparently judged that there had been “little improvement” in soil conditions, and they decided to halt soil decontamination.
The only decontamination operations going on now are for workers doing safety work in and around the dead plant, including decommissioning the reactors and preventing forest fires. There are currently about 3,700 people who work inside the 30-kilometer radius no-go area around the plant — referred to simply as “the Zone” — and they must have their clothes decontaminated periodically. During seasons when humidity is low, vehicles are typically washed one or two times a week, and roads near the plant are also scrubbed.
More than 110,000 people once lived in the Zone, all of whom were evacuated right after the accident. The Soviet authorities apparently attempted to decontaminate the town of Prypiat — where Chernobyl plant workers and their families had lived — soon after, but with no success.
Mr. Zolotoverkh, 58, who is in charge of managing the Zone, says there is no chance that decontamination will be resumed, adding, “No one will be allowed to return, not after decades, not after centuries.”


No one gets to go home again.  It gets worse:  Tsuruga nuclear plant may be sitting atop active geological fault and I have noted before, the best places on earth for nuke plants is where there is good water supply and nearly always, this means on an earthquake fault.

Nuclear power plant forced to shut down… after infestation of slimy sea creatures similar to jellyfish and we can thank this very primitive life form that has survived a dozen extinction events for saving us from our own follies.

Finally, the Volcano behind Atlantis legend re-awakens in the Mediterranean sea area.  This is one scary volcano.  Fujisama is getting rather restless, too.  We are surrounded by geological and cosmic dangers but one thing we do control is how adult humans behave and this is probably the hardest thing to fix, frankly.sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



P.O. BOX 483

BERLIN, NY 12022

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.

sunset borger


Filed under .money matters, Geology, war and peace

19 responses to “Sequestering Carbon/Fukushima Is Increasingly Dangerous

  1. CK

    What is being measured on the vertical axis of that graph? And what are the units of measurement?
    I am guessing that the horizontal axis is 10Ks of years.

  2. DeVaul

    I mentioned this problem before, but seeing the actual details up close is truly horrifying. This building looks like the tractor factory in Stalingrad — circa 1942.

    It will collapse. Heck, even normal reconstruction theory would require it to be demolished before rebuilding anything, but they cannot do that. They also cannot remove the rubble beneath the pools to rebuild the platform or the pools will collapse. It is a problem with no solution.

    Whose idea was it to put 1500+ fuel rods on the third floor? I see no engineering expertise on display here, only an ad hoc attempt to save money by not installing proper storage facilities in the basement (assuming anything to do with nuclear energy can be considered “proper”).

    Giving Tepco officers seppecu blades would be dishonorable, as this form of dying requires that the person have at least some honor left.

    Tossing them into the cooling pools would be a better end for them. How does one face the fact that he is responsible for nuking the entire northern hemisphere in exchange for a little more yen and a promotion?

  3. JT

    “The 69-year-old’s body was found in the Danube River, a Vienna police spokesman said.

    Ghanem had been chairman of Libya’s state-owned National Oil Corporation (NOC), and had previously been Libya’s minister of petroleum and prime minister.”

    I guess they have to kill anyone who knows how much wealth Libya has.
    And what deals have been done.

  4. Mr Bill


    Here’s some food for thought! I used to have many conversations with a nuclear engineer (retired) friend discussing nuclear vs hydrocarbon environmental risks, the current status of various nuclear related activities, etc. He was very experienced and had working knowledge of all aspects of nuclear operations. Let me share a few anecdotes:

    Tepco nuclear plant in Japan is indeed an old reactor design, which is a copy of many existing nuclear plants in the US. The US plants periodically implement design upgrades during certain maintainance and other capital projects. The status of such design upgrades at Tepco was not discussed.

    Years earlier, we had discussions about the Federal depository for the bulk of US nuclear wastes at Yucca Mountains. Many years and billions of dollars were being spent, but progress was slow to none. He informed me that many, maybe most, nuclear facility operators became impatient with Yucca Mountain and began stockpiling nuclear wastes on site at there facilities. Presumably with NRC approval. I also presume the waste was passivated, but I would not be surprised that some facilities in the US used above ground cooling and stoage, albeit, presumably much better protected from outside exposure. I have no info on current US practices.

    I had previously worked on projects to “clean up” contaminated nuclear waste storage depots scallered around the country, mostly for military and government research facilities from the 1950’s forward. The Hansford, WA and Savanna River Works in SCare two. I have been retired several years, so I don’t know their current staus. A few years back, some were approaching serious problems, with rusted and leakig drums and storage tanks. It will be very expensive to really clean them up.

    My nuclear friend and I had philosophical debates on the relative impact on the environment of the nuclear and petrochemical industries. We usually agreed that both attempted in doing meaningful risk analysis of their projects and operations. We also agreed, in some cases, there was the real influence by senior management and regulatory agencies on the risk assessment. We also agreed there was overall less risk assessment and more real time environmental impact for petrochemicals. But, we tended toward disagreement on a major issue that is rarely considered. That is the issue of considering both risk and consequence.

    Take into account the fact that every risk has an associated consequence. A proper risk analysis should fully consider both risk and consequence. My friend would argue that the nuclear industry more thoroughly considered risk and built in much more backup and redundancy than petro industry.Therefore, nuclear plants were better at minimizing the “bad” risk situations from occuring. The industry and the NRC had risk analysis and procedures in place that could deal with about any situation.

    I always took the position that risk and consequence were paired and should always be considered together. Risk is related to the occurance of an event, while consequence is related to the impact of the particular risk.There are low, medium and high risks, just as there are low, medium and high cosequences. The problem is that both must be considered together in order to establish a proper course. Low risk / low consequence and high risk / high consequence are usually no brainer. . High risk / low consequence may be OK. But watch out for the low risk / high consequence case. If consequence being rarely considered, how can the best course for all concerns be implemented.

    It is clear in hindsight (but proper analysis could have been made with foresight), that Tepco and the BP oil spill obviously did not consider the real consequence of their actions. They did risk assessment, convinced themselves that “the risk was worth it” and proceeded. In this case there was, at minimum, poor risk / consequence analysis of the technical issues.

    If this same risk / consequence analysis were carried into the business / financial / political world, I argue it would work wonders convincing the ultimate movers and shakers to take the “proper” course for them and society. The decisions made by the movers and shakers indeed has risks. They live and deal with risks ever day. But, what about consequences? Typically they tend to have low (no) consequences for the risky decisions. Simply add in a high enough consequence and watch better decisions for all parties. It is perfectly acceptable to make high, medium or low risk decisions. However, when the risk situation occurs, then simply accept the consequence associated with the risk they took and failed.

  5. DM

    .. and in China, financial fraudsters have to consider the the high consequence of a bullet to the brain.

  6. Mr Bill


    Balance the risk / consequence relationship and I think things become quite a bit more stable. Furthermore the one sided fraudsters and wheeler dealers would also become more balanced, either by choice or attrition.

  7. Being There

    Nice system yu thought of Mr. Bill
    Wouldn’t fit in with the Friedman model, though. What would they do without disasters? How could they make oodles of bucks on others’ misery?

  8. emsnews

    The risk of ANY system that runs suddenly to infinity is most terrible. The biggest possible catastrophes come from such systems.

  9. Ziff house

    Maybe when the universe tries to get infinitely small it collapses , producing what we see as energy. Maybe , haha!

  10. Being There

    In March 2010 I ran across an article that said that Japan had accepted spent nuclear rods from England and France and perhaps those are the rods on the roof!
    I wrote:[The MOX spent rods from France and GB were sent by ships to the Fukushima reactor and yet although they were happy to make money in this way, they didn’t have them in the most protected environment.

    That’s Uranium and Plutonium we’re talking about here.]

  11. time to send them back then ..

  12. DeVaul

    @ Mr. Bill,

    Thanks for that information. I had no idea that the consequences of failed systems was not a consideration in the risk assessments done by the petro and nuclear industries. This might explain why everyone stands around shellshocked after a disaster like BP’s or Tepco’s and asks:

    “What WERE they thinking?”

  13. Jim R

    I believe the scaffolding is temporary, and that they are doing a slightly longer term (but still temporary) infill job, where the area below the Unit 4 cooling pool will be a solid block of concrete, or perhaps an array of concrete walls, filled with sand. The idea is that the big concrete cube will catch the spent fuel if the pool fails. I wish them luck.
    As for the carbon credits, I totally agree. The cure for greenhouse gas is not financial fraud.
    However, I’d think the big cheeses should be sending Elaine about a brazillion dollars for her little plot of saplings. This is the logic of Wall Street — you have a tree, and it’s demonstrably absorbing some carbon, and then you simply leverage it up to infinify-to-one. So your little sapling grove is compensating for everything that the big coal companies are extracting from the Appalachians.
    Howcome you’re not rich?

  14. DeVaul

    I’ve been thinking more about what Mr. Bill said. It now explains a lot about what is going in our species. The question before us is never “What are the consequences?”, but rather “What is the risk?”.

    If the risk is some astronomical number or even unknowable, then all moves forward as if there is no risk at all, and certainly no consequences to consider since the risk is so small anyway. With “consequences” out of the equation, the matter becomes simply one of “chance”. What is the “chance” of something happening?

    This probably explains why ancient people would move close to a volcano and settle there, thinking that the chance of the god who lives there getting angry is very small as long as they appease him. Or consider the never ending cycle of thousands of people moving into the river delta in Bangladesh to farm despite the possibility of a giant cyclone coming ashore and killing several hundred thousand people there — someday (always).

    Perhaps Elaine has hit on something here about our ultimate end: that it is unavoidable because genetically we are programmed to go to infinity regardless of the consequences. There are many species that continue to breed and propogate until they collapse from starvation and environmental ruin. Perhaps we are just another one of these type species.

  15. Mr Bill

    @ DeVaul

    I may have implied that here was NO consideration for consequences in risk assessments by petro and nuclear industries. Let me soften that implication a bit.

    It is too strong to say there is NO consequences EVER considered. Rather, the consequences are not necessarily formally paired with the appropriate risks and often fall into the background receive reduced consideration. The company culture, experience and regulations tend to be influencing factors. Depending on these latter factors, there may various degrees of consequence consideration, including many with none.

    Having, said that, I still think your last comments are valid. It is unlikely that BP or Tepco gave much thought to consequences. Both made public comments that they concluded there were low risks for serious mishaps. That is, serious problems just cannot happen. The leap from low risk to no consequence can be very easy.

    The shellshocked stance may be more more related to deniability than real shock. Their resonse might be like this: Hey, this sort of thing has never happened like this before. We had considered the risks and we had a reponse plan written. We simply had no idea that this kind of disaster could possibly happen. Nobody could have considered such a major disaster! Who, in a million years, could have imagined anything like this ever occuring? There is just no way we could have known. By the way, it might have been somebody else that may have failed.

    Now, let’s move on. In BP’s case, let’s tell people that there isn’t really a serious problem and keep spraying more chemicals than anyone has ever used before into the Gulf and risk another disaster. We have a disaster to resolve and just don’t have time to consider the risk or consequences of using these large volumes of chemicals, and the government says its OK.
    Incidently, we need to get busy drilling our next deep water well.

    In Tepco’s case, lets move everyone out of the immediate area, but everybody else that the rest of Japan is safe. Let’s cover the site with tents to contain potential radiation leaks and keep trying various maneuvers to prevent further damage. But we can’t really bury the site in concrete or stop radiated water from draining to the sea. Thankfully, the government is not reporting all the issues to the public. The government is also considering relocating a large Japanese population to one of China’s disputed islands. Incidentally, we keep planning to start up another nuclear reactor near by, but all the problems we are still having has prevented any other startup.

    Does it appear that these two scenarios reflect good risk and consequence analysis? Did either company want these disasters to occur? No. Did they do much planning to avoid the disasters? Apparantly not. Does it appear either company is really moving forward to avoid another disaster. It remains to be seen, but it doesn’t look promising.

  16. Christian W

    Looks like the concept of face includes that what is outside the acceptable norm by definition simply cannot happen. That is true for the West as well even if we don’t use the concept of ‘face’ directly.

    Fukushima was the center of Samurai lore in modern times. Guess that is gone now.

  17. DeVaul

    “The shellshocked stance may be more more related to deniability than real shock.”

    Actually, I was referring to the sunbathers on the beach as being shellshocked when waves of crude started rolling ashore, not the BP execs, who I assumed would be on a yacht somewhere toasting each other with champagne. I knew they would not feel remorse and would go into instant damage control mode after such a huge catastrophe. Too bad that damage control involves another huge catastrophe, as you pointed out.

    Human behavior being rather consistent, I expect the damage control at Fukushima to produce yet another huge catastrophe as well.

  18. emsnews

    Worse, the big oil bosses, many of whom are Texan buddies of the Bush clan, are after Obama. They hate even the slightest controls put on their gold digging for oil everywhere.

  19. MM

    Pretty enlightened speech “Dr. Helen Caldicott: What We Learned From Fukushima” Seattle Community Media” hour long but good. Also, CALAMITY UPON THE EARTH THREE MONTHS IN 2012 on Youtube.
    Thanks Elaine for all you do.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s