Category Archives: U.S.

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, U.S.

Occupy Idaho: Bank sues Mayor for business loan, Mayor says her business is not in trouble

Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem was shocked to learn that her jewelry store is being sued for more than $80,000.

Panhandle State Bank says the lawsuit is over a $75,000 loan made back in 2005.  Bloem says she was in the process of renegotiating the loan, and never had any indication the bank was going to sue.  She says her jewelry store is not in financial trouble, even though the bank says she failed to pay off the loan.

 

Business/Economics, International, U.S.

No Economic Recovery for the U.S.: Dell Computer founder says the U.S. is no longer the land of opportunity. Go west young man, to China

“I would go to China at age 19 and start my company there. It’s a much better environment.”-Michael Dell

That’s what founder and CEO of Dell computers reportedly told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose, after being asked about doing things over.

Like Steve Jobs, Michael Dell is a college drop out, who went on to build a successful computer company.  Dell is the number two computer company in the U.S., Apple is third.

It’s not a good sign when the founder of the number two computer maker in the U.S. says the new generation of entrepreneurs should move to China.

 

 

 

 

Business/Economics, Idaho, U.S.

What Economic Recovery? U.S. Home foreclosures on their way back up, Idaho makes top ten list (again)

After several months of what looked like a downward trend in home foreclosures, October had a 7% increase from the month before.

The reason for what looked like a downward trend was because the big banks and mortgage companies had been holding back, mainly due to red tape and just too many cases to go after: “The October foreclosure numbers continue to show strong signs that foreclosure activity is coming out of the rain delay we’ve been in for the past year as lenders corrected foreclosure paperwork and processing problems.”-James Saccacio, RealtyTrac

Nevada is still the number one state for foreclosures, although Las Vegas dropped to 5th place for cities.  Stockton, California, is now the number city in the U.S. for foreclosures.

Nevada, California, Arizona, Florida and Michigan are the top five losing states, making up 53% of the country’s home foreclosures.

The next five most losing states are Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Oregon and Colorado.

 

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

Global Economic War, Global Food Crisis, What Economic Recovery? Big Potato producer Simplot to close plants, laying off 800 east Idaho workers (updated with pictures)

In the name of efficiency, and international competition, J.R. Simplot is building a new potato processing plant.  It will use only 250 employees.  The problem is that the new highly efficient Simplot potato factory will replace three existing plants (in Nampa, Caldwell & Aberdeen), resulting in 800 Idahoans losing their jobs.  That’s a net loss of 550 jobs.

East Idaho doesn’t have a big population so the job loses will hit hard: “It’s going to have a negative impact on Nampa and Caldwell and the whole country. We’re encouraged that they will remain in Caldwell, but certainly concerned about the overall impact of job loss.”-Steve Fultz, Caldwell Economic Development Council

J.R. Simplot officials say it’s necessary to build such an efficient factory, because global competition in the food market is getting tougher.  In fact potato prices for this years potato season have fallen to the point that Idaho farmers will be lucky to break even.

At least Simplot employees have been given a decent heads up; it’ll be at least two years before the new super efficient potato processing plant will be completed.

J.R. Simplot has been streamlining operations in Idaho since the 1990s.  Simplot’s corporate headquarters used to be in Chubbuck, Idaho.  But they closed it down and moved to Boise right after I moved to Chubbuck.

Their Chubbuck HQ was replaced with the TJ Maxx/IHOP strip mall.

Former location of J.R. Simplot Corporate HQ, Chubbuck, Idaho

The metal awnings/canopies covering the Simplot HQ entryway can now be seen in front of the Pocatello City Hall.

Ex Simplot Chubbuck HQ canopies adding charecter to the otherwise drab Pocatello City Hall

 

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.

 

 

Business/Economics, U.S.

United Police States of America: Doing time in California prisons will now cost you $142 per day

“We believe that 25% of the people who go through our jail systems can afford to pay for their jail stay.  If we just grab 25% of those, that would save the county or the city $6.7 million.”-Jeff Stone, County Supervisor

Riverside County, in California, has decided to charge prisoners $142.42 per day. The county says it’s an effort to “save” money, but it looks more like a way for the county to make a profit. When they say they could save $6.7 million, that’s actually how much money they’d take in from prisoners.

The problem is that once they start making big money from charging prisoners, the county government will get addicted to that form of revenue and start making up reasons to put people in prison. Don’t laugh, it’s happened before, and is going on right now with Corporate America operated for profit prisons.

The ACLU is concerned: “Programs like this certainly do raise very serious Constitutional questions.  We’re seeing it increasingly in jurisdictions around the country.”-Will Matthews, American Civil Liberties Union

Attorney’s for the county said there is nothing illegal about charging prisoners for their stay.  But they warned officials that not all prisoners can afford to pay for their keep: “In order to be reimbursed, the court must determine that the defendant has the ability to pay all or a portion of these costs. Many defendants who are incarcerated lack the financial means, after the payments of fines and penalties, to reimburse these costs.”-Pamela Walls, county attorney

 

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?

International, Technology, U.S.

World War 3: IAEA accuses Iran of trying to make nuclear weapons, get ready for another U.S. led invasion

An International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report says Iran has built test sites for nuclear weapons.

The IAEA says Iran conducted high explosives testing aimed at simulating the detonation of nuclear weapons.  Iran is also accused of conducting research that is relevant only to nuclear weapons.

IAEA officials are demanding Iran provide an explanation.

Iranian officials say the IAEA is being directly manipulated by the United States.  Iran claims the current director of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano of Japan, is simply reading from a report that was made up by U.S. officials, and is baseless.