เอเอฟพี - ราคาน้ำมันดิ่งลงอย่างรุนแรงเกือบ 9 ดอลลาร์เมื่อวันศุกร์(10) แตะระดับต่ำกว่า 80 ดอลลาร์ต่อบาร์เรล ต่ำที่สุดในรอบ 1 ปี ท่ามกลางเศรษฐกิจถดถอยของโลกที่จุดประกายความกลัวว่าอาจส่งผลต่อดีมานด์ น้ำมันที่ลดลง

สัญญาล่วงหน้าน้ำมันดิบชนิดไลต์สวีตครูดของสหรัฐฯ งวดส่งมอบเดือนพฤศจิกายน ร่วงกราวรูดถึง 8.89 ดอลลาร์ ปิดที่ 77.70 ดอลลาร์ต่อบาร์เรล ขณะที่น้ำมันดิบเบรนต์ทะเลเหนือของลอนดอน ดิ่งลง 8.57 ดอลลาร์ ปิดที่ 74.09 ดอลลาร์ต่อบาร์เรล สืบเนื่องจากผู้ค้าตื่นตระหนกกับตลาดหุ้นโลกที่ร่วงลงอย่างรุนแรง

"ความเป็นไปได้ที่เศรษฐกิจโลกในอนาคตจะถดถอย ส่งผลกระทบต่อราคาน้ำมันโดยตรง" นักวิเคราะห์จากธนาคารดอยซ์แบงก์กล่าว "ความเสื่อมลงเรื่อยๆของจีดีพี(ผลิตภัณฑ์มวลรวมภายในประเทศ)ในภายภาคหน้า อาจจุดชนวนให้ราคาน้ำมันลดต่ำลง" เขากล่าวต่อและคาดหมายว่าราคาน้ำมันอาจดิ่งลงถึงระดับ 60 ดอลลาร์ต่อบาร์เรล

12 ชาติสมาชิกของกลุ่มโอเปก แถลงเมื่อวันพฤหัสบดี(9) ว่าจะจัดประชุมฉุกเฉินที่เวียนนา ในวันที่ 18 พฤศจิกายน เพื่อหารือถึงผลกระทบที่ได้รับจากวิกฤตการเงินของโลก

ขณะที่ทบวงการพลังงานระหว่างประเทศ หรือไออีเอ ได้เตือนเช่นกันว่าภัยคุกคามของความถดถอยทางเศรษฐกิจและวิกฤตทางการเงินจะ กัดเซาะดีมานด์น้ำมันและสร้างความเสียหายให้กับการลงทุนในบ่อน้ำมันใหม่ๆ

ในการประชุมครั้งล่าสุดของโอเปกเมื่อวันที่ 9-10 กันยายนที่ผ่านมา ทางกลุ่มได้ตัดสินใจลดกำลังผลิตลง 520,000 บาร์เรลต่อวัน เพื่อรั้งให้ราคาน้ำมันอยู่เหนือ 100 ดอลลาร์ต่อบาร์เรล ทว่าตั้งแต่นั้นราคาน้ำมันก็ดิ่งลงเรื่อยๆ

ขณะเดียวกันรายงานประจำเดือนของไออีเอ ลดประมาณการความต้องการใช้น้ำมันในปี 2008 ลง 240,000 บาร์เรลต่อวัน และในปี 2009 ลง 440,000 บาร์เรลต่อวัน ไออีเอคาดความต้องการใช้น้ำมันโลกในปีนี้จะอยู่ที่ 86.5 ล้านบาร์เรลต่อวัน และในปีหน้าจะอยู่ที่ 87.2 ล้านบาร์เรลต่อวัน

• Naturschutz als eine "zentrale Antwort auf den Klimawandel" - ein Nachbericht zum 29. Deutschen Naturschutztag in Karlsruhe bei kraut&rüben.

• Fazit der internationalen Energieagentur IEA: "Deutschland ist Vorbild bei erneuerbarer Energie". Der Tagesspiegel.

• Investitionen in die Zukunft: "Evonik gründet Zentrum für Energieeffizienz". Glocalist.

Das Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz in Deutschland setzt die von der IEA ermittelten Anforderungen an effektive Förderinstrumente vorbildlich um. Es führt bei niedrigeren Kosten zu einem deutlich schnelleren Ausbau der Stromerzeugung mit Erneuerbaren Energien, als beispielsweise Quotenregelungen. Die IEA warnt jedoch davor, nur das eigentliche Förderinstrument in den Blick zu nehmen. Die Fähigkeit, des gesamten Energieversorgungssystems, einen hohen Anteil Erneuerbarer Energien aufzunehmen, sei ebenfalls zentral. „Ein vorbildliches EEG bringt nichts, wenn das Stromnetz den Strom aus Erneuerbaren Energien nicht aufnehmen kann“, so Björn Klusmann. Er fordert deshalb Nachbesserungen am Entwurf des Energieleitungsausbaugesetzes. „Es muss Erdkabel auch auf der Ebene der regionalen Verteilnetze ermöglichen, damit Engpässe vermieden werden, bevor sie den Ausbau Erneuerbarer Energien bremsen“. Während die Entwicklung im Stromsektor in vielen Ländern bereits recht erfolgreich verläuft, gibt es laut IEA insbesondere im Bereich der Wärmenutzung erheblichen Nachholbedarf. Hier bleiben die meisten Staaten weit hinter ihren Potenzialen zurück. Die IEA beklagt, dass häufig verlässliche wirtschaftliche Anreize fehlten. „Das Wärmegesetz in Deutschland ist daher ein wichtiger, aber nur ein erster Schritt“, so Klusmann. Das Gesetz schreibt einen Mindestanteil Erneuerbarer Energien für Neubauten vor. „Die Regelungen für den Gebäudebestand sind aus unserer Sicht vor dem Hintergrund der IEA-Erkenntnisse jedoch nicht ausreichend.“

Bis 2020 kann nach Erkenntnissen der IEA der Anteil Erneuerbarer Energien an der Stromproduktion in den untersuchten Ländern auf über 40 Prozent mehr als verdoppelt werden.  "Die Regierungen müssen mehr tun und dringend Maßnahmen ergreifen", so Nobuo Tanaka, Exekutivdirektor der IEA. (Quelle. oekonews.at)

I've sent them an E-Mail on August 5th, 2008. This is my mail:

Here are their responses:

They say, it can be found here: http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/druck/Ufoplan/4334_KIKK.html

And also in the European Journal of Cancer (Volume 44, Issue 2, Pages 275 - 284, Authors Spix C., Schmiedel S., Kaatsch P., Schulze-Rath R. and Blettner N.)

For all English speaking persons out there, here are the translated KiKK study docs (by ejcancer - the European Cancer Journal):

http://www.ejcancer.info/article/S0959-8049(07)00855-6/abstract

http://www.ejcancer.info/article/S0959-8049(07)00855-6/fulltext

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0959-8049/PIIS0959804907008556.pdf

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

In Europa, i soldi destinati alla ricerca in campo energetico sarebbero troppo pochi. A denunciarlo è stato un documento pubblicato dalla International Energy Agency (Iea), l’agenzia europea che si occupa di energia, il 4 settembre scorso, nel quale si denuncia anche il divario tra i fondi destinati al nucleare e quelli destinati alle energie alterntive. Secondo la commissione istituita dalla Iea, infatti, la ricerca sulla fusione riceverebbe più soldi rispetto a quelli destinati alle fonti non-nucleari.

Sul documento si leggono i dati relativi alla suddivisione dei fondi programmata per il quinquennio 2007 – 2013. Secondo quanto approvato a livello europeo, alla ricerca per lo sviluppo di nuove tecnologie di comunicazione andrebbero circa nove miliardi di euro, mentre la somma stanziata per la ricerca in campo medico sarebbe di circa sei miliardi. Fanalino di coda resta proprio la ricerca in campo energetico, per la quale l’Europa conta di spendere “solo” cinque miliardi di euro.

La ripartizione della somma destinata allo sviluppo di nuove energie, inoltre, non sarebbe equa e non consentirebbe all’Europa di raggiungere l’obiettivo di rifornirsi per il 20 per cento di energie rinnovabili entro il 2020. La Iea, infatti, ritiene che il nucleare consentirebbe di arrivare a tale obiettivo solo nel 2050. Per questo, sottrarre fondi alla ricerca per lo sviluppo di energie alternative rallenterebbe l’ambizioso programma.

Ma come spesso accade non tutti sono d’accordo. Robin Grims dell’Imperial College di Londra, infatti, si dichiara stupito da quanto indicato in merito alla distribuzione di questi fondi. “È vero che a livello di tecnologia siamo ancora indietro, ma se riuscissimo a fare del nucleare una nuova realtà economica, la differenza con i livelli di emissioni carboniche odierne sarebbe enorme”, ha dichiarato Grims.

di Sabina Mastrangelo 

World oil demand will increase by less than expected this year and next due to high prices and weaker economic conditions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today.
The agency lowered its 2008 world oil demand growth forecast by 100,000 barrels per day to 690,000 bpd and also trimmed its forecast for 2009 global demand growth by 40,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd.
"High prices are having an impact on demand," said David Fyfe, of the IEA. "The OECD (countries) are feeling the impact."
Global supply fell by 1 million bpd in August to 86.8 million bpd, the IEA said in its September Oil Market Report. This was due in part to North Sea maintenance, lower Opec supply and disruptions to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The IEA, adviser to 27 industrialised countries on energy policy, also cut its forecasts for oil supplies from countries outside Opec.
The agency cut its non-Opec supply forecast by 180,000 bpd for 2008 and by 85,000 bpd in 2009.
Meanwhile, the IEA said any moves to limit oil global production could prove "counterproductive" for the world economy, after Opec agreed to cut output.
Fyfe told Reuters: "We see pressures on the global economy remaining intense. Any move to constrain supply could prove counterproductive."
Opec ministers meeting in Vienna announced a surpise 520,000 bpd oil output cut this morning following a drop in prices from a record over $147 a barrel in July to $103 a barrel.
"The bottom line is there may be a debate within Opec about $100 or other levels as a floor but our view is prices remain high," Fyfe said.
"With a fragile economy and the budgets of some developing importer countries under pressure, we would still see the current level of prices as very high."

So, in response to decreased demand (actually a decrease in the rate of increase in demand), OPEC is planning to reduce production in order to stabilize the price around $100/barrel.

Being the more educated of the two feuding organisations, the SAEA should be gracious enough to elucidate the full picture of the Common Examination for Salespersons (CES), not just to the IEA but to the consumers it claims to protect. Instead of seeing this letter as a demand for explanation, the SAEA should see it magnanimously as a plea by the less educated to be educated on the issue.

For a start, the SAEA should graciously educate the less educated agents and the public they serve on the following:

1. The wisdom on why a 50 per cent-pass multiple choice question examination is sufficient for salespersons and the public they serve.

2. The SAEA should compassionately explain the formulation process of CES to the IEA and the public, bearing in mind that some of us might not understand the complexity involved in a system which aims to protect 1.2 million home owners.

3. The CES must have been of an international standard involving subject matter experts from all relevant fields including public housing, competent authorities. the financial sector, building control, and the sales industry players. The SAEA should graciously show the names of the experts on the CES examination board and the date of their appointment.

4. The SAEA should also categorically point out the critical difference in functions and job scope between an accredited agent (with CEHA) and a salesperson (with CES). Should they be paid differently since there must be some difference in service quality and job scope between them?

The Government has cleared the path for meritocracy to flourish in all levels of society. It is time for private organisations, such as the SAEA, whose policies have a direct impact on others' livelihood and life savings, to show its grace, sincerity and care towards the people they claim to represent.

Heng Uei Duan (Ms)

Source : Straits Times - 10 Sep 2008

According to Eléctricité de France (EdF) - web two workes noticed that two fuel assemblies had "unnormal positions". So the work was stopped and the reactor was evacuated and the building was closed. It is the 10th atomic accident in Europe in only two months.

Operators of Tricastin: Eléctricité de France and AREVA web

Both are known from these atomic scandals:

Uranium solution leaked out from French atomic power plant! - Operator: AREVA

Again! - Uranium leaked out from French atomic power plant! Operator: AREVA

100 French workers contaminated!

French atomic power plant: Worker contaminated with radiation - Again

They do what they want

Life-Upgrade.com

130,000 barrels of middle and low radiative waste, kilograms of Plutonium and Caesium 147 - 750 meters below.  Asse 2 was and is the world's first underground disposal for radioactive waste. And then this scandal:

Long lasting leak in Asse II

Now, Germany's environmental minister Sigmar Gabriel takes over the Asse II disposal - the federal environmental agency "Bundesumweltministerium" is now responsible for Asse II. The new operator is the federal agency for radiation protection Germany - web - known from their KiKK study.

The former operators State Office for mining, energy and geology in the German federal state Niedersachsen (Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie und Geologie / LBEG) - HERE is their website and the “Helmholtz Zentrum München” / Munich - HERE is their website failed to operate the disposal properly.

Both did not react on their website.

Asse II is full of holes, as Gabriel said. He added, the cause of fault is not clear.

Let this be a learning experience for all pro atomic power activists.

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Den britiske tænketank IEA er rar. Den har nemlig lagt en sprit ny antologi om den retlige reguerling af markedet (her i bred forstand) op på sin hjemmeside, så alle og enhver kan downloade den, læse den og drive venner og bekendte til vanvid med "sære" ideer om, at staten er pervers, ond og dum -- og derfor aldrig kan gøre så godt et arbejde, som du og jeg i fællesskab.

Bogen kan hentes her.

Den ene bidragyder hedder Peter leeson. Udover at have bidraget til bogen er han også indehaver af den fede titel "BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism" og har just forfattet et indlæg på (den sære) freakanomics-blog.

Begge dele er tilføjet til min efterhånden store læse-to-do-liste...

Somehow I knew Friday wasn't my last entry. 

ONE WEEK after radioactive Iodine 131 was released into the environment from the Belgian factory in Fleurus [map] officals informed the people living in the City Fleurus about the accident. Source

This is the website of the scandal factory which released the radioactive Iodine 131 - view it HERE

The factory is part of the manufacturer IRE - world's 2nd important producer of radio isotopes.

Iodine 131 has a half life of 28 days - then it becomes Xenon 131. Iodine 131 gets absorbed by the body and concentrates inside of the thyorid. It can cause thyroid cancer and a lifelong hormone therapy with additional removal of the parathyroid. Just like it happened to many children after the Chernobyl atomic reactor explosion in 1986. Thyroid cancer is the only illness the IAEA accepts as an illness caused by radiation. The IAEA denies any link between any other kinds of disease, death or mutation and radiation.

Belgian police warnes the people living in Fleurus of eating vegetables and fruits and not to drink water from wells or milk from cows. The warning takes effect for a 5 km radius around the IRE factory.

Belgian Nuclear Safety Agency (AFCN - web) categorises the accident as a 3 in the international index (maxiumum is 7). This is the worst Belgian accident of all times.

On Tuesday the production inside at the IRE factory was stopped. First reactions from IRE officals: No harm for the people or environment - that changed after examinations of the grass near the factory. The Safety Agency suddenly changed their mind and called for an emergency meeting in the main capital Brussels.

Result: For the 2nd time the European emergency system was activated (ECURIE). The first time was here:

Atomic Alert in the EU - Slovenia

The reaction of the civil major of Fleurus: "The people are concerned - this is normal"

Will the people in Fleurus file a suit against IRE or the officals? Maybe, but will they have success? Probably not, because after the Three Mile Island accident in the U.S. the victims also tried to go to law, but the IAEA protested. Did the WHO intervene? No, because the WHO does have a gag contract with the IAEA since 1959 - so, the WHO is under pressure by the IAEA, not to publish illness-caused-by-radiation-numbers, without the OK of the IAEA.

Until next time, have a look at all these European atomic scandals:

7th Atomic Scandal! Uranium in Germany’s drinking water!

Uranium solution leaked out from French atomic power plant! - Operator: AREVA

Again! - Uranium leaked out from French atomic power plant! Operator: AREVA

100 French workers contaminated!

French atomic power plant: Worker contaminated with radiation - Again

Switzerland: Two workers contaminated in Atomic Power plant!

Germany's waste disposal ASSE II - a ticking time bomb

regards,

Life-Upgrade.com

Yertle’s not really 7,000 years old; actually I have no idea how old she is.  She could be 7,000, she could be 70.  All I know is that I’ve had her for 12 years and she’s about the same size as when my friend first handed her down to me, which leads me to believe she’s probably older than anyone would guess and that I’ll have to will her to someone when I die. 

Europe and Japan are reportedly headed towards their own recessions, but Bloomberg reported that our economy- possibly fueled by exports to these struggling regions- grew faster in the second quarter than originally calculated.  This boosted today’s market big time.  Trading is thought to have been the biggest contributor to the growth of the economy in the quarter, and a bigger contributor than it has been in 30 years.  Well no kidding!  Everyone knows to get in at the bottom!

My car got towed today because I was on the wrong side of the street for street sweeping, and it wasn’t until I got to the tow lot that I realized I had my debit instead of my credit card.  So I got back on my bike, rode back home, got the card, rode back to the tow lot, and paid them $117.47 (on top of the $40 ticket this fair City slid under my wiper) to bail my car out of car prison.  If it wasn’t for MBI and Ambac (ABK), which came out of the cut today with a 41% gain sometime between the tow fiasco and when I finally sat back down to look at everything, I would have been way more pissed.  Street sweeping.  Please!  Five seconds after the zambonie passes, trash is back on the street.  What a joke. 

The stars align once in a while in the financials sector, and today was one of those days.  Thursday August 14 was the last time it happened.   Today’s massive gains were a combination of the revised economy numbers, MBIA’s good news, and the Bloomberg report that “Crude oil fell more than $2 a barrel after the International Energy Agency (IEA) said it would tap strategic stockpiles, if needed, because of Tropical Storm Gustav.”  Forecasters are now predicting Gustav will turn Category 3 and is headed straight to Louisiana.  Oil crashed at 11AM because of the IEA’s announcement, then took a bit of a bounce around noon, but the damage was already done.  The Dow gained 212 to end the day at $11,715, oil lost $2.56 to end the day at $115.59, my stocks pulled in $1,700, and so probably ended the week's rally.  No doubt the profit takers will enter the market tomorrow.   

This will be just a short post as the story is pretty new.

Today, we have seen the Dow Jones rocketing 212 points.  Normally, either as a cause or an effect, oil prices retreat, as investors favor stocks to commodities to put their money in.  Secondly, the reason why oil is trading around the upper $115 a barrel is a report that the IEA is going to supply the U.S with more crude in case Gustav causes relevant damages.   We have the weekend and Labor Day.  So, no trading even for oil.

I think oil is extremely undervalued at this particular moment.  Gustav is big, and all the possible paths it could take, are all going to have a negative impact on U.S oil production (the Gulf accounts for 15% of it).  $115 oil happened because of a better-than-expected GDP (3.3%, which also means: increased oil demand), a revised unemployment rate, and the IEA report.  To me, that does not make any difference because there will be tens of millions of barrels missing on a 'mild' scenario case.  Lost production, and the short term delivery of more oil does not help to veil the facts:  A category '4' storm.  I think people 'just forgot' about Gustav when they heard the GDP numbers.

Plan to see a substantial increase in oil prices (at least $5), when the markets re-open on Monday through Wednesday.

Update (9/1):  Apparently Gustav lost strength when first hitting U.S. soil.  I am glad it did not show up as a 'big one', as many feared.  It's still better to lose some money (eventually), than seeing a new hurricane Katrina.  Good job to the city and the state for evacuating so effectively!

Per quanto usi toni più moderati rispetto al suo collega Fatih Briol (sicuramente la circostanza richiedeva maggior attenzione) il quadro rimane piuttosto chiaro, credo sia utile che lo si possa leggere anche in italiano.

Nel 1973 la preoccupazione riguardo ai rifornimenti energetici ha portato alla creazione dell'Agenzia Internazionale per l'Energia, dopo che la prima crisi petrolifera aveva letteralmente forzato i nostri membri ad agire per assicurarsi di non risultare mai più in futuro così vulnerabili in caso di importanti interruzioni nelle forniture di petrolio. Oggi, 35 anni dopo, il primo ministro britannico Gordon Brown ha avvertito che il mondo sta nuovamente affrontando una “terza crisi petrolifera”, che definisce un'era.

Le analisi della AIE concordano con questa prospettiva. E mostrano che l'incidenza del petrolio, ovvero la spesa in greggio calcolata come percentuale del PIL, si trova a livelli prossimi ai picchi di allora. Tuttavia l'impennata dei prezzi di oggi è fondamentalmente diversa dal passato. Noi ci troviamo nella prima crisi petrolifera mondiale trainata dalla domanda. E nel periodo breve le opportunità di passare ad altri tipi di carburanti risultano al momento tanto limitate quanto è alta l'importanza del petrolio nel settore dei trasporti, laddove attualmente le alternative sono lontane dall'essere convenienti. Nonostante ciò gli effetti sono pressoché uguali. I consumatori si stanno limitando nei viaggi. Gli autotrasportatori stanno cominciando a scioperare. Ci sono compagnie aeree che chiudono. E gli stessi produttori hanno chiarito che non considerano nei loro interessi tali livelli dei prezzi e di volatilità dei mercati.

Sfortunatamente non c'è una soluzione immediata che possa ridurre drasticamente il prezzo del greggio, ma ci sono alcune cose che possono essere fatte. Lasciate che ve ne sottolinei in breve i passi cruciali.

Primo, nonostante molti fattori abbiano influenzato l'incremento dei prezzi, incluso il dollaro debole e l'impatto della speculazione, il problema fondamentale sta alla base. Il recente rapporto dell'AIE sul mercato a medio termine del greggio ha concluso che vi sarà in realtà un aumento delle scorte per i prossimi due anni. Ma per prevenire che ritorni a livelli bassi negli anni successivi, occorre che produttori e consumatori agiscano insieme per mettere più petrolio sul mercato nel breve periodo, e incoraggino l'incremento delle capacità di produzione a monte e consumo a valle.

Il recente incontro sull'energia organizzato a Jeddah da Re Abdullah rappresenta un positivo primo passo in avanti e gli annunci di Arabia Saudita e molti altri produttori determinanti di incrementare gli investimenti porteranno sicuramente a migliorare le prospettive.

Secondo, occorre che le nazioni consumatrici siano più coraggiose nell'incentivare l'efficienza energetica, mantenendo i livelli delle accise sui carburanti ed eliminando progressivamente i sussidi sui prezzi in modo da dare i segnali giusti al mercato;

Terzo, c'è la necessità di costruire fiducia e chiarezza attraverso il miglioramento della trasparenza in quanto a riserve, produzione e consumi.

Infine, per molti paesi emergenti che sono dipendenti in maniera crescente dalle importazioni di petrolio e stanno giocando un ruolo molto più significativo sul mercato internazionale dell'energia di quanto non facessero nel 1973 o nel 1979, si tratta in effetti della prima crisi petrolifera. Per questa ragione è necessario rilanciare l'AIE espandendo le sue attività alla partecipazione dei paesi mondiali a più rapida crescita – in cima a tutte Cina e India.

Dopo tutto, le sfide che stiamo affrontando sia in termini di sicurezza dell'energia che di cambi climatici sono sfide globali e richiedono risposte globali. Noi abbiamo appreso le migliori politiche e pratiche mondiali da membri dell'AIE a molti altri, e siamo ansiosi di poter condividere questa esperienza in maniera più allargata.

Razionalmente un punto di partenza è quello di coordinare le misure da intraprendere in tempi di emergenza nelle forniture di petrolio. Questo processo si rifarebbe al dialogo riguardo alla gestione delle crisi portato avanti per lungo tempo dalla AIE con molti paesi qui presenti oggi.

Un'ulteriore area focale in cui implementare la cooperazione è quella dell'efficienza energetica. In quest'ottica, la creazione del Partenariato Internazionale per una Cooperazione nel settore dell’Energia (IPEEC) è un'iniziativa promettente. Una terza area è lo sviluppo di un'ampia cooperazione internazionale sul tema delle nuove tecnologie, come la cattura e il sequestro di carbonio.

Non mi spingerò oltre tali brevi commenti in questa occasione, quindi lasciate che concluda il mio intervento ringraziando il governo giapponese per aver invitato l'AIE a partecipare a questi importanti colloqui.

-

Testo originale
Trad. Oliver

Life-Upgrade.com

Its principals are:

• Equal representation of all faiths in the IEA;
• Gender equality in the decision making processes and activities of the IEA;
• Outreach to individuals and communities from all faiths, age groups, walks of life, and levels of society;
• Outreach to individuals and communities across the religious-secular and political spectra;
• Continual recruitment through committed activists on the local and regional levels;
• Implementation of interactive programs that effectively change outlooks and attitudes, such as extended weekend seminars and ongoing study groups;
• Continual development of new models for effective encounter; and
• Ongoing evaluation of all strategies and programs.

You can subscribe to their reports which are issued occasionally - they make interesting reading, and are proof that goodwill and spiritual intent can conquer prejudice, and together we can make a better world.

Dave

So, watch these countries, people and concers closely:

France wants new atomic reactors

Toshiba wants to build new atomic reactors

IEA wants 1,300 new atomic reactors

McCain wants to build new atomic reactors

Atomic power is NOT green

Life-Upgrade.com

The German drinking water is much more contaminated with Uranium then assumed. The Consmer Protection Organisation "FOODWATCH" (web) discorvered, that of 8000 examined data 950 have more than 2 miligram of Uranium in one liter - that's breaking the tolerance limit. A tolerance limit for Uranium? That's right! There is such a thing. It's unbelievable, but it exists. There should be only one tolerance limit: ZERO. Uranium in drinking water is dangerous for babies.

Adding to this: 150 data values are above the limit of 10 (!) miligram per liter. Is this still drinking water?

In France it would be, see the latest French atomic / Uranium scandals:

Uranium solution leaked out from French atomic power plant! - Operator: AREVA

Again! - Uranium leaked out from French atomic power plant! Operator: AREVA

100 French workers contaminated!

French atomic power plant: Worker contaminated with radiation - Again

Uranium can cause nerve damage, brain damage / Cancer, kidney damage and mutation. The IAEA would deny every link between radiation and death / mutation / cancer (excpent tyhroid cancer) or disease. They are doing this propaganda since they were founded, with the support of the ICRP - both are are profiteers of the atomic industry. So, no one wonders, why people accept tolerance limits all over the globe. It's pro-atomic-power propaganda. Have a close look at tolerance limits, ICRP and IAEA - HERE .

They were originally founded in 1954. While their foundation was going on, an atmosphere of secrecy because of the atomic weapons and the secrecy of reasons of national safety were around them. 1954 ICRP was an organisation of 13 male members.  Till 1990 the first woman came to them…

They made the recommendations for radiation protection norms, which were accepted by all countries, and which (very important!) justified the set of regulations of the IAEA. Interesting isn’t it? Here is one:
ICRP said, the tritium emission (from atomic power plants) in water should be 40.000 Bq. And now the crazy progress of the ICRP: In 1990 they said: Lets make 7000 Bq/ litre. This was proved by ACES (Comitee for environmental standards). They said: Wrong housenumber, change the 7000 (Because of cancer danger). They also said: Lower it to 100 Bq in five years until you get 20 Bq / Litre. I think its a big difference between 40.000 and 20, don’t you?

Thats why we should never tolerate a number for low radiation emission from atomic power plants.

But the IAEA uses them in a very cruel way, since the Chernobyl reactor explosion in 1986. If you read through a paper from 1990, written by the ICRP you find the description “temporary radiation effect”. Effects which they did not find heavy enough in order that the effected people can be compensated. And today? Have a look at his HERE

Worst of all: The German Authorities did not inform the German people about the Uranium in German drinking water - never did.

Only Foodwatch did it.

Now, their website is overrun by concerned people, so it will impossible to visi t their website for a while. You can try it if you want and you should do it, because German authorities still do NOT react. See here: BfS website

Foodwatch's Chief Bode said, it would be no problem to filter the Uranium out of the drkinig water. But the authorities do not react. He also added, it would be a good idea to show the concentration of Uranium in driking water along with the water bill.

Funny and crazy thing: Germany has NO Uranium limits for drinking water. Nothing. Again: ZERO would be the limit.

Guess what, exactly at the same time, when Foodwatch uncovered the Uranium scandal in German drinking water, the CDU party (50% of Germany's Government and pro-atomic-power) said, that German atomic power plants should run longer than the 8 years, to be exactly: 40 years. Who said this? Well, it was Glos (member of the German Bundestag Government), have a look at him HERE. And his message HERE. Is he paid by the industry or what? No, but other Government politicians: Listed HERE.

Germany plans total pull-out from atomic energy - no wonder some people are concerned. About the money, not the health of the German people. Here is the KiKK study about rising children cancer near German atomic power plants.

This year is a total catastrophe for pro atomic power extremism. Like every year, like every week.

Life-Upgrade.com

I was about two hours south of Chicago in Normal last week for the Summer Leadership Academy of the IEA. It was held on the campus of Illinois State University (Go Redbirds!). I was asked to lead a one hour session on web sites, newsletters and blogs. They scheduled us (my buddy from my school who runs our local's website and who is way too smart about this stuff came with) for two sessions. The second session repeated the first.

The sessions went well. People seemed interested. I got good feedback. The evals were overwhelmingly positive.

Some thoughts about making the presentation:

I contacted the state leadership people who were running the Academy several times about what I would need: internet access, a projector I could connect with my MacBook (I brought my own connector/adaptor), a screen, and the name of the facilities person I could contact when one or all of these things failed to appear or work (Anne's brilliant idea, but I never got a name).

Our first session was scheduled for 9:40. We drove down in the morning (I had to leave The Other Side of the Lake at 5:30 AM, meet up with my buddy outside of Joliet, and drive together the 90 more minutes to Normal). We got there an hour ahead of time, checked in, got our ID and password for internet access and headed over to the building where we were to do our thing.

There was a workshop ahead of us in the same room as ours that would go to 9:30. Oh oh. That would allow us only ten minutes to make sure everything was operating OK. That made me worry.

We went to a little sitting area and tried to log on to the University's internet access using the ID and password we had been given. Didn't work.

I found a a web page that provided the number for the University IT help office. The guy said that the IEA had not set up a guest account and had no idea what the ID and password we had was.

It was now about 9:10. Hmmm.

Rather than take valuable time to go back to the registration area, I got on my cell phone and called the IEA Springfied office to get the cell number of the Academy organizer. She answered and said she would send a tech person over right away.

Peter, the tech guy arrived. It was about 9:20. It turns out that the classroom we were to meet in was a "smart room." It had a built in presentation system using a PC. The expectation was that I was doing my presentation using Powerpoint. I wasn't. And that I would have my presentation on a flash card. I didn't.

And I hadn't been informed ahead of time of either expectation.

Since my presentation involved exploring web sites I wanted flexibility that a Powerpoint would have limited.

The three of us figured out how to connect my MacBook through the smart room presentation equipment. The internet cable was in a box in the presentation set-up that I would never have been able to find in time without Peter the tech guy's help.

We had it all set up by 9:35. It all worked.

The one negative evaluation I received was that my presentation was not in Powerpoint and I had no hand-outs.

Good. She noticed.

One of the positive evaluations I received said, "Good stories."

Yay. She noticed.

My car just cost me $73 to fill up and it isn’t a large tank.  My sister’s van with a 90-liter tank costs $125 to fill each time.  She recently bought a small car.  The saving in gas bills makes their payment.  The older van sits in her driveway and is used sparingly.  Such is the discipline of higher prices.

The Federal government introduced the ecoAUTO Rebate program for two years.  Penalties are being levied on big gas-guzzlers and bonuses given for vehicles that sip fuel.  Looking closely, it seems to have been the proverbial horse designed by a committee (ends up as a camel).  It has selections that are totally illogical unless one realizes that the domestic auto industry has a powerful lobby.

Take the example of the Honda Fit, 6.6 L/100 km, not being included in the 2007 Federal government ecoRebate program by .1 liters / 100 km.  Honda was not impressed as it’s competitor, Toyota’s sales took off and their figures dropped.  As a result of quick re-engineering by Honda, it now qualifies for 2008.

Under the flex fuel category, the Chevrolet Impala at 12.3L/100 km, and the Chrysler Sebring, at 13L/100 km, is eligible for a $1000 rebate.  The Sebring uses double the fuel of the Honda Fit.  Impala is made in Oshawa, Sebring from Illinois, and the Fit is from Japan.

The federal program ends in December as Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon indicates that “it has served its purpose in raising consumer awareness of fuel-efficient models”.  Can you follow that reasoning?  A recent CBC story says higher than expected buyer interest will result in overspending of the program budget.

There are five provinces that offer a sales tax rebate for hybrids – BC ($1,000) PEI ($3,000), Quebec ($2,000 for vehicles under 6L/100 km), Ontario ($2,000), Manitoba ($2,000).  A number of these programs will be phased out in coming years, presumably as the technology evolves and price differentials decline.  If you buy a hybrid in Ontario, the combined rebates are $4000.

The rationale for these programs had been primarily reduction of greenhouse gas, and not peak oil.   In the last year, the peak oil theory has made the jump from blogosphere to some main stream media.

As gas price rises, all of the usual suspects (declining US dollar, speculation, and instability in oil producing countries) have been rounded up but will be eventually released.  The idea that we are at the peak of oil production will eventually gain credence in the general population.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently indicated that world oil prices were “justified by fundamentals…  Often it is a case of political expediency to find a scapegoat for higher prices rather than undertake serious analysis or perhaps confront difficult decisions.”   It’s very startling to hear such clarity from that organization.

In a column last October, I indicated that when gas rose to about $1.60 a liter, replacing a gas guzzler vehicle with an efficient model would pay for itself from reduced gas bills.  Well, we are almost there!  If the tendency continues we could be there within several months.

If you have to buy a new car in the near future, you might consider the future cost of fuel.  It could be at $3 a liter in the next several years or even higher.   We just don’t know.   Consider the case of a full size vehicle like the Dodge Avenger, or the Chevy Impala.  At roughly 12 L / 100 km, that’s 2400 liters for the average driver (20,000 km).  Annual fuel cost of $7200 a year ($600 per month) is higher than your car payment.

The alternative would be something like the Toyota Prius or Honda Civic hybrid at roughly 4.5 L / 100 km. Only 900 liters are used annually, which translates into $2700 ($225 / month).

The former CIA chief James Woolsey drives a hybrid and compares the local gas station cash register to a collection box for al-Qaeda.  Whether a link as direct as that can be drawn is difficult for me to say.  However, the best way to moderate prices for gas will be for all people to use less.

Do we have a plan in New Brunswick to ensure that most vehicles sold have excellent fuel economy? The life of vehicles is typically 12 years.  Are we planning for a transportation alternative after the personal car era is finished?

We’re about two years into the mandate of Shawn Graham’s government but I haven’t seen an energy policy and little transparency.   We do hear the phrase “Energy Hub” quite often, describing private sector energy investments for export.  At what point will “peak oil”, a once in the lifetime of this planet event, sink into the consciousness of this government?

The publication of this document, in my view, will mark the point where world opinion shifts from optimism to pessimism about the availability of sufficient oil and gas production capacity to meet world demand. Peak oil theory will be widely accepted as an immanent reality (for the uninitiated, see the Energy Bulletin primer or the Wikipedia article).

The IEA releases an energy outlook every year, of course, but there are signs that this one will be different. In the past, they have simply assumed that thanks to market forces, the oil supply will simply keep pace with demand. This led to predictions of continued smooth growth in oil supply, and rather benign prices of around $US60/barrel into the foreseeable future. This year, for the first time, they will examine whether that assumption is true. As the WSJ article explains:

The decision to rigorously survey supply -- instead of just demand, as in the past -- reflects an increasing fear within the agency and elsewhere that oil-producing regions aren't on track to meet future needs.

This is not an easy task. The biggest producers, who are part of the OPEC cartel, are notoriously secretive about their detailed field production data. Western agencies have had little choice but to take them at their word. But a growing number of voices are suggesting that they have been exaggerating their potential to ramp up production for many years, and the situation may be far starker than most analysts assumed.

If the IEA report shows that this is correct, then the world economy is in serious trouble. As the gap grows between the surging demand from China and India and the sluggish supply response, oil prices are just going to keep going up. As we have seen recently, when oil gets expensive, so does just about everything else, including food. All of the problems we have seen developing over the last year were just a taste of things to come. Deepening economic woes, growing geopolitical tensions, concerns about shortages and scarcity, and increasing hysteria may be just a few months away.

So the apocalyptic scenario portrayed in the BBC mini-series Burn Up is not totally out of this world. Of course it was exaggerated for dramatic effect, but there is still a disquieting little nugget of truth at its core.

100 workers were contaminated with cobalt-58. Source

EdF says, the dose was below the limit, so the workers returned home without treatment. Also ASN web said, this accident was category 0 (range 0 - 7). EdF calls the accident irrelevant. Is this what you like to hear when you're contaminated with radiation? Yes? So, is everything ok?

It's not:

French atomic power plant: Worker contaminated with radiation - Again

EdF - Eléctricité der France and the rising suicide rate in in Chinon atomic power plant

Tricastin is not only EdF territory, it is also operated by AREVA. AREVA is known from these scandals, which recently (last 14 days) happened:

Uranium solution leaked out from French atomic power plant! - Operator: AREVA

Again! - Uranium leaked out from French atomic power plant! Operator: AREVA

AREVA and EdF want to build new atomic power plants. Can we let them do this?

France is known for these scandals:

Cooperation between Lybia and France on the atomic sector

Bad Business - France and Lybia on the atomic sector

The Atomic Industry / IAEA ignores every scientific proven link between high / low radiation and disease, mutation or death.

Since 1929 genetic and cancer creating effects of radioactivity are known.
In 1946 Hermann J. Mueller got for his experiments the nobelprice: Source

And here is the German KiKK study and childrens cancer near atomic power plants.

Let's all say nothing

Life-Upgrade.com