Category Archives: Technology

International, Technology

Double Edged Sword: Cancer Gene actually fights Cancer

A team at the Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine has been conducting research on a gene called TTF-1.  It’s associated with lung cancer, adenocarcinoma, which is the hardest to treat among all lung cancers.

Now researchers say it also fights cancer.  In healthy adults, where the TTF-1 gene has not gone renegade, researchers found that it produced a protein that prevents cancer metastasis (the spread of cancer from one part of the body to the rest of the body).

More research needs to be done to see how this double edged sword TTF-1 cancer gene can be used to stop cancer.

Business/Economics, International, Technology, U.S.

Corporate Incompetence: Singapore sells off Olympus stocks, dumb U.S. investors holding on

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation announced that it has disposed of almost all of its investments in Olympus.

Singapore held 2% of Olympus stocks.  They are the first major stock holder to announce they were dumping their shares in Olympus.  U.S. Olympus stockholders seem to be waiting for Olympus officials to provide an explanation as to where all their money went.

Business/Economics, Idaho, International, Technology, U.S.

U.S. increases embassy staffing in Brazil & China. Officially it’s to help foreign students come to the U.S. Unofficially it’s to bring in cheaper labor to the U.S., and help U.S. citizens leave the U.S.

“Idaho’s the last state that should say we don’t want to do business with Asia. Asia’s where the money is.”-Brad Little, Lieutenant Governor of Idaho

Recently the U.S. Department of State announced they were increasing staffing in China and Brazil.

Most U.S. and Chinese media reports suggested this was due to the increasing number of foreign students wanting to go to school in the United States.  The Chinese media even said it was a money making scheme for U.S. colleges: “A number of state governments in the U.S. are tightening their grip on education spending, which means smaller subsidies for public colleges to pay teachers and fund research. International students on average pay far more for tuition expenses than U.S. residents.”-ChinaDaily

According to U.S. Department of Commerce (yes it’s a “department”, not an “agency” as Rick Perry said), it’s also about the money Chinese tourists bring to the U.S.  In 2010 those visitors contributed more than $5 billion to the U.S. economy.

What about Brazil? In 2008 there were reports that Brazilians working in the U.S. wanted to go back to Brazil.  Now the U.S. State Department claims they can’t keep up with demands from Brazilians wanting to come to the U.S.

In September a report showed that the U.S. government has been wooing new Brazilian companies to move to the U.S.

EverWrite and DeskMetrics were two companies mentioned.  Young Brazilian entrepreneurs say it’s much too hard to start a new company in their home country, so they move to the United States (that’s funny ’cause just this past week Idaho business leaders told our U.S. Congress that it’s too hard to maintain a business in the United States).

Chinese businesses are being wooed here as well.  This brings me to one of two points; that increasing U.S. Embassy staffing in China and Brazil is really about bringing foreign workers into the U.S.  You see, many of those Chinese and Brazilian companies are bringing their own employees.

In fact, here in Idaho our state leaders have made a deal with the Chinese.  They will have their own 10,000 to 30,000 acre industrial and housing zone south of the Boise Airport, with their own Chinese employees, and even some level of national sovereignty.

“I think China’s coming over here shows they are willing to collaborate on the re-invigoration of the American industrial base.”-Jeff Don, Idaho representative for the Chinese company, called Sinomach

Here in southeast Idaho the Chinese have already moved in.

Sinomach is China’s third-largest contractor, and pressured Southeast Idaho Energy for a contract to build SIE’s $2 billion goal gasification fertilizer plant in Power County.  In May, 2011, SIE closed its American Falls, Idaho, office claiming they were trying to reduce operating expenses.

A polysilicon factory is just about to start up in Pocatello.  It’s run by Hoku International, which is now a subsidiary of a Chinese company.  The few local employees hired went to China to learn about their job duties.  So far no more word on anymore local hires, which makes you wonder if the main Hoku labor force will be coming from China?

Officials in Boise, Idaho, admit they’re working with more Asian corporations: “We’re getting calls from investors from all across Asia who are interested in Idaho.”-Cece Gassner, assistant to the mayor of Boise, for economic development.

The other point (regarding increased U.S. Embassy staffing) is that U.S. citizens are flocking to China and Brazil.

Japanese, and even PBS, media reports show that many U.S. citizens aren’t waiting until they’ve been hired to move to China; there’s a growing number of U.S. citizens who’ve moved to China, and are still looking for employment.  In fact many U.S. job seekers in China, are finding that they’re competing not only against Chinese job seekers, but their fellow U.S. citizens.

In Brazil, the current population, according to the World Bank, is more than 194 million people. That’s an increase of almost 3 million since 2008!  Most of those people moved to Brazil, many from the United States.

 

 

 

Business/Economics, Idaho, Technology, U.S.

What Economic Recovery? After donating $1 million to charity, HP will lay off Idaho employees

At the beginning of November, Hewlett-Packard reported they had donated $1 million to charity, for the fiscal year which ended October 31.

Now, according to a Boise TV station, HP employees called and reported a major layoff at the HP Boise operation was in the works.

KBOI says they contacted HP officials.  The officials stated they are still working on the details of a forthcoming press release, which will explain the layoffs.

Business/Economics, International, Technology

Corporate Incompetence: Olympus made extremely stupid investment deal, or was it a conspiracy?

The latest revelation about Japanese camera maker Olympus is that they lost most of their money in what looks like a deliberately stupid stock buy back program.

On November 8 it was revealed that Olympus has been almost broke since the late 1990s, and was cooking their accounting books.  Now we have an explanation of how they finally lost most of their money.

The book cooking was just the beginning.  In 2008 Olympus bought a British surgical equipment maker, Gyrus Group.

Olympus paid a stock brokerage company, located in the tax haven Caribbean island of Cayman, to handle the buyout.  That company was called AXAM.  Total payment to AXAM was 17 billion yen (about U.S.$220 million), in cash and Gyrus stocks.

In 2010, Olympus bought back the stock for a total of 60 billion yen (about U.S.$770 million)!  AXAM closed up shop three months later!

Talk about corporate incompetence, Olympus officials violated the golden rule of investing: Buy low, sell high.  But was it incompetence or a conspiracy?  It’s very suspicious that Olympus used a broker in a known tax haven country, who then closed up shop after Olympus bought back the Gyrus stocks, at grossly inflated prices.

To add to the conspiracy theory, it has just been revealed by NHK in Japan, that Olympus fired its independent accounting auditors when they began to question the company’s accounting books.

In 2009 the independent auditors questioned Olympus officials’ buyouts of three Japanese companies between 2006 and 2008.  All the companies were considered bad investments.  To make it more questionable, the auditors pointed out that Olympus had a yearly revenue of 2 billion yen (about U.S.$30 million), at most.  The three Japanese companies cost Olympus more than 73 billion yen (about U.S.$940 million)!

The Japanese Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission claim it will investigate the Olympus scandal.

 

 

 

 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: British government officials leak info about invasion of Iran; Merry Xmas

“We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the New Year.”-unnamed British Foreign Office source

The British media outlet Daily Mail has been publishing what they claim are leaked details of the coming attack on Iran, by Israel, United Kingdom and the United States.

On November 2 they published an article that says the U.K. and the U.S. are working on the details of a joint military operation against Iran.  It said that President Barack Obama wants vengeance for a supposed plot to assassinate a Saudi Arabian official (which in reality was a failed DEA/FBI sting operation), and that Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron are using the latest IAEA report as justification.

The Daily Mail says the invasion of Iran will be made by British and U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as from the Persian Gulf.  Israel will use its air force (including its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles) against Iran.

Whitehall (a term referring to the British royal family “Her Majesty’s Government” which oversees the operation of the U.K. government, the Queen is the c in c of British forces) officials claim that Iran has suddenly appeared “newly aggressive, and we are not quite sure why.”

The Daily Mail also said that Obama does not want a new war before the 2012 elections, but is being pressured by Israel.

The British newspaper Guardian also published similar articles.

On November 10, the Daily Mail published an article that said Israel would launch air strikes against Iran by the end of December. That report came from British intelligence officials.

British Ministry of Defense officials said their concern about Iran getting the bomb, is that other middle eastern countries will follow suit:  “The bigger concern is it will be impossible to stop Saudi Arabia and Turkey from developing their own weapons.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak continues to imply a possible Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear program: “We continue to recommend to our friends in the world and to ourselves, not to take any option off the table.”

.

 

Technology, U.S.

Day After Tomorrow: Alaska hit by storm of “Epic Proportions”, new National Emergency Alert System fails

“This is a storm of epic proportions. We’re not out of the woods with this.”-Jeff Osiensky, National Weather Service

A storm as strong as a category 3 hurricane/typhoon hit the coast of Alaska the night of November 9.  Anchorage saw ocean surge of 10 feet above normal. The last time a similar storm hit Alaska was in November 1974.

The Weather Service says Alaska can expect three to four inches of snow for November 10.  There is “a potent upper level disturbance” rotating around the Bering Sea.

Ironically, Wednesday’s planned test of the new National Emergency Alert System was cancelled in Alaska because of the weather, I’d say that shows the new Emergency Alert system failed.

 

 

Business/Economics, Idaho, International, Technology, U.S.

Corporate Incompetence: Idaho radioactive Plutonium & Americium contamination update

On November 8, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) announced that 17 employees were exposed to plutonium.  The INL now says it is 16 employees who were exposed, but, the number of those testing positive for contamination is going up.

The INL has also released more info on how their employees got exposed to deadly plutonium.  The affected area at the decommissioned Zero Power Physics Reactor has been isolated.

Japanese media are reporting that seven workers are now confirmed to be contaminated.  At least three workers are undergoing additional checks after lung examinations pointed to possible internal exposure.

Local east Idaho media are reporting that two employees tested positive for Americium 241 in their lungs.  INL officials say it’s almost sure that their lungs are contaminated with plutonium as well.

The Japanese and Idaho media are giving conflicting info on how the workers were exposed.

Idaho media says INL employees accidentally ruptured 30 year old containers filled with plutonium.  Japanese media says the workers found the containers already ruptured, with powder spilling out.  They opened the containers to see what the powder was.  It was oxidized plutonium that had turned to dust.  The Japanese media says the INL is trying to find out how the containers were ruptured.  INL officials suspect the containers were ruptured a long time ago, which would explain the oxidized (rusted) plutonium (it also means employees might have been exposed to plutonium since 1981).

The INL is currently run by contractor Battelle Energy Alliance.

 

 

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Russia blasts IAEA, backs Iran

“Russia is gravely disappointed and bewildered that the report is being turned into a source adding to the tensions over the problems connected to the Iranian nuclear program.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russia has doubts concerning the IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program.  One clue is that the report wasn’t supposed to be made public until November 17/18.  It seems IAEA boss Yukiya Amano intentionally ‘leaked’ the report on November 8: “We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the ‘sextet’ (P5+1) of international mediators and Tehran have begun to appear.”-Russian Foreign Ministry

Russian officials say this is an intentional move made behind the scenes by the United States: “The analysis must take place in a calm atmosphere, since it is important to determine whether some new, reliable evidence strengthening suspicions of a military element in Iran’s nuclear program has really appeared, or whether we are talking about an intentional, and counterproductive, whipping up of emotions.”

Business/Economics, International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: Iran responds to IAEA claims

On November 8, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh, answered 20 critical questions about Iran’s nuclear program.

Question 1: Has the IAEA detected, after 4000 days of most intensive inspection in the agency’s history, even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?

Response: No. Please study all of the reports by the agency’s current and former director generals.

Question 2: With respect to nuclear activities and materials which are claimed to have not been declared until 2003, has the IAEA found out that they had been diverted towards military activities?

Response: No. All of these activities and materials were audited by the agency. Please study all the agency’s reports to the Board of Governors between 2003 and 2004

Question 3: Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?

Response: No. Given that nuclear material had not been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was under no obligations to declare it. Particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements, as well as the additional Comprehensive Safeguards (CSA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) agreements.

Question 4: Was Iran legally obliged to declare the heavy water research reactor in Arak (IR40) before 2003?

Response: No. Iran was not under any obligation to declare it since no nuclear material had been introduced into it until 2003, particularly since Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 5: Had Iran any obligation under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak’s heavy water production plant to the IAEA before 2003?

Response: No, because heavy water and its products are not covered by the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. Iran started implementing the Additional Protocol in 2003.

Question 6: Was Iran under any legal obligation until 2003 to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UCF)?

Response: No. Since no nuclear material had been introduced into the facility until 2003, Iran was not under any obligations to declare it, particularly given that Iran had not signed the Revised Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements until 2003.

Question 7: Did Iran have any legal obligation to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand mines?

Response: No, because Iran had not signed and implemented the Additional Protocol until 2003.

Question 8: Has the IAEA detected any nuclear material or activity including enrichment in Parchin and Lavizan-Shian, which are claimed to have been part of a nuclear weapons program after the UN agency carried out intensive inspections, including sampling and analyzing?

Response: No. The director general’s press statement about Iran on March 6, 2006 reads, “On transparency, I think I mentioned in my report access to military sites, we have been given access to a number of military sites recently, to Parchin, Lavizan, Shian, to dual use equipment, to interview people. These are beyond the Additional Protocol, but they are essential for us to reconstruct the history of the program.”

On November 15, 2004, the director general reported that the agency had been provided access to the Lavizan-Shian military site where the agency took environmental samples. Finally, paragraph 102 of the director general (GOV/2004/83) says, “The vegetation and soil samples collected from the Lavizan-Shian site have been analyzed, and reveal no evidence of nuclear material.” Further information with respect to this issue is available in November 18, 2005 (GOV/2005/87) and February 27, 2006 (GOV/2006/15) documents.

Question 9: Did the IAEA, in its agreed Action Plan (INFOSIRC/711), announce that there is no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?

Response: Yes. The paragraph IV of the document (INFOSIRC/711) says that these modalities cover all the remaining issues, and the agency emphasizes that there will be no issues and ambiguities regarding Iran’s previous nuclear programs and activities.

Question 10: Was the IAEA bound to submit the documents related to the “Alleged Studies” to the Islamic Republic based on its Action Plan?

Response: Yes. Paragraph III says, “Although the agency will submit the documents to the Islamic Republic, considering the Green Salt Project, experiments of high explosives and carrying missiles with returning abilities, it will also keep them with itself.

Question 11: Did the IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding the submitting of the evidence pertaining to the allegations to Iran?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly criticizes that the certain country that has provided the agency with the evidence on the allegations has not allowed the agency to submit the documents in question to Iran.

Question 12: Has the IAEA confirmed the authenticity of the content of the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. Please study the report by the former director general to the UN Board of Governors, where he correctly brought up the authentic problems with the documents. The director general also clearly explained that the nuclear materials and activities in the “Alleged Studies” are not relevant.

Question 13: What was Iran’s obligation toward the document INFOSIRC/ 711 regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: In Paragraph III of the document, which was discussed and agreed upon by the IAEA and Iran, and was to be approved by the Board of Governors specifies, “As a sign of the resolve to cooperate with the agency, based on all the related documents received, Iran will study the document and will inform the agency of its evaluation.”

Question 14: Did Iran, under the work plan, have any obligation to hold meetings, interviews or [allow] sampling regarding the “Alleged Studies”?

Response: No. As mentioned in Response 12, Iran was only obliged to inform of its evaluation. Iran has submitted its 117-page evaluation of the past three years. But the agency has not acted on its obligation to end the Action Plan. Accreting to Paragraph IV of the Action Plan, “The agency and Iran agreed that, following the implementation of the Action Plan and the agreed modalities for the negotiation of remaining issues, the implementation of the safeguards in Iran change to continue in the normal and conventional path.”

Notice: Instead of the Action Plan’s conclusion, the secretariat introduced new allegations known as “Possible Military Aspects.” But in Paragraph IV of the Work Plan it is affirmed that “no issue has remained and there not any doubts about Iran’s nuclear program and previous activities.”

Question 15: Has the Islamic Republic implemented the Additional Protocol?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 16: Has Iran implemented the Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement?

Response: Yes. Please study the report by the former director general before 2006.

Question 17: Since when Iran has halted its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1? Why?

Response: Iran’s Majlis (parliament) voted to stop the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and the Modified Code 3.1 (after two years and half) regarding the unfair reference of Iran’s technical nuclear case to the United Nations Security Council in 2006. The important point is that the Additional Protocol is not a binding legal tool and the Modified Code 3.1 was merely a suggestion by the Board of Governors and is not part of the legal provisions of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA).

Question 18: Have all Iran’s nuclear materials been measured, and are under the complete supervision of the safeguards and remained peaceful?

Response: Yes. Please study the annual Safeguards Implementation Report (SIR).

Question 19: Did Iran itself provide the possibility of unannounced inspections?

Response: Yes. The agency conducted more than 100 unannounced inspections in Iran. The advance-notice for some of them were issued only two hours before the inspection.

Question 20: Why does Iran deem the resolutions by the Board of Governors and the UN Security Council as illegal?

Response: A. In accordance with Article 12 C under the IAEA statute, if the inspectors notice any “non-compliance,” they should report the same to the director general and the later should report to the Board of Governors thereafter. Followingly, the Board will notify the report to the United Nations. None of these procedures have been applied with regard to Iran.

After three years elapsed since 2003, when the issue was raised at the Board of Governors, some members of the Board claimed that there had been “non-compliance” prior to 2003. Nonetheless, the director general did not use the legal term “non-compliance” and instead used the word “failure,” which has also been used with regard to the other countries, which implement the CSA. Based on this agreement, the issue will be considered as concluded after corrective measures are adopted. The former director general clearly confirmed in his report that Iran took all the corrective measures.

B. Article 12 C mentioned in the Board’s resolutions speak of “recipient member states,” which have misused the nuclear materials delivered from the Agency. Iran has never received the nuclear materials mentioned in the relevant provisions under the Statute.

C. According to the Statute and the CSA, if the Agency discovers that the nuclear materials have been diverted to military purposes, it will notify the UN Security Council of the same. All the reports submitted by the incumbent and former dire generals so far contain no evidence of nuclear diversion.

D. Based on the CSA, if a member state does not allow the inspectors to enter the country and as a result the IAEA cannot conduct its verification activities, the Agency will notify the UN Security Council of the issue. All the reports by the director general since 2003 have explicitly announced that the Agency is able to continue its verification activities in Iran.

E. The resolutions by three EU member states against Iran from 2003 to 2006 have recognized Iran’s move to suspend its uranium enrichment activities as a non-binding, voluntary and trust-building measure. Therefore, the Board of Governors ‘s resolutions which referred Iran’s nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, after Iran decided to suspend its UCF activities voluntarily, are totally in contradiction with the Board’s previous resolutions.

It should be mentioned that when the three EU member states proposed the anti-Iran resolutions at the Board of Governors in 2006 with political motives and in an attempt to involve the UN Security Council in an IAEA-related technical issue, enrichment activities in Natanz were still suspended voluntarily.

The last question from peace-seeking nations:

Based on the above mentioned facts, should we allow the IAEA, as the only international body tasked with promotion of peaceful use of nuclear energy for the achievement of peace and prosperity, to be manipulated as a tool by a number of countries which seek to turn the Agency into a watchdog utterly malleable into the hands of the UN Security Council and deprive the developing countries of their “absolute right” to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute?