Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 9:49 p.m. No.8471877   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1913 >>1921 >>1954 >>1971 >>1982 >>2007 >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2321 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

An Anon mentioned several months ago something I had not known. John Kerry went to Antarctica right after POTUS was elected. Decided to start digging on Antarctica. With Uranium One and Kerry's uranium deal with the Iranians being recent on my mind. Looking first for any possibility of a Uranium/Antarctica connection to explain Kerry's movements. Calling this series of digs Victoria's Secret/Uranium Two.

 

Many digs later I have arrived at a few conclusions.

 

1: They talked way more openly about presumably naturally occurring Uranium deposits in Antarctica during the last century than they do during this one.

 

2: This century the reporting seems to be accounting for any mention of Uranium in Antarctica as being due to atmospheric contamination blown in from uranium ore processing in Australia. With one mention found of readings related to fallout from cold war nuclear weapons testing.

 

3: There is a treaty that prohibits any mining in Antarctica but some of my digs find that the treaty is not even mentioned in news stories where it certainly should be mentioned.

 

4: There are a couple of mineral deposit maps of Antarctica in my digs. The legends even show a symbol for uranium. But I don't see any uranium marked on the maps!

 

5: If clandestine uranium mining operations exist in Antarctica then keeping them secret is the only way to avoid an international incident. An international treaty violation that directly relates to the raw materials for nuclear weapons production. We're talking serious blowback here folks. Potential for massive financial corruption seems to be great as well.

 

I'm left asking myself if something once in the public domain could be marked as classified at a later time? Seems possible but silly. Also would seem to be the hallmark of black hat treachery. Would an attempt at scrubbing the internet draw more attention, and possibly cause more damage, than just laying low and hoping for the best? Is it problematic to censor institutions of higher learning websites?

 

Anon sees a tamp down in the timeline. Find myself wanting high resolution imagery of the entire continent of Antarctica. And anon is doubtful such would be available as free open source data. The perfect hiding place.

 

The digs start in 1958 and run up to as recently as October 2019 and the current C_A World Fact Book (makes no mention of well documented uranium deposits in Antarctica). Is uranium valuable? You bet it is! Is uranium also the perfect commodity for ill gotten gains? It certainly lends itself quite well to the practice of secrecy. What with it being such a national, and international, security factor to government policies. Plausible to keep it behind the curtain. Automatic ironclad excuses generate few questions. Oldest digs posted first. Most recent last.

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 9:53 p.m. No.8471913   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1921 >>1954 >>1971 >>1982 >>2007 >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8471877

TOKYO, March 26 – Japanese scientists reported today that they had discovered uranium in the Antarctic near the Japanese base on the Prince Harald Coast. Samples of the ore are being brought to Tokyo on the expedition's ship, the icebreaker Soya, for analysis.

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 9:56 p.m. No.8471941   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1954 >>1971 >>1982 >>2007 >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2520 >>2535

The New York Times

Copters Hunt Antarctic Uranium

Dec. 29, 1976

 

IN FLIGHT OVER VICTORIA LAND, Antarctica—Lieut. Comdr. Mike Brinck files his helicopter directly at the towering rock wall of Tabular Mountain. Then, just as a crash seems inevitable, he banks and turns to parallel the wall 100 feet from its craggy sandstone face.

 

Dr. Franz Tessensohn of West Germany's geological survey, hunched between pilot and co-pilot so he can look ahead, calls to Kent Crisler, student at the University of Kansas, that a run has begun.

 

A steady stream of chart paper flows from the gamma ray detector between Mr. Crisler's knees—a big metal cylinder—and scribbles on the paper margin alongside the continous wiggles and peaks inscribed in red by a nervous pen. He must keep track of where each observation is made.

 

The search is for uranium—not as a step toward exploitation, but to help those nations—including the United States—now trying to formulate a policy for ultimate disposition of the resources hidden within this vast continent.

 

The targets are the topmost sandstone layers of the higher mountains of this region. The ranges surveyed—Shapeless Mountain, Mistake Peak and the like—are 9,000 to 10,000 feet high. In most cases all but the uppermost few thousand feet are buried in the ice flowing off the South Polar Plateau toward the sea.

 

The ranges are part of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains that span the continent from its Pacific to its Atlantic shores, forming one of the world's major mountain systems. The higher ones are often capped with flat-lying layers of Beacon sandstone, a formation made famous early in this century by the accounts of Robert Falcon Scott and Sir Ernest Shackleton.

 

When the continents figuratively are fitted back together, as they seem to have been 200 million years ago, the formations here appears related to those of similar age and structure that produce uranium in the Karroo area of South Africa and in India.

 

According to Dr. Edward Y. Zeller of the University of Kansas, in charge of the uranium hunt here, part of the Karroo formation contains 2 percent uranium. The search is being conducted with helicopters flying out of the American base at McMurdo Sound.

 

The most encouraging find so far has been a recording made a few days ago with Dr. Gisela Dreschhoff at the detector. She is a German-born associate of Dr. Zeller and like him a radiation physicist. The needle swept off scale as the helicopter flew along the flank of Maya Mountain that forms the west wall of Beacon Valley.

 

‘I Only Drink My Coffee Black, and I Cannot Drink It With Sugar’

For about a mile and a half the radiation was three times normal. The area is near the head of Taylor Glacier, which flows into a valley whose lower part is free of ice.

 

The observation must now be followed up on the ground and specimens collected. “It may turn out to be nothing,” according to Dr. Zeller, but the “hot area” is clearly defined and not associated with any change in surface topography, implying that the radiation represents a localized deposit.

 

While the readings did not indicate a very rich resource, the searchers believe it may show that uranium concentrations exist in the Beacon sandstone—some of them perhaps of economic importance.

 

The cliff-hugging flight strategy is necsary because the horizontal surfaces here are almost all buried in ice and snow, which mask the gamma rays generated by uranium and other radioactive elements.

 

Radiation Above Normal

 

Listening to chatter between the pilot, and co-pilot on the intercom headset is less than reassuring when one hears comments like: “I'm not sure the aircraft can make it up this one, but we'll give it a try.”

 

The air is so thin at this elevation that the climbing rate and general performance of the helicopter are impaired.

 

We fly at from 40 to 60 miles an hour a few dozen feet above a long ridge—in this case bare of snow and ice—with Mr. Crisler making notes and never looking out. A veteran of helicopter operations in Vietnam, he seems unperturbed. 1/1

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/12/29/archives/copters-hunt-antarctic-uranium-ranges-buried-in-ice-copters-hunt.html

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 9:58 p.m. No.8471954   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>1971 >>1982 >>2007 >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Suddenly the ground drops from beneath us and we are thousands of feet above a deep canyon. The sensation is somewhat like jumping off a very high cliff.

 

The relief of the region, in terms of canyons, cliffs and lofty mountains, is dramatic. Clouds have kept us away from part of Shapeless Mountain—our first goal—and seem to be closing off possible return routes down valleys leading to McMurdo Sound.

 

We descend to a bare, level area near the summit of Mount Fleming and hover while Larry Lister, chief aviation machinists mate, opens the right door, leans out and peers down as prop wash blows into the cabin. With his headset he can talk to the pilots above the engine roar.

 

“Looks pretty good, sir,” he says. “A bit forward … more to the left.”

 

With the craft only a few feet off the rocky ground he jumps out with the long wire that links him to the pilots in one hand, then coaches the last few inches

 

‘Ground Truth’ Found of descent. Landings on this mountain have provided the “ground truth” needed to verify validity of the airborne record.

 

The airborne instrument contains a sodium iodine crystal 112 cubic inches in volume. When a gamma ray penetrates such a crystal it produces a flash of hight that, in turn, is detected by a light monitor (photomultiplier).

 

The rays originate in thorium and a radioactive form of potassium, as well as in uranium. Next year Dr. Zeller hopes to have a detector that records on four channels—one each for gamma ray energies typical of uranium, potassium and thorium, plus one sensitive to all three.

 

In some Government prospecting, according to Dr. Zeller, huge cyrstals, of 6,000 cubic inches are used, but that is over flatter country where fixed wingaircraft with more load-lifting capacity can be used. Here on the heights of Mount Fleming, Mr. Crisler carries a portable detector with a four-cubic-inch crystal over the terrain. While it is less efficient than the airborne one, it can be held close to the rock.

 

We are lucky, for while the temperature is chilly at about 16 degrees Fahrenheit there is no wind, even though weirdly eroded boulders testify to the force of blasts that often sweep the area. The flight crew opens cans of fruit juice and cookie packages.

 

Then we lift off to scout Depot Nunatak, Horseshoe Mountain and other summits. “Nunatak” is an Eskimo term for a mountain buried in ice except for its summit and this one looks as though it were poking up through a cloud deckinstead of very solid ice.

 

While most of Antarctica is buried in ice, the Beacon sandstones have been lifted high enough to be exposed along Much of the Trans-Antarctic Mountains. The present flight can only reach those near McMurdo Sound but Dr. Zeller hopes the search can later move south near the Beardmore Glacier where the formations are thickest.

 

Uranium becomes concentrated in such formations, he says, after that metal has been extracted from suitable basement rock by water action and the uranium has then come in contact with organic matter. Once it combines with such matter it no longer remains dissolved in the water but forms a deposit.

 

The presence of coal and fossil trees shows that ample organic material was once available here.

 

Elsewhere in the world a number of rich deposits appear to have formed in the manner described by Dr. Zeller. Those between Grants and Albuquerque, N.M., appear to be in old streambeds as are the ones in Gabon, West Africa, that lave supplied the French nuclear weapons Program.

 

At Oklo, in Gabon, the deposit was so rich that long ago, when the percentage of uranium 235 (the fuel of nuclear reactions) relative to uranium 238 Was greater than now, spontanious chain reactions occurred. Some physicists believe comparable deposits may exist elsewhere —including Antarctica.

 

The surveying here is being done by Navy aircraft under contract with the National Science Foundation. 2/2

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/12/29/archives/copters-hunt-antarctic-uranium-ranges-buried-in-ice-copters-hunt.html

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:02 p.m. No.8471982   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2007 >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Polar Prospects: A Minerals Treaty for Antarctica

 

Data on coal and uranium are from publications of the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency.

 

The core areas of the continents are the old

Precambrian shields. In the reconstruction of Gondwana, the Brazilian shield, African shield, Indian

shield, Australian shield, and East Antarctic shield

are all brought into close juxtaposition like pieces of

a puzzle (figure 4-2). South America, though not contiguous with East Antarctica, was close to Africa. Numerous mineral occurrences are found in

the shield of East Antarctica. Many of these occurrences are similar to the mineralization of major economic deposits in comparable shield areas of the

adjacent continents, These major deposits iron-formations and bedded manganese in Australia, India, and Africa; conglomeratic placer gold-uranium deposits.

 

In the same general area is the

recently discovered ore body at Roxby Downs,

which is rich in copper, gold, silver, uranium, and

rare-earth minerals. Further to the east, a belt

referred to as the East Australian erogenic province

(also called the Tasman orogen) consists of progressively younger sediments, volcanic rocks, and intrusions extending into the Early Mesozoic. This

province, a portion of which geologically resembles

part of north Victoria Land (the Borchgrevink

orogen) in Antarctica, contains deposits of copper,

lead, and zinc associated with submarine volcanism

and tin, tungsten, molybdenum, bismuth, gold, and

other metals apparently associated with subsequent

granitic intrusions.

The extension of the Ross orogen toward Africa

is less clear, but radiometric dating suggests that

metamorphic activity occurred in eastern Africa at

roughly the same time as the Ross orogeny, but no

ore deposits have been found that can be associated

with this event. The younger Cape orogeny of

southernmost Africa strongly folded Late Paleozoic

rocks but did not produce any metamorphism,

intrusion, or ore mineralization.

 

Uranium

Prospects for Antarctica

Uranium occurs in many geologic settings. Among

the more important categories are quartz-pebble

conglomerate deposits, deposits related to erosional

surfaces in Precambrian rocks, disseminated and

contact deposits in igneous and metamorphic rocks,

vein deposits, and sandstone deposits of various

ages. Again, some insight can be gained by comparing Antarctica with the surrounding Gondwana

continents. South Africa contains an abundance of

uranium and is a major uranium producer. However,

most of the uranium produced in South Africa is a

byproduct of gold mining, principally from the

Precambrian quartz-pebble gold conglomerates of

the Witwatersrand region. Australia is also a major

uranium producer. In Australia, most of the known

uranium resources are contained in deposits spatially related to erosional surfaces in Precambrian

rocks. The South African and Australian deposits

suggest that uranium might be present in the

Precambrian rocks of East Antarctica.

Uranium minerals, or anomalous levels of radioactivity, have been found in several locations in

Antarctica, particularly in Enderby Land, the Adelie

Coast, and the Transantarctic Mountains of Victoria

Land in East Antarctica. No known occurrences of

radioactive minerals in Antarctica contain commercial quantities. However, larger deposits might

be present in sedimentary basins that existed prior to

the break up of Gondwana.

World Resources

Reported world uranium production in 1986

totaled 40,900 short tons. Reactor requirements were

43,200 short tons with the difference being made up

from stocks. Exclusive of China, Eastern Europe,

and the Soviet Union for which data are not

available, the four largest producers were Canada,

the United States, South Africa, and Australia

followed by Namibia, Niger, and France. Total

known resources, which include the reasonably

assured resources and the estimated additional

resources based on direct geological evidence, total

3.9 million tons. The ratio of known resources to

reactor requirements currently stands at 91 or nearly

a century of supply. In addition, undiscovered resources are estimated at over 1.8 million tons.

Even with the projected moderate growth in

nuclear power production, supplies of uranium

should be adequate for the foreseeable future. In

the long term, advances in nuclear power generation

and enrichment technologies are expected to reduce

the requirements for natural uranium. Even though

the cost of uranium in current prices may be higher

in the long term, the cost of finding and producing

uranium from Antarctica would likely be much

higher still.

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1989/8926/892606.PDF

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:04 p.m. No.8472007   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2043 >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Uranium Resource Evaluation in Antarctica

Edward J. Zeller Gisela A. M. Dreschhoff Volker Thoste

Book Editor(s): John F. Splettstoesser Gisela A.M. Dreschhoff

First published:01 January 1990 https://doi.org/10.1029/AR051p0095

Book Series:Antarctic Research Series

PDFPDFTOOLS SHARE

Summary

This chapter contains sections titled:

 

Introduction

 

Flight operation methods

 

Geology of the survey areas

 

Uranium provinces

 

Results of the study

 

Uranium enrichments associated with the granite harbor intrusives in southern victoria land

 

Uranium enrichments and the pre-beacon erosion surface

 

Conclusions

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/AR051p0095

 

Summary

Some similarities between Antarctica and other fragments of Gondwanaland have been revealed by a radiometric survey conducted in the Transantarctic Mountains. The survey examined in detail both the primary radioactive mineralization in the crystalline terranes upon which the pre- Beacon erosion surface is formed and the sediments that rest upon it. The primary deposits associated with the Granite Harbour Intrusives show similarities both in age and petrology to the Rossing uranium deposit in South West Africa (Namibia). Since these rocks were certainly exposed at the time of formation of the pre-Beacon surface, they may have served as a source for radioactive mineral deposition in the basal part of the Beacon Supergroup sediments which are stratigraphic equivalents of Cape System rocks. There is strong evidence that the paleoclimate that prevailed at the time of formation of the surface caused the geochemical separation of uranium and thorium. Detailed airborne radiometric surveys of the erosion surface along the Transantarctic Mountains from the Byrd Glacier to northern Victoria Land serve as a basis for assessment of its variability. Placer deposits of thorium-bearing minerals were found in the Brown Hills Conglomerate in the Darwin Glacier area, but only minor concentrations of uranium were detected in any of the basal Beacon sediments. In southern Victoria Land, outcrops of the Kukri Erosion Surface commonly occur on steep slopes and cliff faces. The radiation signature of different outcrops varies considerably, but some show uranium and thorium concentrations as high as those found in the Darwin Glacier area or in northern Victoria Land. Very extensive exposures of the pre-Beacon surface in northern Victoria Land were found to show uranium in the outliers of the basal Beacon sandstones at several localities where these sediments have been preserved.

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GM041p0063

 

https://doi.org/10.1029/AR051p0095

Linked on page and is a 404.

 

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3436/australian-uranium-blows-antarctica

 

Link from this page is dead.

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread568283/pg1

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:08 p.m. No.8472043   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2051 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Nuclear Power at McMurdo Station, Antarctica

Tyler Reid

March 21, 2014

Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2014

 

Introduction

 

Fig. 1: Important Antarctic Bases, Including McMurdo Station. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

During the 1960s and early 1970s, McMurdo Staion, the largest research base in the Antarctic, was powered by a medium-sized, portable nuclear reactor. [1] The extreme temperatures in Antarctica necessitated large amounts of fuel oil to maintain operations, making the prospect of nuclear power, an attractive alternative. [1] During its 10 year lifetime, the nuclear power station produced over 78 million kilowatt hours of electricity and produced 13 million gallons of fresh water using the excess steam in a desalination plant. [1] Though this device reduced the necessity for fuel imports, it was plagued with problems which ultimately forced its early retirement in 1972. The cost associated with nuclear power in the Antarctic made it impractical, and diesel-electric generators have since powered the base. [1] The PM-3A nuclear reactor that powered McMurdo Station stands as the only nuclear power station to operate on the Antarctic continent.

 

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph241/reid2/

 

Russia, US remove potential ‘dirty bomb’ parts from Antarctica

 

Russia and the US have removed radioactive components from Antarctica that were left unprotected and could have been used by terrorists to craft a “dirty bomb,” said Valery Lukin, deputy head of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute.

 

“Four radioisotope thermoelectric generators and four sources of ionizing radiation, which were used in different equipment, have been removed from Antarctica within the framework of the joint Russian-American program,” Lukin, who is also in charge of the Russian Antarctic Expedition (RAE), told TASS.

 

“These radioactive sources may be used by international terrorism for making a dirty bomb,” he added.

 

According to Lukin, malefactors had previously attempted to get their hands on derelict radioactive devices, “but not in Antarctica.”

 

The equipment, which has been recently removed by Russia and the US, had been stored in autonomous research facilities without security protection.

 

It would have been quite easy to snatch it under the guise of tourism, nongovernmental activities or establishment of a record, the scientist said.

 

The radioactive devices were taken out from the Antarctic last year and this, with the process going to plan despite the deterioration of relations between Moscow and Washington, Lukin said.

 

One of the holds of the Russian research vessel Akademik Fedorov was remodeled to carry radioactive cargo in order to perform the transfer.

 

After arriving in Russia, the hazardous devices were handed over to the country’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, for utilization.

 

The equipment was initially delivered to Antarctica in the 1960s and 1970s to be used at the Soviet seasonal field bases in Antarctica as sources of energy.

 

A so-called “dirty bomb” is a weapon of mass destruction that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives.

 

It could be aimed to contaminate the area around the explosion, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/322656-russia-us-antarctica-dirty-bomb/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:10 p.m. No.8472051   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2072 >>2078 >>2083 >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

John Kerry lands in Antarctica, highest U.S. official to visit

World Nov 11, 2016 9:29 AM EST

MCMURDO STATION, Antarctica — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry didn’t comment on President-elect Donald Trump’s election victory on Friday while visiting Antarctica, but did say that citizens who care about limiting emissions might have to march in the streets to push for more aggressive action.

 

Kerry became the highest-ranking American official to visit Antarctica when he landed for a two-day trip. He’s been hearing from scientists about the impact of climate change on the frozen continent.

 

Trump has called climate change a hoax and said he would “cancel” U.S. involvement in the landmark Paris Agreement on global warming.

 

“We need to get more of a movement going,” Kerry said when addressing several hundred scientists and staff at an evening event at McMurdo Station, the large base which is the hub for U.S. operations. “We need to get more people to engage.”

 

Kerry said there was a risk that much of Antarctica’s ice will eventually flow into the ocean, raising sea levels worldwide.

 

Despite the Paris agreement to cut the fossil-fuel emissions causing the planet to warm, “we haven’t won the battle yet,” Kerry said to the audience that included many young people involved in climate research.

 

Earlier, a planned visit to the South Pole was scrapped because of bad weather. Instead, Kerry and members of his entourage were taken on a helicopter tour of the McMurdo Dry Valleys, one of the few parts of Antarctica that are largely free of ice year-round.

 

Kerry left from New Zealand early Friday aboard a C-17 Globemaster military cargo plane after being held up for about a day by bad weather. An experienced pilot, Kerry spent much of the flight in the cockpit of the huge jet, chatting with the pilots.

 

After a smooth trip of about five hours, the group landed on the Pegasus Ice Runway, the strip of ice that serves McMurdo.

 

Kerry’s aides described the trip as a learning opportunity for the secretary of state. He has been receiving briefings from scientists working to understand the effects of climate change on Antarctica.

 

Kerry has made climate change an intensive focus of American diplomacy during his term, and had previously spent decades working on the issue as a U.S. senator.

 

He planned to return to New Zealand on Saturday for a meeting with Prime Minister John Key. Kerry plans to fly next week to the Middle East for talks, and then onward to a global climate conference in Morocco, where he will give a major speech.

 

By Associated Press

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/john-kerry-lands-antarctica

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:14 p.m. No.8472083   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2099 >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921 (You)

Australia’s uranium polluting the Antarctic — scientists

MINING.COM Staff Writer | July 1, 2016 | 5:05 am Education Energy Africa Asia Australia Europe Uranium

 

A recent surge in uranium concentrations in the Antarctic can be linked to increased mining activity in Australia, researchers from the University of Maine have found.

 

According to the team, which will publish the results of their research in the upcoming issue of the Atmospheric Environment Journal, ice core data revealed a significant increase in uranium concentration that coincides with open pit mining in the Southern Hemisphere, particularly in Australia.

 

AUSTRALIA HAS ABOUT 40% OF THE WORLD’S URANIUM RESERVES AND EXPORTS NEARLY 7,000 TONNES OF YELLOW CAKE ANNUALLY.

 

“Uranium concentrations in the ice core increased by as much as 102 between the 1980s and 2000s, accompanied by increased variability in recent years,” lead researcher Mariusz Potocki, a doctoral candidate and research assistant with the Climate Change Institute, said in a statement.

 

Australia has about 40% of the world’s uranium reserves and exports nearly 7,000 tonnes of yellow cake annually. But according to an IBISWorld report of March 2015, the industry is not a major employer. Only 987 people worked in the sector last year and the industry accounted for less than 0.01% of all the jobs in Australia.

 

A recent nuclear cooperation agreement with India, however, could boost the sector, as the treaty allows Australian companies to begin commercial uranium exports to the Asian giant.

 

Potocki noted that it’s crucial for scientists to better understand the impact of more mining and the airborne distribution of uranium, as exposure to the radioactive element can result in kidney toxicity, genetic mutations, mental development challenges and cancer.

 

EXPOSURE TO THE RADIOACTIVE ELEMENT CAN RESULT IN KIDNEY TOXICITY, GENETIC MUTATIONS, MENTAL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES AND CANCER.

 

Until World War II, most of the uranium released into the atmosphere came from natural sources, the team said.

 

But since 1945, increases in Southern Hemisphere levels have been linked to industrial sources, including uranium mining in Australia, South Africa and Namibia.

 

“Since other land-source dust elements don’t show similar large increases in the ice core, and since the increased uranium concentrations are enriched above levels in the Earth’s crust, the source of uranium is attributed to human activities rather atmospheric circulation changes,” they wrote.

 

The study, carried out during the first high-resolution continuous examination of a northern Antarctic Peninsula ice core, also counted with the collaboration of Penn State University’s academics as well as Australian, Brazilian and Chilean scientists.

 

https://www.mining.com/australias-uranium-polluting-the-antarctic-scientists-2/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:16 p.m. No.8472099   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2129 >>2157 >>2168 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Climate scientists: Australian uranium mining pollutes Antarctic

June 29, 2016

Uranium mining in Australia is polluting the Antarctic, about 6,000 nautical miles away.

 

University of Maine climate scientists made the discovery during the first high-resolution continuous examination of a northern Antarctic Peninsula ice core.

 

Ice core data reveal a significant increase in uranium concentration that coincides with open pit mining in the Southern Hemisphere, most notably Australia, says lead researcher Mariusz Potocki, a doctoral candidate and research assistant with the Climate Change Institute.

 

“The Southern Hemisphere is impacted by human activities more than we thought,” says Potocki.

 

Understanding airborne distribution of uranium is important because exposure to the radioactive element can result in kidney toxicity, genetic mutations, mental development challenges and cancer.

 

Uranium concentrations in the ice core increased by as much as 102 between the 1980s and 2000s, accompanied by increased variability in recent years, says Potocki, a glaciochemist.

 

Until World War II, most of the uranium input to the atmosphere was from natural sources, says the research team.

 

But since 1945, increases in Southern Hemisphere uranium levels have been attributed to industrial sources, including uranium mining in Australia, South Africa and Namibia.

 

Since other land-source dust elements don’t show similar large increases in the ice core, and since the increased uranium concentrations are enriched above levels in the Earth’s crust, the source of uranium is attributed to human activities rather atmospheric circulation changes.

 

In 2007, a Brazilian-Chilean-U.S. team retrieved the ice core from the Detroit Plateau on the northern Antarctic Peninsula, which is one of the most rapidly changing regions on Earth.

 

UMaine climate scientists Paul Mayewski, Andrei Kurbatov, Jefferson Simões, Daniel Dixon, Michael Handley and Elena Korotkikh also participated in the project, as did researchers at Penn State University and in Brazil, Australia and Chile.

 

Potocki and his research partners wrote “Recent increase in Antarctic Peninsula ice core uranium Concentrations,” which will be published in Atmospheric Environment (Volume 140, September 2016) and is available online in ScienceDirect. The National Science Foundation and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration funded the research.

 

https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2016/06/29/climate-scientists-australian-uranium-mining-pollutes-antarctic/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:19 p.m. No.8472129   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2148 >>2157 >>2180 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2356

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

One final Iran blunder by Obama

 

By

Jennifer Rubin

Opinion writer

Jan. 10, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. CST

Secretary of State John Kerry talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in 2014 in Vienna. (Pool photo by Ronald Zak/Associated Press)

Secretary of State John Kerry talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in 2014 in Vienna. (Pool photo by Ronald Zak/Associated Press)

Even for those who support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in principle, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry’s post-JCPOA serial concessions and excuse-making for the sake of “preserving” the deal have been troubling. First, Congress discovered delivery of cold hard cash as ransom for Americans held in Iran. Then came Kerry’s efforts to open up the U.S. banking system so that Iran could get the “benefit” of the deal. Kerry followed up by acting as Tehran’s chamber of commerce, trying to cajole businesses to set up in Iran. Coupled with the lack of response to Iran’s illegal missile tests, continued support for terrorism, actions to abet genocide in Syria and putrid human rights record, the administration’s behavior surely has given both Iran and our Sunni allies the impression that Iran is in the driver’s seat.

 

On Monday, we saw just how lopsided the U.S.-Iran relationship has become. “The 2015 nuclear deal obligated Iran to keep no more than 130 metric tons of heavy water, a material used in the production of weapons-grade plutonium,” explains Iran analyst Omri Ceren. “But the Iranians have continued to produce heavy water, and they exceeded the cap in February and November. The violations [are] functionally blackmailing the Obama administration: Either someone would purchase the excess heavy water, allowing Iran to literally profit from violating the deal, or the Iranians would go into formal noncompliance, endangering the deal.”

 

So now the Associated Press has reported: Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant, diplomats say, in a move approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact. Two senior diplomats said the transfer recently approved by the U.S. and five other world powers that negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran foresees delivery of 116 metric tons (nearly 130 tons) of natural uranium.

 

Rather than police the deal to ensure compliance, the Obama administration is assisting Iran in violating the JCPOA. Ceren remarks, “That’s enough for more than 10 nuclear bombs.” We both allow the Iranians to exceed the heavy-water limits in the deal — and then richly compensate them with uranium that can be used for bombs. Our allies would be excused for thinking we are now promoting Iran’s interests, not the West’s.

 

In a rare on-the-record comment, Marshall Whitman, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, told Right Turn, “There is absolutely no justification to provide further benefits to the Iranian regime as it fails to comply with the nuclear agreement. Instead, it should be pressured to stop its malign behavior and live up to its commitments.” That was supposed to be the policy of this administration. 1/1

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/01/10/one-final-iran-blunder-by-obama/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:23 p.m. No.8472157   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2180 >>2181 >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2356

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Also on Monday, Reuters reported, “Iranian lawmakers approved plans on Monday to expand military spending to five percent of the budget, including developing the country’s long-range missile program which U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to halt. The vote is a boost to Iran’s military establishment –– the regular army, the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and defense ministry — which was allocated almost 2 percent of the 2015-16 budget.” This, of course, refutes the notion peddled by Iran and echoed by the administration that the deal would empower “moderates” and without the deal “hard-liners” would get the upper hand. It seems that the deal has empowered the hard-liners (the IRGC), just as critics of the deal anticipated.

 

The report noted: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei supported last year’s nuclear deal with world powers that curbed Iran’s nuclear program in return for lifting of international sanctions. However, he has since called for Iran to avoid further rapprochement with the West, and maintain its military strength.

Iran has test-fired several ballistic missiles since the nuclear deal and the U.S. Treasury has imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals linked to the program.

Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said last year that the missile launches were “not consistent with the constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal, but did not say whether they actually violated the U.N. resolution.

 

And if that were not enough, the secretary general has concluded that “Iran may have violated an arms embargo by supplying weapons and missiles to Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah, according to a confidential report, seen by Reuters on Sunday. The second bi-annual report, due to be discussed by the 15-member council on Jan. 18, also cites an accusation by France that an arms shipment seized in the northern Indian Ocean in March was from Iran and likely bound for Somalia or Yemen.” Once again, the administration has been mute when it comes to Iran’s blatant disregard of international obligations.

 

And with all of this, Kerry made his final U.N. push not to get tough on Iran, but to pummel Israel for housing construction. From all appearances, Obama does seem to have made every effort to shift to a policy of one-sided detente (i.e. appeasement policy) with Iran and of open hostility toward our closest ally in the region.

 

The Trump team has made clear that it intends to take a different approach to Iran. While “ripping up the deal on Day One” does not seem to be in the cards, Iran’s recent behavior and the Obama team’s acquiescence have helped unify Congress, which passed an extension of the existing sanctions laws. Trump will enjoy the opportunity to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis and with our allies to reverse the Obama concessions, begin to enforce the deal and ratchet up pressure on Iran for its non-nuclear conduct. The one hitch: Trump will soon realize that Russia is Iran’s most important ally and will almost surely oppose a return to sanctions. Trump must choose between getting tough on Iran and continuing to lavish praise on Vladimir Putin. The most recent concession handed over by the Obama team may be the last one Tehran sees in a very long time — and the last straw for Democrats who have been obliged to support a Democratic president’s flawed policy. 2/2

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/01/10/one-final-iran-blunder-by-obama/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:26 p.m. No.8472180   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2254 >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Russia and China vie to beat the US in the trillion-dollar race to control the Arctic

PUBLISHED TUE, FEB 6 20187:33 AM ESTUPDATED TUE, FEB 6 201811:45 AM EST

 

Call it a new cold war: Russia, China and the United States all vying for influence and control in a part of the world that, this time, is quite literally cold.

 

With more than half of all Arctic coastline along its northern shores, Russia has long sought economic and military dominance in part of the world where as much as $35 trillion worth of untapped oil and natural gas could be lurking. Now China is pushing its way into the Arctic, announcing last month its ambitions to develop a “Polar Silk Road” through the region as warming global temperatures open up new sea lanes and economic opportunities at the top of the world.

 

At play is between one-fifth and a quarter of the world’s untapped fossil-fuel resources, not to mention a range of mineable minerals, including gold, silver, diamond, copper, titanium, graphite, uranium and other valuable rare earth elements. With the ice in retreat, those resources will come increasingly within reach.

 

At a December meeting of climate scientists in New Orleans, a team from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared that the Arctic as we’ve known it is now a thing of the past. Coining a new phrase — the New Arctic — they described the uptick in ocean surface warming and decline in sea ice since 2000 as unprecedented in the past 1,500 years. The Arctic, they wrote, “shows no sign of returning to [the] reliably frozen region of past decades.”

 

As the ice pulls back, corporations and governments are moving in. Seaport facilities, mining operations, oil and gas pipelines — as well as new roads, railways and airstrips to serve them — are arriving in the region at an accelerating pace. An inventory of planned, in-progress, completed or canceled Arctic infrastructure projects compiled by global financial firm Guggenheim Partners tallies roughly 900 projects, requiring a total of $1 trillion in investment, some of which is already on the way.

 

With $300 billion in potential projects either completed, in motion or proposed, Russia is the clear leader in Arctic infrastructure development. The world’s largest country has moved to reopen some abandoned Soviet-era military installations and place new facilities and airfields in its northern territory, while also establishing a string of seaports along its northern coastline. State-controlled oil company Rosneft started drilling the northernmost rig in the Russian Arctic shelf last year in an attempt to tap into a field that could hold more than half a billion barrels of oil. In June it found its first oilfield, in the Laptev Sea in the eastern Arctic. Meanwhile, Russian energy giant Gazprom Neft already pumps oil from beneath Arctic waters via a different offshore field, in the Pechora Sea.

 

The ultimate goal: to have offshore Arctic oil account for between 20 and 30 percent of Russian production by 2050.

 

Russia isn’t alone. Finland, the United States and Canada have also proposed significant infrastructure investment within their respective Arctic zones. Norway’s state energy company is pursuing exploration activities in the far reaches of the Barents Sea even as its sovereign wealth fund considers divesting from fossil fuels. In January the Trump administration announced plans to open up much of the U.S. outer continental shelf to offshore drilling, including areas off the north shore of Alaska.

 

But it’s the emergence of China — a nation with no territorial claim to the Arctic — as a rising polar power that has the potential to shake up the competition for resources and influence in the region. With its economic and naval power on the rise, China has begun underwriting Arctic development projects despite its lack of territory there, underscoring the region’s growing global importance. 1/1

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russia-and-china-battle-us-in-race-to-control-arctic.html

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:36 p.m. No.8472254   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2275 >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2356

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

 

MARCH 1, 2019

 

JFK AND THE 1963 ANTARCTIC NUCLEAR EXPLOSION

If you're an "Antarctic strangeness" follower like me, you'll be very interested and intrigued by this story shared by Mr. S.D. And this time the story does not involve a list of strange people going to visit the continent, but rather, that recurrent story that there were nuclear weapons tested over Antarctica in 1958. There are various versions of this story, and little corroboration. But if one takes the time to watch the little video accompanying the article, it appears that something strange was going on down there in the late 1950s and early 1960s:

 

WW3: US secretly launched THREE nuclear rockets from Antarctica ‘to test EMP on Russia'

 

Now, what I found intriguing about this story was the video itself, and more specifically, the photos of newspaper articles alleging that something very strange was going on down there, something so strange that it had scientists baffled, and that was that there appeared to have been a nuclear explosion either above the ground, or below it. As the articles indicate, at first the story was denied, then more or less affirmed, and President Kennedy ordered the Antarctic treaty's provisions to allow nations with bases there to inspect each other; the inference being that the Soviets had tested some sort of nuclear bomb. According to the video narrative accompanying the shots of the newspaper articles, the explosion occurred sometime in August, 1963, only months before President Kennedy's assassination. Indeed, the fact that the articles about this explosion occurred in the same context as the press coverage of President Kennedy's assassination makes one wonder if that was a subtle way of signaling some kind of connection between the two events.

 

What is equally intriguing, according to the video, is that the explosion, which was first denied, was later admitted, and the story came out in the days immediately following the President's murder.

 

So as one might imagine, this has my high octane speculation transmission once again running in overdrive, for there are several possibilities. One, which the short video itself mentions, is that the explosion did indeed occur, and since no fallout was detected, this is the reason to conclude it was either an upper atmospheric explosion, or one underground. As the video states, this may have been a secret test conducted by many nations, in conjunction with certain articles in the Antarctic treaty. That's certainly possible, though to my mind not very plausible. There would seem to be no good reason to keep such a test secret. Of course, this story has played into the version that such a test was conducted, only that it was a "test" with a target, namely, that Nazi base that was down there according to some.

 

But there is another and more disturbing possibility, one which, given all the other high strangeness we've seen concerning Antarctica lately, needs to be mentioned: what if it was a nuclear explosion, but not one made by any of the then nuclear powers (the USA, the USSR, Great Britain, or France)? If that were the case, then there would be very good reason to keep the whole thing secret.

 

In this respect, I return to a speculation I offered back when former Secretary of State John Kerry visited the continent during the 2016 presidential election, and during was was, for him, a globe-trotting diplomatic junket. We were told at the time that he was interested in seeing the evidence of that wonderfully vague "climate change" up close and personal, which at the time I thought was nonsense. I still think it's nonsense. For one thing, "climate change" doesn't produce perfectly rectilinear blocks of ice breaking off from the ice shelf. Thus, at the time, I suggested that perhaps Secretary Kerry was really in Antarctica to conduct diplomacy… with someone…

 

… and perhaps that "someone" had nuclear weapons back in 1963.

 

And then of course, there was Buzz Aldrin, and his tweet made shortly after he left the southern polar continent that what he had seen was pure evil.

 

You get the idea.

 

See you on the flip side…

 

https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/03/more-antarctic-strangeness-from-1958/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:39 p.m. No.8472275   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2292 >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

The Search for Hitler’s Lost Cubes of Uranium

Paul Seaburn

May 7, 2019

 

“Taken from the reactor that Hitler tried to build. Gift of Ninninger.”

If, in 1946, you received a cloth bag containing a small, heavy cube with a piece of paper containing those words, would you believe it? What about if you received it in 2013? The man who received this as a gift (what kind of strange friends does he have?) in 2013 did, but it’s taken him until now to confirm it. In the process, he began a hunt for the more than 600 (and possibly 1000) other cubes of uranium that German scientists used in their attempt to build a nuclear reactor before their counterparts in the Manhattan Project did, and discovered the real reason why Hitler’s team lost the atomic race.

 

“I just immediately knew what this thing was.”

In an interview with Science News to announce the publication of his findings in the current edition of Physics Today, Timothy Koeth, an associate research professor in the department of materials science and engineering at the University of Maryland, describes looking at the five pound, 5 cm (2 inch) cube he received, recognizing immediately that it was a uranium cube and knowing enough about atomic history to suspect it was a cube from Hitler’s reactor because the pockmarks on its surface dated it to an early form of processed uranium. That age also told him that it was now safe to handle. A quick search verified that the name of the original gifter was a misspelled form of Robert Nininger, who had been involved with the Manhattan Project and (God bless Google) led him to Nininger’s widow who confirmed her husband indeed once had a cube from the reactor but gave it away.

 

“In that cave laboratory Heisenberg’s team built their last experiment: B-VIII, the eighth experiment of the Berlin-based group … The experimental nuclear reactor comprised 664 uranium cubes, each weighing about five pounds. Aircraft cable was used to string the cubes together in long chains hanging from a lid.”

In his 1953 book Nuclear Physics, German theoretical physicist Werner Heisenberg details his work on the Nazi nuclear project conducted in in a cave underneath a castle in Haigerloch, a small town in southwest Germany. He described the cluster of uranium cubes as a “chandelier” and confirmed that this was the most advanced of the various Nazi atomic projects but was not enough to create a nuclear reactor. Working with Miriam Hiebert, a PhD candidate in his department, Koeth found that the cubes were discovered by Allied forces buried in a field, and sent to the U.S. where they ended up in various locations as spoils of war that were never tracked, which explains how Koeth ended up with his.

 

The recovery of the uranium cubes hidden by German scientists in a field in Haigerloch, Germany during the end of World War II.

 

“It’s been calculated that the reactor experiment in Haigerloch would have needed about 50% more uranium to run.”

Koeth points out that the design of the Nazi reactor wasn’t the problem — the quantity of uranium was the cause of its failure. Ironically, he and Heibert also discovered that there were 400 more uranium cubes in German in the hands of other projects. Had the German nuclear programs been unified in one location like the Manhattan Project, they would have had sufficient uranium, but possibly not enough heavy water to submerge the chandelier into. Koeth says even less is known about those additional 400 cubes, so he and Heibert have added them to the list as they embark on a new quest to locate those that still exist and determine what happened to the rest of Hitler’s uranium cubes.

 

A model of the Nazi uranium chandelier (Atomic Heritage Foundation)

 

“Perhaps most importantly, the story of the cubes is a lesson in scientific failure, albeit a failure worth celebrating. The experiment they were part of, designed by some of the greatest scientific minds of the time, did not work.”

The report ends with the obvious — the Nazi nuclear project didn’t work, even though its scientists were just as sharp as those of the Allies (and sometimes smarter, as the German rocket program proved). What prevented a different outcome was something that students of history remember and leaders of countries forget.

 

“In science, as in other fundamentally human pursuits, we would do well to remember that we are only truly at our best and most equipped to tackle grand challenges when we put our differences aside and work together.”

Are there enough of Hitler’s cubes left to put one on the desk of every world leader?

 

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2019/05/the-search-for-hitlers-cubes-of-uranium/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:41 p.m. No.8472292   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2306 >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472275

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Antarctica Is Still Releasing Radiation from Cold War Nuclear Tests

There's 10 times as much chlorine as normal in some regions.

By David Grossman

Oct 16, 2019

 

We still have a lot to learn about how ice stores radioactivity. Scientists from the European Centre for Research and Teaching in Geosciences and the Environment (CEREGE) in Aix-en-Provence, France have shown that Antarctica's ice sheets are still releasing radioactive chlorine from Cold War-era marine nuclear weapons tests.

 

During the 1950s and 60s, various governments tested nuclear weapons across the planet. The U.S. tested its weapons in a variety of locations, including off islands in the Pacific Ocean. During 1962's Operation Dominic, for example, over 100 aircraft, 40 warships, and 28,000 uniformed service members tested nuclear weapons with explosive yields 700 times the size of the weapons that dropped on Hiroshima just 17 years prior.

 

These tests generated high levels of concentrations of isotopes like chlorine-36, which can also occur naturally. The radioactive isotopes from these explosions floated up to the Earth's stratosphere, at which point they began to circumnavigate the globe. Some of that gas ended up in Antarctica, where it found a home of sorts.

 

Over the decades, other isotopes generated through the testing fell back to pre-bomb levels. Scientists expected the same of chlorine-36, which in its natural state helps scientists interpret the age of ice within ice cores. Researching the Vostok region of Antarctica, the scientists discovered the manmade chlorine still exists within the ice and is still being released into the atmosphere.

 

“There is no more nuclear chlorine-36 in the global atmosphere. That is … why we should observe natural chlorine-36 levels everywhere,” said Mélanie Baroni, a geoscientist at CEREGE and coauthor of the new study, in a press statement.

 

Studying chlorine levels within ice gives scientists a better sense of the history of Earth's climate. Focusing on the extreme climates of Antarctica allowed the team to observe how "chlorine behaves over time in areas where annual snowfall is high versus areas where snowfall is low," according to the press release.

 

Scientists picked two locations for their study: the Russian Vostok research station, which receives little snow, and the Talos Dome, a large ice dome approximately 870 miles away that gets a heavy snowfall each year.

 

Over time, the artificially raised chlorine levels at Talos Dome have fallen. By 1980, the scientists were able to detect only four times the natural levels of chlorine in at the dome. But Vostok, which has been in operation since 1957, showed 10 times the natural chlorine levels as recently as 2008.

 

While this radioactivity is too small to have any impact on Earth's environment, it shows that in the right conditions, chlorine can be surprisingly sturdy.

 

The next step for scientists is to get deeper into the ice. They plan to drill for a 5 million-year-old ice core in the Antarctic to learn how the area surrounding Vostok stores and releases chlorine. Understanding that chlorine release could be crucial to getting a complete picture of the Earth's past climate.

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a29487533/antarctica-radiation-cold-war-nuclear-tests/

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:44 p.m. No.8472306   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2332 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472292

>>8472275

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

The minerals found in Antarctica are silver, copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, gold, chromium, manganese, titanium, cobalt, iron, nickel and uranium.

The countries that are owners of the land in Antarctica are not allowed to mine the minerals as they have signed a treaty saying they are not allowed to. This means no one owns the minerals but they do take care of the land that covers the minerals and metals.

 

https://antarcticalife.weebly.com/mining.html

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:48 p.m. No.8472332   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2336 >>2340 >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472306

>>8472292

>>8472275

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

Human Impacts on Antarctica and Threats to the Environment - Mining and Oil

There has never been any commercial mining in Antarctica, there are no current plans to mine Antarctica and mining is currently completely banned by the Antarctic Treaty until 2048. There are no known future plans by any of the Antarctic Treaty nations to reverse this decision.

 

When the original Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959, the exploitation of resources was not discussed at all for fear of jeopardizing the Treaty. In the 1980's the issues were raised again, and led eventually to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (an addition to the treaty), it is also known as the Madrid Protocol. It was signed in 1991 in Madrid, Spain by the signatories to the Antarctic Treaty banning mining. The protocol entered into force (became law) on the 14th of January 1998. It is up for review after 50 years in 2048 when any changes will need at least a 75% vote from the consultative parties.

 

The Madrid Protocol sets out the principles under which environmental protection in Antarctica is to be regulated. This includes a ban on all commercial mining for at least fifty years. Though it might sound like an impressive piece of regulatory legislation, it was quite clear before it became law that there was no real commercial interest in mining or oil exploration in Antarctica for the foreseeable future, a fact that wasn't quite so clear in 1959 when the original Treaty was signed.

 

Antarctica's weather, ice and distance from any industrialized areas mean that mineral extraction would be extremely expensive and also extremely dangerous. The icebergs that drift around the continent frequently grind into the ocean floor like billion (or trillion) tonne ploughs. Pack ice can be blown miles in a day and transportation even in the relatively ice-free summer months is far from assured.

 

As recently as the 2002/2003 season for instance, the annual relief of the UK Halley Bay base had to be completed by air after numerous attempts to reach the base by sea were beaten. Any oil or minerals would need to shipped or piped out and then there's the problem of those vast icebergs again.

 

Mineral deposits

Antarctica is known to have mineral deposits, though any sizeable deposits that are easy to reach are rare and even then not economically viable to mine. One of the main problems is the vast covering of moving ice streams and glaciers.

 

Most of the continent is completely covered in snow and ice, usually hundreds or even thousands of meters thick. This poses two problems - firstly, how do we know exactly is down there without being able to easily (or even with great difficulty) test, and then even if we do know what is down there how do we get it out?

 

There are other issues with mining for minerals in Antarctica and that is that because it is frozen and has been for millions of years with little or no liquid water flowing, the processes that happen in other parts of the world as a consequence of weathering that concentrate minerals just don't happen in Antarctica. So it can assumed that while Antarctica most likely has minerals in the same quantities as any other comparable part of the earth's crust, they are spread out more thinly making economically viable concentrations rarer than elsewhere. 1/1

 

https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_mining_oil.php

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:50 p.m. No.8472340   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2349 >>2356 >>2374 >>2377 >>2379 >>2441 >>2469 >>2507 >>2535

>>8472332

>>8472306

>>8472292

>>8472275

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

 

Coal

Coal has been found in two regions in Antarctica - the Transantarctic Mountains and Prince Charles Mountains. One of the Antarctic Treaty nations hired a mining consultant to carry out an economic assessment on potentially mining the Transantarctic Mountains coal. After a brief visit to Antarctica, the conclusion was not to waste money on having an appraisal done.

 

The coal he found was low quality - high moisture, high ash content - thin and in broken bands. Far better reserves are found elsewhere on earth and they are not yet exploited.

 

If the Prince Charles Mountains coal was better and had it been close to a major user of the coal, it may have been exploited. However, the distance and difficulty in getting it mean that once again it is not economically viable.

 

Iron Ore

Iron ore is widespread in surface rocks in Antarctica and has been traced deep under the ice. Once again however the fact that it is isolated in Antarctica means that it is not worth getting. In addition, it contains only about 35% iron against other regions outside Antarctica where ores that are less than 60% are considered to not be worth mining as it is so little.

 

Chromium

The Dufek Massif in East Antarctica has been identified as a possible source of chromium, but only theoretically (i.e. no-one has actually seen it). Chromium ores are also plentiful elsewhere on earth even if not currently exploited.

 

Oil and Gas

Dan turns down the main Antarctic thermostat to stop it from meltingRocks in Antarctica have been suggested to contain oil or gas. Even if this was the case (no drilling has taken place to find any) it is unlikely that they could ever be exploited commercially.

 

Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from Antarctica. Current oil prices per barrel (April 2015) are around $58.

 

There are over 30 years worth of reserves of oil left, possibly even up to 100 years worth, so there is no urgency to get Antarctica's oil.

 

There is also another obstacle, oil shale as a source of oil becomes economically viable at way below the cost of extracting oil from Antarctica and this is a potentially huge source of oil.

 

Currently practical difficulties and costs of extraction mean that Antarctica

is not under immediate threat from mineral exploitation. 2/2

 

https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/threats_mining_oil.php

Anonymous ID: 3693a4 March 18, 2020, 10:53 p.m. No.8472356   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2374 >>2441

>>8472340

>>8472332

>>8472306

>>8472292

>>8472275

>>8472254

>>8472180

>>8472157

>>8472129

>>8472148

>>8472099

>>8472083

>>8472051

>>8472043

>>8472007

>>8471982

>>8471971

>>8471954

>>8471877

>>8471941

>>8471913

>>8471921

 

And Finally

C_A World Fact Book makes no mention of Uranium in Antarctica.

WHY?

 

FIELD LISTING :: NATURAL RESOURCES

 

Antarctica: iron ore, chromium, copper, gold, nickel, platinum and other minerals, and coal and hydrocarbons have been found in small noncommercial quantities; none presently exploited; krill, finfish, and crab have been taken by commercial fisheries

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/print_2111.html