dChan
Anonymous ID: 8f1cc1 Dec. 16, 2024, 4:22 p.m. No.22177587   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7619 >>7800 >>7891 >>8150 >>8193 >>8282

Canada #68

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Releases Report Confirming Radioactive Material Lost in Transit — Shipping Container Arrives Damaged and Empty in New Jersey

by Jim Hᴏft Dec. 16, 2024

 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has confirmed that radioactive material was lost in transit earlier this month, heightening fears about public safety and sparking theories about mysterious drone activity in New Jersey.

 

Officer Lew, a prominent political commentator, highlighted the NRC’s event report during a review of regulatory alerts.

 

“While looking at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alerts. I can confirm that there is radioactive material that has gone missing on Dec 2nd, 2024 out of New Jersey. This might be the reason for the drones… just speculation at this point,” he wrote.

 

The missing material, identified as a Ge-68 pin source manufactured by Eckert & Ziegler, was reported lost by its licensee on December 3, 2024. Shipped for disposal, the container arrived at its destination severely damaged and empty.

 

According to the NRC’s report, the radioactive source, while classified as “Less than IAEA Category 3,” still poses potential risks if mishandled or exposed for prolonged periods.

 

According to the report:

AGREEMENT STATE REPORT – SOURCE LOST IN TRANSIT

 

The following information was provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) via email:

“The licensee reported to NJDEP on December 3, 2024, that a Ge-68 pin source that they sent for disposal has been lost in transit on December 2, 2024. The source is a Eckert & Ziegler model HEGL-0132, with current approximate activity of 0.267 mCi. The shipping container arrived at its destination damaged and empty. The licensee has filed a claim with the shipper. If the source is not located within the 30 days, the licensee will follow-up with a full written report to include root cause(s) and corrective actions.

 

“This event is reportable under 10 CFR 20.2201(a)(1)(ii).”

 

New Jersey Event Report ID number: To be determined

 

THIS MATERIAL EVENT CONTAINS A ‘Less than Cat 3’ LEVEL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

 

Sources that are “Less than IAEA Category 3 sources,” are either sources that are very unlikely to cause permanent injury to individuals or contain a very small amount of radioactive material that would not cause any permanent injury. Some of these sources, such as moisture density gauges or thickness gauges that are Category 4, the amount of unshielded radioactive material, if not safely managed or securely protected, could possibly – although it is unlikely – temporarily injure someone who handled it or were otherwise in contact with it, or who were close to it for a period of many weeks.

 

Just as this radioactive mishap was quietly made public, a string of mysterious drone sightings over New Jersey has raised eyebrows.

 

John Ferguson, CEO of Saxon Aerospace LLC and an expert in unmanned aerial systems, has presented a startling theory: the drones may be searching for the missing radioactive material.

 

Ferguson: My belief is they’re trying to smell something on the ground, gas, leaks, radioactive material, whatever… I do believe that they’re flying low enough that they’re just trying to sniff the ground and try to find something. So again, I hate to be a pessimist or a guy that thinks directly to the negative. However, I know as a professional, we build professional stuff for the military. I believe that they’re actually out there trying to smell something that’s very important.

 

However, Ferguson linked the sightings of drones to a more shocking claim: the disappearance of over 80 nuclear warheads from Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 

According to Ferguson, these weapons have never been fully accounted for, and at least one of them may have been headed toward the United States.

 

Ferguson recounted a conversation with a government insider who physically handled one of the missing warheads, only to see his warnings ignored by U.S. authorities.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/u-s-nuclear-regulatory-commission-releases-report-confirming/

 

This goes with post >>22176488 from Bread #27141

Anonymous ID: 8f1cc1 Dec. 16, 2024, 6:09 p.m. No.22178066   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8193 >>8282

Canada #68

The Paris Accords As “Climate Insurance”—Unaffordable and Unnecessary

originally was published by Real Clear Wire Dec. 15, 2024

 

The climate change debate continues to rage. Though the science remains “unsettled,” what does seem settled is that President Trump will withdraw, again, from the now infamous Paris Climate Accords. Importantly, those accords are centered on pledges made to modify national energy policies.

 

A decision to exit the Paris Accords is no mere gesture. The central fact for citizens everywhere is that putative “climate solutions” would deploy trillions of dollars and implement mandates and diktats for the supply and use of energy in every aspect of society.

 

The stated rationale for proposals to alter completely how civilization is fueled is the need for an “insurance policy” against future climate catastrophes. In that framing, the climate-fearful argue that some possibility of consequential future harms warrants the “responsible” decision to “buy” insurance now. But this often-argued “insurance” construct assumes that we know enough to say that the consequences of future climate change justify paying for the insurance—and collaterally, that we know the “insurance” itself will be affordable.

 

It turns out that we do know quite a bit about both those domains. As we outline below, reality tells us that the climate-change consequences that we’re trying to avoid will be modest—and that the costs of the “insurance” are staggering.

 

What are we insuring against?

The proposition of paying for “climate insurance” requires that we first consider the “benefits” of 50-year decarbonization, a timescale that comes from the Paris goal of limiting global average temperature rise to 2C. We can then turn to weighing those benefits against the cost of achieving so-called “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions. That comparison is complicated, not least because of the uncertainties on the impacts allegedly avoided by reducing human influences on the climate. There’s also the issue of “costs and benefits to whom,” as well as the question of whether there is in fact urgency to reduce emissions.

 

There are three points to make: the timescale for emissions reduction is arbitrary; the climate “threat” is far from dire; and the cost/benefit calculus very much depends on who is doing the calculation.

 

Start with the Paris goal itself, which seeks to keep the rise in average global surface temperature to less than 2C, which the climate modelers say would require net zero global emissions in the latter half of this century. Meanwhile, emissions are continuing to rise and will again reach an all-time high this year. The subtitles of the UN’s annual Emission Gap Report give a flavor of the lack of progress: in 2023 it was a “Broken record . . . Temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again)”, and this year it was “No more hot air, please.” But even that 2C is not a hard limit. When Hans Schellnhuber, the so-called “father of the two-degree limit,” was once asked why he gave that number, he responded that it was about right, and it was an easy number for politicians to remember. There is no credible case to make that all manner of chaos will suddenly break out if the temperature rises two, or even three, degrees.

 

Next is the question of whether the climate threat is so dire that it requires precipitous and Promethean actions—transforming the entire world’s energy system in a few decades. The answer to that question is not as uncertain as the doomsayers claim. There is some guidance from recent history, since the globe has warmed 1.3C in the past 120 years and about the same amount of warming is expected over the next century. Rather than catastrophe, humanity has seen unprecedented prosperity over that period: the global average lifespan has gone from 32 years to 72 years, per capita GDP has increased sevenfold, the literacy rate has soared, and the death rate from extreme weather events has decreased by a factor of 50! So, it’s hard to believe that a comparable warming over the next century will significantly derail such progress. In fact, the consensus of economic impact studies, as published last year by the Biden White House, is that there would be a few-percent decrement in the GDP for a few degrees of warming. That’s “in the noise,” as we physicists say. Of course, there will be differential impacts, there are uncertainties, and GDP isn’t the only measure of wellbeing. Nevertheless, predictions of catastrophe are not credible.

 

If you listen to the popular media, you might believe that we humans have already broken the climate. Yet even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can’t find any climatically significant trends in most climate impact drivers, let alone attribute them to human influences. Losses from extreme weather events are in fact declining as a percentage of GDP as the world becomes more resilient. And projections of the magnitude of future warming have decreased as the IPCC refines its models and the world emits somewhat less CO2 than had been expected because of both slower growth and a shift to carbon-light energy sources.

 

Finally, there’s the question of “worth it to whom.” While the 1.5 billion of us in the developed world have adequate energy, most of the world craves far more. The inequalities are astounding. Nigerian per capita energy consumption is 30 times smaller than that in the U.S., and some 3 billion people use less electricity each year than is consumed by an average U.S. refrigerator. Fossil fuels are the most effective way of providing the reliable and affordable energy those folks need to improve their lot, so any restraints on those fuels immorally hinders their development. In short, decarbonization is an unaffordable luxury for most people. They face many more immediate, tangible, and soluble problems than the risk of some future climate impacts, the latter best summarized as “we don’t know what, we don’t know when, and we don’t know how severe.”

 

Urging, cajoling, and requiring the developing world to forswear fossil fuels, as the World Bank and other financiers have been doing, is directly contrary to human flourishing. It’s like telling a starving person, “Don’t eat that steak because it might raise your cholesterol.”

 

More:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/12/paris-accords-as-climate-insurance-unaffordable-unnecessary/