Authored by Peter Korzun via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The issue of nuclear safety has been a hot topic in the second half of 2018. It has just been discussed in detail at the 62nd International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference in Geneva, which was held Sept. 17-21. The international conference on “The Security of Radioactive Material: The Way Forward for Prevention and Detection,” which is scheduled for Vienna, Dec. 3-7, is going to be a landmark international event that will be a focus for the media spotlight.
It is true that poor storage conditions and low nuclear-safety standards threaten the environment and increase the possibility of nuclear materials getting into the wrong hands.
Russia can be proud of its achievements in this area. The days of the 1990s when it needed outside help to tackle this problem are long gone. In 2013, Moscow ended the joint Russian-US Cooperative Threat Reduction program (the Nunn-Lugar program) because it is now able to manage these issues on its own. The cooperation over the secure storage of weapons-grade materials was suspended in 2014. The IAEA reports that today Russia boasts high nuclear-safety standards. Sophisticated protection equipment has been installed and all nuclear sites are jointly safeguarded by the military, ROSATOM’s security agency, and on-site security teams. The materials are properly safeguarded during transportation. A special program to upgrade the transportation infrastructure has been in place since 2010.
The report “The Use of Highly Enriched Uranium as Fuel in Russia,” issued by the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), a group based at Princeton University, admits that the country has made great progress to ensure the safety of uranium stockpiles and transportation. It also includes criticism, the absence of which would be odd in any report prepared by a US think tank. It states that “highly enriched uranium (HEU) poses special concerns, as it can be used relatively easily in simple nuclear explosive devices by states with limited nuclear weapon expertise or even by non-state actors … [Russia] has not made highly enriched uranium minimization a priority.” The paper concludes that it is essential to secure Russia’s commitment to the development of a comprehensive,
» Lees verder
January 8th, 2018
By Sayer Ji
Contributing writer for Wake Up World
Another study confirms what activists and scientists alike have been warning: the next generation of RNA interference GM foods may seriously compromise the genetic integrity of our species.
A new study, titled “Detection of dietetically absorbed maize-derived microRNAs in pigs”, adds fuel to the fire of the growing controversy surrounding the EPA’s recent and conspicuously underreported approval of Monsanto/Dow’s RNA interference (RNAi) corn — a new type of genetically modified organism comprised of a multitude of genetically engineered traits (and therefore potential health risks) destined to make it to people’s dinner tables by the end of this decade. (You can view the entire study pdf here.)
We’re creating viewer supported news. Become a member! Click Here!
The Biotech/Chemical industry’s new RNAi corn was quietly rubber stamped by the EPA on June 15th of last year under the premature, under the patently false assumption that the RNA interference molecules in the maize can not directly affect the gene expression of those animals or humans who eat it.
The ongoing controversy relates to a fundamental difference of opinion on the age old aphorism: ’you are what you eat.’ The GMO side answers NO, rejecting the idea. To them, food isn’t imbued with any unique, biologically meaningful properties beyond the fact that it is a source of energy (calories) and bodily building-blocks (biochemicals such as carbs, fats and proteins, and a few key minerals and vitamins). Therefore, they contend that GMO food is substantially equivalent to conventional food, and therefore carries with it no additional safety concerns. Ironically, their marketing and lobbying efforts say otherwise: they claim their newly created genetically modified organisms are so exceptionally unique that they warrant receiving the patents they need to maintain market exclusivity. Essentially they want to have their Roundup-ready cake and eat it too.
Also see: Big Biotech’s ‘Substantial Equivalence’ Argument Busted by Latest GMO Study
The other side — what should be called the the pro-Real Science, and pro-Safety side — not only says YES to the concept that we are what we eat,
» Lees verder