Israel is Lying About Iran's Nuclear Weapons Capability

Israel’s unprovoked airstrikes on Iran, justified by baseless claims of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expose a glaring double standard in global politics. While Israel, an undeclared nuclear power, operates beyond international scrutiny, Iran faces relentless pressure, even as a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite no evidence of weapons-grade plutonium enrichment.

This hypocrisy, compounded by Western silence and Donald Trump’s deceptive “peace” rhetoric, sets a dangerous precedent. The following post unravel the facts behind Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s unchecked arsenal, and the West’s complicity in a skewed system that undermines global peace.


Yesterday, RNZ reported:

Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli attacked Iran to prevent 'nuclear holocaust'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that he launched airstrikes against Iran to prevent "a nuclear holocaust," claiming his government had intelligence that Iran was months away from developing an initial nuclear weapon.

"We had to act," Netanyahu told Fox's Bret Baier on Sunday (local time). "It was the 12th hour, and we did act. To save ourselves but also … to protect the world from this incendiary regime."

"The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear: That they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium, they were marching very quickly, they would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months, and certainly less than a year," he said.

Israel’s claims that Iran was racing toward a nuke are pure fiction. The IAEA’s May 2025 report confirms Iran’s uranium enrichment was still only at 60% purity, a far cry from the 90% needed for weapons-grade material. The IAEA’s real-time sensors and rigorous sampling would catch any leap to 90%, a process requiring distinct, detectable technology. There’s zero evidence showing Iran’s crossed that line.

Meanwhile, Israel, sitting on an estimated 400 nuclear warheads (thanks to the Federation of American Scientists), operates with impunity, its Dimona reactor a black box beyond IAEA reach. Why? Because Israel’s snubbed the NPT, dodging the scrutiny Iran endures as a signatory. It’s a scandalous double standard that must end for there to be any hope of peace in the Middle East.

Iran gets hammered for every gram of uranium they have. The June 2025 IAEA censure, orchestrated by the U.S., U.K., France, and Germany, roasted Iran for “non-cooperation” over historical uranium traces and limited access. Fair call, Iran’s not playing straight, but this is no smoking gun showing Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

Compare that to Israel, whose nuclear arsenal faces no inspections, no questions, no censure. The West’s silence on this is deafening, especially after Israel’s unprovoked October 2024 airstrikes on Iran’s Taleghan 2 site, a supposed “nuclear threat” with no IAEA corroboration. Where’s the outrage? The U.S. and Europe muttered weak platitudes about “restraint,” letting Israel’s aggression slide while putting even more pressure on Iran. It’s cowardice dressed up as diplomacy.

Yesterday, RNZ also reported:

NZ 'surprised but not totally surprised' by Israeli attack on Iran, Winston Peters says

"We want peace and we want balance and calm, and the fact to be acknowledged that the problems in the Middle East don't come from one bad actor alone.

"We don't want New Zealanders in harm's way, we don't want a nuclear Iran, we don't want civilians starving or dying in military conflict and we don't want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinians, and we don't want Israel occupying Palestinian lands."

He said the current state of global affairs was probably the worst he remembered in his lifetime since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You can only hope Winston Peters is including Donald Trump in his list of "bad actors". Trump might preach “peace” like a dodgy televangelist, but his “maximum pressure” on Iran, rebooted after the 2024 election, fuels conflict. He trashed the JCPOA in 2018, and then killed an Iranian major general, Qasem Soleimani, on 3 January 2020, by an American drone strike.

Trump then cheered Israel’s 2024 strikes while peddling his peacemaker fantasy. And now he's got his "weapons of mass destruction" moment. It’s a lie so blatant it’d make Pinocchio blush. Trump’s war-hungry posturing, pandering to MAGA and Israel’s hawks, risks dragging the Middle East and Europe into a firestorm, all while the West shrugs.

This is Donald Trump response to the Israel attack on Iran

Admitting in clear terms that Israel attacked with the full participation of America

So all those idiots who have thus far spent hours saying America was not involved need to admit they were wrong

And then STFU pic.twitter.com/CROYBFwbSB

— Stop The Bollocks with Mirabel (@MirabelTweets1) June 13, 2025

Like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu's credibility is in the gutter. Israel's Gaza campaign, with over 45,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023, is a stain on humanity, with the International Court of Justice correctly ruling it a genocide. Yet Netanyahu, propped up by Trump’s deceit and Western apathy, dares to paint Iran as the villain? It’s obscene.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is largely a farce when non-signatories like Israel can proliferate nuclear weapons without any restraint. The West’s limp response to Israel’s unprovoked attacks on Palestine and Iran and nuclear secrecy is complicity in a conflict that could escalate into WW3.

Nash undermines our nuclear free New Zealand

When New Zealand first became nuclear free in 1984, under Labour Prime Minister David Lange, it ushered in a time where almost anything seemed achievable. Not only was our young country finally taking a stand against nuclear proliferation, which has caused untold misery around the world, we were also forging a path away from our old and new imperial masters, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

However some of that hard work and grass roots activism looks set to be undone by a small private US owned company called Rocket Lab, which has been launching satellites from New Zealand that are carrying US Military systems with the potential to help nuclear weapons acquire their targets.

Today, Newshub reported:

Minister in charge of space launches, Stuart Nash, dismisses 'confused' Greens Party's Rocket Lab fears

The minister who signs off on space launches has dismissed the Green Party's fears that Rocket Lab is launching potentially dangerous military hardware into space. 

"I think they're slightly confused about what Rocket Lab is doing," Regional Economic Development Minister Stuart Nash told Newshub after Green MP Teanau Tuiono submitted a Member's Bill to change the law governing space launches. 

 

I can smell the uranium on Nash’s breath from here.

 

But Nash told Newshub the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) deep dives into each space launch application before it goes to him for approval. Nash then ensures the launch aligns with New Zealand's interests.

"The piece of legislation that governs what can and can't go up is very strict around this. It can't be outside of New Zealand's interests and there is a very robust process that MBIE undertakes before it presents anything to me to sign-off payloads that go into space," Nash said.

How exactly is it in our best interest to help the US Military launch systems that could be used for targeting nuclear weapons strikes? Aligning ourselves in this way with the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear bombs directly against civilians isn’t just in breach of our current legislation; it could detrimentally impact on New Zealand's relationship with our other trading partners as well.

"The US Army possibly has one of the largest R&D [research and development] budgets in the world. It is incredibly well-funded. Not everything it does is related to war. But again, if anything was to go up into space that contravened the legislation that governs what we can and can't do... it just does not happen.

This is an assurance that Nash cannot actually give.

Besides, there really isn’t any confusion when it comes to New Zealand’s nuclear free legislation. It strictly prohibits any Kiwi from helping other countries proliferate nuclear weapons. The nuclear free legislation also has the intention of stopping New Zealand from manufacturing any part of a nuclear weapon, which would obviously include its targeting systems.

There is no question that a part of the manufacturing process is installing military components onto satellites and shooting them into space...and if those systems have the potential to be used to acquire targets for nukes, then this is clearly prohibited against under our current laws.

Rocket Lab, a US-owned but New Zealand-based company estimated to be worth more than US$1.2 billion, has become a leader in a niche market of small rocket services provided by private companies.

A launch in March included a prototype satellite called Gunsmoke-J, which collects targeting data for US military operations. Nash allowed the launch to proceed, despite concerns it could help with nuclear weapons targeting, which could be in breach of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987. 

"The US military satellites launched by Rocket Lab can control activity such as communications with troops, surveillance and reconnaissance, intercepting information or spying, and targeting weapons, like drones, bombs, and also nuclear weapons," says Auckland Peace Action spokesperson Eliana Darroch. 

It’s a pity that the Minister responsible is intentionally relying on an ambiguous interpretation of the legislation in order to dismiss the Greens’ valid concerns.

However it's even more unfortunate that Nash is ignoring international laws as well. Because by helping Rocket Lab and the US Military to launch these weapons satellites into space, the Government is in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which states:

Article I

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.

... 

Article III

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever, directly or indirectly, and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any State, group of States or international organisations to manufacture or otherwise acquire any of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment or means of delivery specified in Article I of the Convention.

This means that the USA isn’t allowed to get New Zealand to manufacture any system that might help any state, including itself, to control a nuclear weapon, either directly or indirectly. There really isn’t any grey area here and Nash is being disingenuous to say that there is.

Perhaps the Minister needs to be reminded of the similarities between this situation and the United States' neither confirm nor deny stance prior to our nuclear free legislation becoming law, which meant the Labour Government at the time had to effectively put an end to all US warships and submarines from visiting our shores.

Labour should show some consistency when it comes to nuclear issues by similarly banning these weapons targeting systems from being launched in New Zealand's supposed nuclear free skies.

There is no question that Nash should employ the same restrictions because New Zealand simply cannot rely on any assurances from a private company or the US Military when it comes to their weapons targeting systems. In fact it’s much more likely that some of these satellites are specifically designed to help the United States' Military acquire targets for its nuclear arsenal all around the world.

Nash thumbing his nose at our legislation and relying on the assurances of people with vested interests including one to undermine our nuclear free legislation is highly foolish, but especially so when you consider that China, and not the US, is currently our largest trading partner.

It should be clear to the Government that inaction over Rocket Lab's US Military contracts could potentially damage our future trade negotiations with other countries. But despite consecutive NZ Government's appearing to not care what most of our trading partners think, I'm sure that NZ helping the US to improve on its weapons targeting capabilities will be problematic when it comes time to sit down around the negotiating table.

Whether Stuart Nash considers these partnerships as important, or respects our nuclear free legislation, or David Lange's legacy for that matter, is yet to be seen. But if his actions to date are anything to go by, it appears that he really doesn't give a damn!

New Zealand 30 years nuclear-free

In this Oxford Union Debate from 1985, then Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange proves without a doubt that Nuclear Weapons are in deed Morally Indefensible:

Nuclear warships on the agenda

Yesterday, the NZ Herald reported on an interview between political editor Audrey Young and Prime Minister John Key after his visit to the White House on Saturday:

Obama said the US-NZ relationship was the strongest it has ever been. Is this as good as it gets?

I think so. I don't see New Zealand going back to invoking Anzus. I think New Zealanders value independent foreign policy. You can make the case [that] Australia has an independent foreign policy and has Anzus, but in New Zealand, I think they would just see it as a step away from us being in total control of the decision-making we have. In a practical sense, some people would point to a ship visit. We didn't ask for that. I don't say it would never happen, because at some point it just seems a natural thing that might happen. But I think it is one of those things that you just let evolve.

John Key seems a bit overly relaxed about US nuclear warships visiting New Zealand.

It's up to them to want to come?

Yes. It's very misunderstood. They don't have to tell us anything. The Prime Minister of the day has to sign the declaration form that says, "I'm confident through whatever means, open sourcing or whatever, that the ship that comes is neither nuclear-powered nor nuclear-armed."

Will some Prime Minister see a ship arrive on their watch?

I suspect so.

Does it matter though?

No. It's just symbolism.

Clearly a nuclear warship visiting New Zealand wouldn't just be symbolic because one of the most important pieces of legislation in New Zealand's history would have to be changed for that to occur. The only other way around the legislation is for the prime minister of the day to effectively lie on the declaration form about whether a warship is nuclear powered or carries nuclear weapons. The US is simply not going to change it's neither confirm nor deny policy.

Such a move wouldn't just be highly unpopular with the general public, it would be seen by other superpowers as a clear indication about what side we're on. This could have very negative implications with our trading partners, particularly China and Russia.

New Zealand is a hugely important strategic position for the US in any global war they might instigate. That's why they reacted so badly when the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act (PDF) was passed in 1987. It might not be gone by lunchtime, but the current government is incrementally undermining this fine piece of legislation.

Despite overwhelming public opinion the right wing still wants to change this legislation so that nuclear powered or weaponized warships can visit New Zealand.

John Key's statements are clearly designed to try and soften the public up for a change of position that would see New Zealand become less of a world leader and more of a lackey to the United States and their industrial war machine which in many regards still hungers for a global empire.

Considering the public opinion on this matter and the fact that removing our nuclear free legislation would be detrimental to our clean and green image not to mention the economy, National has a long way to go with their propaganda campaign before the public would even contemplate such a stupendously idiotic move. To try and change this legislation now would basically amount to political suicide, which just goes to show how brainwashed Key became on his trip to the US.

By even hinting at nuclear warships visiting New Zealand, National are in fact showing that they have little regard for the people they're meant to represent and far more consideration of the United States' foreign policy. That in itself should see a change in government come September 2014.

Radioactive Fonterra

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Fonterra has been forced to defend its brand once again amid fresh claims milk powder from the company, being sold in Sri Lanka, had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals.

Radioactive chemicals in our dairy products…how on earth did that happen? The only way I can think of for radioactive chemicals to contaminate milk products in New Zealand is from the landfarming that is occurring all around the Taranaki region.

Landfarming is the quaint name given to the practice of disposing waste from the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, contaminated with hydrocarbons, chemicals, heavy metals and quite often radioactive particles, by spreading it onto land where cows graze.

In light of this recent development, I would also like to know why two government officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries travelled to Sri Lanka earlier this year to try to make their Atomic Energy Authority stop testing New Zealand milk powder samples for radiation?

In May 2013, the Sri Lankan Sunday Times reported:

A Government Minister has warned Sri Lankans against the use of imported milk powder while New Zealand, the largest supplier, has mounted pressure to halt an inquiry by the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) over alleged radioactive contamination. The warning came from Agriculture Minister Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena who told Parliament on Friday that imported milk powder from New Zealand should be avoided until conclusive studies were done about the harmful effects.

Those conclusive studies have obviously come back positive and show radioactive chemicals in Fonterra's milk powder. Talk about 100% pure down the drain.

Reports that chemicals used to spray grass in New Zealand get transferred to the milk are troubling and had to be taken seriously, he said. Minister Abeywardena warned that it could exacerbate the chronic kidney diseases. Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Dr. Ranjith Laxman Wijayawardena told the Sunday Times that New Zealand authorities recently asked the AEA to suspend tests being conducted on random samples of milk powder.

He revealed that two officers of the New Zealand’s Small Industries Ministry recently visited Sri Lanka and met AEA officials and requested the suspension of tests for radiation in New Zealand milk powder. But he said that instructions have been issued to continue radiation tests.

Dr. Wijayawardana vowed that the AEA would not bow to any such foreign pressure when carrying out its duties.

It's just as well Sri Lanka did continue to test for radiation in milk products from New Zealand, because those tests have now come back positive and at levels that are not allowable under Sri Lankan regulations. Sri Lanka has quite rightly moved to halt all imports of milk powder from New Zealand.

According to Sri Lankan regulations, the maximum radioactivity level allowed is 20 Bq/kg for milk food and 100 Bq/kg for other food items. This is laid down in a 1969 act of parliament and in a Gazette notification issued in 1995. Bq is the measurement of radiation in food items.

Why exactly government officials have pressured Sri Lanka's Atomic Energy Authority to stop testing for radiation in New Zealand milk products just before those tests proved positive is a question that must be answered?

It appears that the government knew that Fonterra's milk powder was contaminated with radioactive chemicals and instead of informing their markets, which could include domestic sales; they have tried to bully our fifth largest export market for milk products into silence.

This isn't just a cover-up of huge and despicable proportions; this makes the government liable under various international product safety laws.

If the melamine, DCD and botulism contamination wasn’t enough to get a few heads rolling, the radioactive chemicals in Fonterra milk powder damn well should be. It’s time to get rid of these evil bastards!

UPDATE: The NZ Herald has edited the first paragraph of the article Fonterra powder recalled in Sri Lanka to remove the part highlighting that Fonterra's milk powder sold in Sri Lanka had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals. However there is no mention of an update on the article.

I presume this has occurred because government officials have pressured the NZ Herald to remove that information from their website. There has been no apology or retraction published thus far in the print edition. Here's a link to the original article. Unfortunately for them, the internet never forgets.

Rena to hold her secrets

For over a year and a half now The Jackal has been attempting to learn exactly what was onboard the MV Rena when it ran aground near Tauranga on 5 October 2011. I was wanting this information to try and work out the potential environmental impact, but unfortunately my efforts have been in vain.

On 10 October 2011, I made a formal request under the Official Information Act (PDF) to Maritime New Zealand for information relating to what the MV Rena was carrying, which they declined. I then approached the Ombudsman about that lack of disclosure.

This week, I received the Ombudsman's final ruling on the matter:

OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT COMPLAINT
MARITIME NEW ZEALAND
REQUEST FOR A COPY OF THE INVENTORY LIST FOR THE MV RENA

Ombudsman

Thank you for your email of 19 September 2012, concerning your Official Information Act (OIA) complaint about the decision of Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) to refuse your request for the inventory list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

Following receipt of your email, the investigator assisting me sought further information from MNZ and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), the shipping company that chartered the MV Rena. By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released some further information to you.

I have now had an opportunity to consider your comments on my provisional view and the further information provided to me. Having considered all the issues raised, I have now formed the opinion that it was open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have outlined the basis for my opinion below.

My role

As an Ombudsman, I am authorised to investigate and review, on complaint, any decision by which an agency subject to the OIA refuses to make official information available when requested.

My role in undertaking an investigation is to evaluate the grounds for refusing requests for official information in terms of the tests set out in the OIA, and to form an opinion as to whether the request was properly refused.

Background

On 10 October 2011 you requested the inventory list detailing what the MV Rena cargo ship was carrying when it struck Astrolabe reef on 5 October 2011.

By letter of 8 November 2011, MNZ advised that it held the cargo manifest for the MV Rena, and that it was withholding this information pursuant to section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA.
You asked me to investigate the decision to withhold the cargo manifest.

Relevant to this investigation, section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA provides good reason for withholding official information where it is necessary to: "protect information where the making available of the information ... would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information".

The interest in withholding the information must not be "outweighed by other considerations which render it desirable, in the public interest, to make that
information available" (section 9(1) of the OIA refers).

Comments by MNZ

The investigator assisting me met with MNZ to discuss the decision to withhold the manifest.

She was advised that the manifest is the only information held by MNZ that falls within the scope of your request. It was provided to MNZ following the notice issued on 6 October 2011 pursuant to section 248 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.

The manifest is very detailed, and includes:

who is shipping the cargo;
who is receiving the cargo;
the route on which the goods are shipped;
the number and kind of packages;
a description of the goods; and
the gross weight and measurements of the goods.

Shipping manifests are not available to the public, and are very rarely provided to port control authorities. MNZ advised that shipping routes are commercially sensitive.

The route a particular vessel takes impacts on the profit ability of thatvessel. I understand that this information cannot be determined from other publicly available documents. MNZ advised that if the shipping routes were released, it would be likely to impact on the competitive position of the shipping company.

The manifest also provides information on MSC's customers. Release of information identifying MSC's customers would prejudice MSC as it would enable competitors to target the MSC's customer base. The prejudice would be unreasonable as the information is not publicly available for any other shipping company.

Where operating commercially, details of the vendor, purchaser and volume of goods is also commercially sensitive. The volume of goods bought and sold, and the supplier of those goods, impacts on the commercial position of both the vendor and purchaser. Based on the information recorded in the manifest, other suppliers of similar products could target purchasers, and competitors to purchasers would be made aware of the volume and type of goods being imported and their source.

The investigator queried whether this information could be removed from the manifest and the manifest then made available with essentially just a list of the cargo on the MV Rena.

She was advised that this information is already publicly available, and was provided to you. However, it transpired that this reference was only to the list of dangerous goods.

My provisional opinion

By email of 18 September 2012, I advised you of my provisional view on the complaint.
I considered that the commercial position of both MSC and commercial vendors and purchasers of goods would be likely to be prejudiced by release of the manifest, through the disclosure of shipping routes, customers of MSC, and details of vendors and purchasers of the goods carried together with the level of stock bought and sold.

This would be unreasonable as it is commercially sensitive information that is not made available in regard to any other shipping company.

I therefore accepted that release of the manifest would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of MSC and commercial importers and suppliers of goods on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) refers).

I considered that there was some public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, though this would be confined to toxic or dangerous cargo. I could not see what public interest there would be in information on general cargo carried by the MV Rena. Having reviewed the manifest and the information made available by MNZ, I considered that the public interest was met by the already available information.
I invited you to comment on my provisional view.

Your comments

By email of 19 September 2012 you commented on my view. You advised:

I have not made a request for the MV Rena's entire Cargo Manifest, I have made a request for the inventory list. I am not interested in knowing who is shipping what cargo, who is receiving the cargo, the address of either party or the route the cargo takes. I am specifically interested in exactly what is being shipped and in what quantities?

Maritime New Zealand has released some of this information already because of public interest in dangerous goods, but that release of information does not entirely fulfil my request for information. The reason I'm interested in exactly what the MV Rena was carrying is because of the cumulative effect of various substances. I believe Maritime New Zealand has not considered this aspect and might view some substances to be innocuous when in fact they are not when combined together. Only a complete inventory list including quantities will allow a proper environmental impact calculation to be undertaken.

Maritime New Zealand has shown that there's no commercial sensitivity in releasing information on what the MV Rena was carrying because they have already released information concerning dangerous substances.

Please let me assure you that the information if released will not be released further to any competitor shipping companies. Information concerning what the MV Rena was carrying will only be published if there is a public or scientific interest in making that information available to the general public.

There's considerable public interest in the effects on the environment from the MV Rena disaster and no reasonable argument for not releasing the requested information because of commercial sensitivity. In my opinion, there's no risk to the companies financial or legal position by upholding my request and any commercial prejudice that is being perceived is entirely unreasonable.

Further comments from MNZ

The investigator discussed your comments with MNZ.

As noted above, the only information held by MNZ that fell within the scope of your request was the manifest. MNZ did not hold a less detailed list of the goods on the MV Rena.

The investigator therefore suggested release of one of the fields in the manifest that described the goods carried on the MV Rena.

MNZ were unable to provide detailed comments on the specific field.

Comments from MSC

The investigator consulted MSC on the release of the specific description field. In doing so the investigator noted the public interest in release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena.

MSC advised that release of the column would be extremely detrimental to its business. Many of its clients work in a small export sector, and release of the detailed description of the goods and volume shipped would provide competitors with an advantage over MSC.

MSC gave the examples of specific products, and how competitors could review the released information and then target specific exporters. MSC advised that importing and exporting in New Zealand is extremely competitive.

The investigator asked how that differed from the scenario where a shipping company could list the exporters of a specific product and target the exporters who do not currently use that company's services. MSC advised that knowing the current shipping company an exporter used would enable a competitor to tailor a package specifically to that exporter, with reference to the current service provided by MSC.

MSC also noted that the specific field of the manifest is the only free field section of the manifest. Clients can enter any details they wish to be on the bill of lading into that field.

The investigator sought release of a high level list of goods on the MVRena. MSC advised that it would not be willing to release quantities, as this would often disclose the client, but could release a high level list.

Further information released to you

By email of 8 May 2013, MNZ released to you the high level list of goods created by MSC following its meeting with the investigator.

Here's the released short description of goods the MV Rena was carrying:

Click on images to enlarge

My opinion

Based on the information outlined above, I have now formed the opinion that it is open to MNZ to refuse your request, on the basis that it is necessary to protect information where the release of that information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the shipping company and those shipping and receiving cargo on the MV Rena (section 9(2)(b)(ii) of the OIA refers).

While there is a high public interest in the release of information about the cargo on the MV Rena, the further information provided to you meets this interest.
I have now concluded my investigation of your complaint.

Yours sincerely

David McGee Ombudsman

It's unfortunate that Maritime New Zealand is refusing to release the full inventory, making me wonder exactly what substances the MV Rena was carrying that they don't want the public to know about?

I guess we will never know what this substance leaking from the stricken ship, which in my opinion looks a lot like yellowcake, actually is.

Interestingly enough the Australian government also sites "unreasonably prejudice of commercial position" as a reason to not inform the public of what ships are carrying yellowcake. Is it just a coincidence that the MV Rena was on a known shipping route for transporting yellowcake from Australia? I guess New Zealand isn't as nuclear free as the public is led to believe.

Mothers of Fukushima

Lies and propaganda

Today, The Diplomat published a rather glowing report on John Key that can only be viewed as outright garbage.

In fact it's clear that this wasn't really an interview at all, but rather a puff piece of propaganda designed to make the Prime Minister appear intelligent.

But dig a little deeper below what John Key is being reported as saying, and the truth becomes readily apparent.

New Zealanders are proud of this country’s long record of advocacy on nuclear disarmament, and our strong support for the vision of a nuclear-weapon-free world. New Zealand views nuclear security as part of our broader and longstanding commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

It's true that the country as a whole has a longstanding commitment to nuclear disarmament... However it's not true of the current government who have been secretly undermining our nuclear free status.

One way that National has been undermining New Zealands nuclear free status is through investing in the nuclear weapons industry.

The NZ Superfund has a number of large investments in companies that manufacture nuclear weapons, which is a clear violation of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 (PDF), which states:

No person, who is a New Zealand citizen or a person ordinarily resident in New Zealand, and who is a servant or agent of the Crown, shall, beyond the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone,—
(a) manufacture, acquire, or possess, or have control over, any nuclear explosive device; or
(b) aid, abet, or procure any person to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device.

The Act is also violated by the shipping through New Zealand ports of large amounts of yellowcake, which is a kind of uranium concentrate powder used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

It's clear that John Key is simply paying lip service to New Zealand's nuclear free status while allowing transactions to be conducted by New Zealanders both here and abroad that benefit the nuclear weapons industry.

But John Key obviously isn't going to let a few inconvenient truths get in the way of his spin...

The truth is that Afghanistan has made tremendous progress over the past eleven years. Most importantly, the country is no longer a haven for international terrorists. Al Qaeda, a substantial threat to international security in 2001 and the reason for our initial military involvement, has been significantly weakened and largely driven from Afghanistan. Furthermore, with the assistance of the ISAF coalition, the Afghanistan National Security Forces are becoming increasingly capable of continuing the fight against the Taliban after the ISAF mission concludes next year.

Thanks in part to international efforts, Afghanistan also now has a functioning, albeit Afghan-style, representative democracy. State institutions are in place, and there is a thriving civil society not seen in Afghanistan for a generation. Despite ongoing challenges, millions of Afghans now enjoy human rights they were denied by the Taliban. In short, quality of life for ordinary Afghans has significantly improved.

That all sounds fine and dandy, but in reality the lives of ordinary Afghans haven't improved at all since the occupation began... In fact they've worsened dramatically on many fronts.

One major factor that has degraded is the production of opium for the world market. In 2001, Opium production had all but ceased under a directive of the Taliban, but according to the World Drug Report (PDF) Afghanistan is now the largest illicit opium producer (at around 90% supply) in the entire world.

In terms of how effective the occupying forces have been at reducing Al-Qaeda's strength, most analysts agree that although Al-Qaeda still has a presence in the country, the NATO operation has been somewhat successful.

However on January 8, the BBC reported:

But if improving security for the average Afghan is the criterion by which success is measured, the answer is very different. Civilian casualties have risen steeply every year for the past five years - although they fell in the first half of 2012. It remains to be seen if that trend is sustained.

After more than a decade of war, the Taliban are a long way from being defeated and have been growing in strength. Many of Nato's territorial gains are by no means irreversible and the militants still have the capacity to launch devastating surprise attacks such as the September 2012 attack on Camp Bastion.

If the troop surge of 2010 was successful in stopping the Taliban's momentum in the south, it did not succeed in defeating the militants, especially in the north and centre where the alliance is thinner on the ground.

The pressure on Nato leaders to pull troops out has also been exacerbated by a series of "green-on-blue" attacks in which members of the Afghan security forces have turned their arms on coalition troops. At least 60 Nato personnel were killed in such attacks in 2012.

Insurgents have exacted a much heavier toll - since 2001 more than 3,000 coalition troops have been killed in Afghanistan.

So things aren't as rosy in Afghanistan as the disingenuous John Key would lead us to believe.

Now I wonder if the Prime Minister will be truthful concerning our relationship with the US.

The relationship between New Zealand and the United States has never been better.

The relationship between National and the United States' government might be good, but the relationship with the general public is not. One case that stands out is the illegal process used by the United States concerning entrepreneur Kim Dotcom, who is a New Zealand citizen.

Couple this with various law changes to increase state powers and the huge amount of taxpayer dollars spent to help the US spy on the public both here and abroad, and it's clear that the relationship between ordinary citizens in New Zealand and the US administration is troubled.

There’s no doubt that freedoms we previously took for granted have been reduced. Unfortunately new laws to repress the public have been systematically implemented by a right wing agenda and overseen by various spies and other US officials.

We were pleased to host U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in New Zealand last year – the first visit here by a U.S. Secretary of Defense in over 25 years. Secretary Panetta described his visit as marking a “new era” between the two countries. His decision to lift the formal restrictions on military staff talks and New Zealand ship visits to U.S. ports represented a positive step forward in defense relations. We look forward to building on this agenda of cooperation with Secretary Panetta's successor.

That would be great if our defence forces weren't demoralized because of budget cuts and mismanagement. In September 2010, the National government told the New Zealand Defence Force to reduce costs and a civilianisation project was one of several measures they initiated in response.

On January 24, the Auditor General reported:

Converting 1400 military positions into civilian positions would always be difficult. Discharging military staff has to be carried out with great care to avoid damaging the bonds of camaraderie, integrity, and commitment that are part of NZDF culture. Instead, NZDF chose a course that led to a drop in morale and an increase in attrition resulting in reduced capability. NZDF now needs to recover from the damage caused by the civilianisation project.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the Auditor General is being highly diplomatic... Let's just translate what Lyn Provost means:

Because of National giving large tax cuts to the rich and mismanaging the economy, they've had to make large budget cuts in other areas. That drive for savings has not been done with any proper planning or thought to the consequences, and the result is a demoralized and therefore less effective defence force.

It should be pointed out that one of the main reasons for the increased visits by United States officials is our growing relationship with China. National likes China mainly because of their low waged economy, which unlike New Zealand still manages to provide growth.

Keys ideological belief system that there should be wage slaves is one of the main reasons why he's overly optimistic about our relationship with the People's Republic of China.

China’s growing role in the world economy is positive for New Zealand.

It hasn't been very positive so far... Instead of benefiting our economy, National has simply sold large chunks of our most productive land to the Chinese who simply ship what is produced back to China for processing... That means there's little job creation in New Zealand.

China is New Zealand’s largest source of overseas students and our second largest (and fastest growing) source of tourists. This growth is remarkable given the context of the global economic crisis.

I wouldn't call a 2.5% increase in the number of students from China between July 2011 and March 2012 "remarkable" in any way shape or form. In fact there's been an overall 7% decrease of international students over the same time period.

It should also be pointed out that New Zealand now has a reputation for a place to gain fake qualifications, which does nothing for our international standing.

Despite the Rugby World Cup, overall tourism has also declined under John Keys mismanagement. His diabolical statements concerning our 100% Pure branding have resonated around the world and resulted is less tourist dollars.

Despite what John Key believes, that lost revenue will not be regained through other means.

New Zealand’s exports of high quality dairy, meat, fish, kiwifruit and wine are significant but there is potential for significant further growth.

Which means very little while our high dollar reduces profit margins and ensures many companies are going out of business.

So what is John Key's answer to the problem?

New Zealand was pleased to host Round 15 of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations in December 2012, when we welcomed new participants Mexico and Canada to the table. TPP is the most ambitious FTA negotiation currently under way in the Asia‑Pacific region. Negotiations are at an advanced stage, and the process enjoys sustained political will from the highest levels.

The Trans Pacific Partnership agreement will in a nutshell remove consumer rights. Amongst many other negative effects, the dubious TPP will revoke current labeling laws for fear that a label might identify ingredients the consumer doesn't like, thus negatively impacting on profits. There is no right to know what you are eating under the TPP.

Unfortunately there's been a general lack of transparency and public consultation throughout the TPP process, and along with giving private businesses the right to sue governments if they make legislation that negatively impacts on their profit margins, the TPP will generally reduce New Zealand's independence as a sovereign nation.

It's disappointing to see a Prime Minister who's so obviously blinded by his own rhetoric that he ignores reality. Clearly the Prime Minister is adamant that he won't tackle the burning issues that New Zealand faces and instead promotes propaganda and outright lies, and for that John Key should be ousted.

Japans nuclear free future

It's been somewhat annoying to read through the plethora of propaganda articles that have been published about the Japanese governments policy on nuclear power. Many of these articles are obviously produced by the nuclear power industry and bear no resemblance to reality. In fact some of the articles are so manipulative that they've spurred The Jackal into looking a little deeper into Japans nuclear free future.

It should be noted that most of the articles claiming that Japan will not reach its objectives of being nuclear free are on blogs, and not from reputable outlets. Although I don't want to foster any doubt about the reputation of blogger's (being one myself), there is something to be said about outlets that can be held to account for what they publish.

Here's one particular disingenuous article from the Guardian no less:

Japan drops plans to phase out nuclear power by 2040

Japan has effectively abandoned a commitment to end its reliance on nuclear power by 2040 amid pressure from the country's business lobby, dropping a deadline recommended by a cabinet panel only days ago.

[...]

There does not seem to have been much press coverage about the Japanese Government abandoning its commitment to end reliance on nuclear power by 2040. Japanese business and industry leaders fear the phase-out would force companies to shift production overseas due to the high price of imported oil and gas.

I guess the Guardian's use of the word "effectively" means they don't really know and the headline is merely to get hits. What the Japanese trade and industry minister, Yukio Edano, actually said is that they might not be able to reach their targets, not that they were abandoning them altogether. Despite these baseless claims, Japan is still committed to become entirely nuclear free, as much as the nuclear industry doesn't wants them to.

Here's Japans actual policy concerning the matter:

Democratic Party (ruling) decision 7/9/2012

• Aim for zero nuclear society
• Mobilise maximum policy resources for zero-nuclear operation in 2030’s
• Strictly apply “40 year life time” policy
• Restart nuclear plants (now 2 out of ten in operation) after check by newly established Nuclear Regulatory Committee
• No new construction of nuclear plants
• Renewable energy share to be more than 20% in early 2020’s, and about 40% in early 2030’s
• Fully revise nuclear fuel cycle.

So clearly Japan is moving towards a nuclear free future and claims that they're not are completely unfounded. Despite the disinformation about Japan abandoning its nuclear free future, according to their policy, restarting some nuclear power plants was always on the cards. Unfortunately that's not the only claim the propagandists are making though, with a veritable truckload of articles being written about how Japans GHG emissions will go through the roof if they don't return to using nuclear power.

At first, there was some truth to these claims, with the Japanese government confirming that to become nuclear free by 2030 would mean a potential short-term increase in GHG emissions of between 5 - 7%. This admission was seized upon by pro-nuclear proponents, who are scrambling to try and protect their dying industry. It's the end of the world without nuclear power they proclaimed, therefore Japan must restart its nuclear power plants.

Only by using nuclear power can climate change be averted they said, usually forgetting to mention the cleanest and most cost effective form of power generation, renewables. Renewables is a dirty word in the nuclear power industry, because they're in direct competition with it. So their propagandists screamed with all their might that Japan would need to use more fossil fuels if they didn't use nuclear.

Another claim has been that if they just reduced the amount of power being consumed, their economy would suffer. Apparently its complete doom and gloom without nuclear reactors. In fact the nuclear industry propagandists jumped up and down so hard about this that they created a warp in the space-time continuum... Fact and fiction merged into some kind of horrendous deformity and the blogosphere was irreparably damaged forever.

However Japans economy has continued to grow. Historically, from 1980 until 2011, Japans growth averaged around 0.5% per year. Nothing has really changed in this respect since they closed down the bulk of their nuclear reactors, and Japans economy grew 0.5% to June this year.

The claim that Japans GHG Emissions would dramatically increase have also been proven to be totally incorrect, with Japan actually reducing its GHG emissions by 2% in 2011 (PDF). They closed their nuclear power plants in March 2011, meaning that the majority in reduced GHG emissions occurred without nuclear power.

How can this be you might ask... Surely closing down their reactors means they have to burn more fossil fuels to meet energy demands ipso facto more GHG emissions?

One of the main reasons is that Japan has already invested $17 billion into renewable energy projects. They now predict it will take 15 years to totally replace the 50 GW of nuclear electricity generation (13% of Japan’s primary energy consumption) with renewable energy. Implementation of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power in Japan is outstripping previous projections, and Japans government is set to create an approximately $628 billion clean energy market by 2020 through deregulation and subsidies to promote development of renewable energy and low-emission cars.

It's true that global warming posses a threat, but so does old nuclear reactors. Both threats to humanity can be removed through the use of renewable energy. All it takes is a government willing to do so.

Another truck accident

Today's truck accident, as reported by the NZ Herald:

Fire Service northern communications shift manager Jaron Phillips said the fully-laden B-train truck was found in the Waihohonu Stream on State Highway 1, between Waiouru and Turangi, after emergency services were notified at 4.22am.

"The concern we have is that the truck has signs on it saying 'radioactive' and the entire contents of this truck is in the river. There's a lot of debris in the river."

A spokesman later confirmed there was no radioactive material on board the truck.

Mr Phillips said the truck contained aerosol containers and was also believed to contain an environmentally hazardous insecticide called alpha-cypermethrin.

That makes no sense... Trucks are legally required to display signage about what they're carrying. If there is no radioactive material on bored, why did it have the radioactive signs displayed? And who is the trucking company involved? "A spokesman" leaves things pretty wide open.

Genesis Energy spokesman Richard Gordon said the Rangipo Power Station had been closed as a result of the crash.

The 120 megawatt power station, which generates enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes, turned its turbines off about 7.30am.

"We're not sure at this stage what material is in the river from the truck crash and we're taking a precautionary approach. We've got intake screens to take large things going through into the Rangipo turbines but we're not sure what material was on the truck."

Well at least Genesis Energy aren't taking any chances.

With so many truck accidents lately, what's the real cost to the economy from Nationals deregulation of the trucking industry that allowed heavier and longer trucks I wonder? As usual it's socialized costs in order to maximise private profits, which will just leave the tax-payer with another big mess to clean up and pay for.

Nationals ideologically driven agenda is clearly detrimental to New Zealand.

Ongoing nuclear nightmares

Yesterday, there were more reports of Radioactive cesium levels rising sharply in Fukushima and last week there were a couple of serious nuclear accidents in Canada and South Korea that went largely unreported.

The worlds second largest nuclear power plant located 250 kilometers northwest of Toronto leaked an undisclosed amount of heavy water and a power cut at the Gori-1 nuclear power plant 50 kilometers south of Seoul caused a suspension of operations.

Like previous accidents, the Koreans initially tried to keep the incident secret with both countries playing down the serious nature of the close calls.

This raises interesting questions for John Keys Saturday junket to the South Korean Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, the very area that could have been experiencing a meltdown of the old Gori-1 nuclear reactor.

Although the US initiative is aimed at reducing the global threat of nuclear terrorism, incidents such as Fukushima have motivated the people of South Korea to pressure their representatives to move away from nuclear power generation, which has proven to be completely unsafe.

On Sunday, The Korea Herald reported:

In an increasingly volatile race for parliament, nuclear power is creeping up the political agenda as opposition lawmakers seek to exploit growing safety jitters to retake power in next month’s vote.

Concerns about the safety of the nuclear industry are rife after news broke last week that plant operators had attempted to cover up a power cut at a reactor in Busan for over a month.

[...]

Scrambling to win more seats, Han Myeong-sook, chairperson of the main opposition Democratic United Party, promised to curb the country’s reliance on nuclear energy if her party comes to power.

“The government may have been able to avoid overheating the reactor, but failed to avert a meltdown of public trust and the principles of truth and responsibility,” the former prime minister said Friday.

A poll released on March 6 showed that more than six out of 10 Koreans are against the government’s plans to boost the use of nuclear power. Nearly 80 percent of 1,100 respondents said they oppose extending old reactors’ lifespan.

North Korea is one of the stalwarts of the outdated and dangerous nuclear age that has largely resisted reductions in their nuclear programs. Withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, they became a fully fledged nuclear power in 2009 and have tested two nuclear weapons.

In comparison the United States maintains a ban on enriched plutonium being supplied to South Korea which has effectively meant they have not developed their nuclear weapons capability.

In 2000, revelations that scientists in South Korea had engaged in clandestine uranium enrichment emerged at a time when Seoul was playing a leading role in efforts to end North Korea's nuclear weapons drive. However they still have plenty of chemical and biological weapons to ensure mutual destruction in the advent of all out war.

I wonder if Key will come back glowing?

Fuck TEPCO

Radiation leak in Auckland

Today, Auckland Now reported:

The Fire Service gave the all clear to a Singapore Airlines freight plane that was examined for a radiation leak at Auckland Airport last night.

The article doesn't say where or what the possible radiation leak was coming from, which seems odd. Hopefully somebody will follow it up.

Radioactive muttonbirds

Last Thursday, the NZ Herald reported:

Potentially radioactive muttonbirds nesting in NZ

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), which is charged with leading New Zealand's biosecurity system, said it took the potential for contamination of foods with radioactive material very seriously.

"However, we have no information at this time to suggest that muttonbirds might be significantly exposed to radioactive contamination due to this incident.

"MAF continues to monitor any new information that might cause us to change our advice to people about eating muttonbirds.''

Until testing is conducted, shouldn't people be warned not to eat Muttonbirds?

Despite the possible contamination, there's been no official warning about eating sooty terns (Onychoprion fuscata) that could have been exposed to Strontium-90 after the Fukushima nuclear accident.

Here's Josh Adams, head of the research team from the US Geological Survey, speaking to Radio NZ:



What kind of researcher into nuclear fallout doesn't understand that people can be exposed to Strontium-90 through dietary pathways?

Adams believes that the Muttonbirds offspring will not be affected... he's wrong! Sensitivity to radiation is elevated from conception through embryonic development... that means if the Muttonbirds are exposed, they will pass that exposure onto their offspring through maternal bone stores.

When consumed orally or inhaled Strontium-90 has multiple pathogenic effects in the body and results in elevated levels of a variety of cancers.

Muttonbirds migratory pattern

With an average 10 years between exposure and cancer manifestation... it looks like MAF will get away with their idiotic decision not to place a ban on the collection of Muttonbirds.

Fukushima highlights industry failures

Last Friday, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda gave a press conference in which he claimed that the Fukushima nuclear reactors are now stable. This information has been widely accepted by many news services.

However Fukushima's operators, Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), have not measured the temperatures at the bottoms of the containment vessels. Readings would be inaccurate if containment vessels were punctured by melted fuel rods. High levels of radiation is making any proper confirmation unattainable.

So can we trust what TEPCO and the Japanese government says? Today, The Japan Times informed us that a new study into the cause of the Fukushima accident is due out on the 26 December, which shows that the claims of TEPCO that the tsunami caused the nuclear power plants failure is not correct. Kyodo writes:

If the allegation is found to be true, it would force Japan to overhaul all quake-safety findings at many nuclear plants because it has claimed that the tsunami, not the quake, crippled the Fukushima plant.

This could be a huge blow to the industry, as the report would show that all the nuclear power plants around the world that use the same technology are susceptible to similar catastrophic failure in the event of an earthquake. It's no wonder TEPCO tried to hide this fact.

Surely the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have ensured that there was accountability and honesty in the face of such a huge disaster. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. In March, Russian nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev said:

The IAEA should share blame for standards, he said, arguing it was too close to corporations building and running plants. And he dismissed an emergency incident team set up by the Vienna-based agency as "only a think-tank not a working force":

"This is only a fake organization because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry - and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry - cannot perform properly.

It appears that the IAEA is biased and all too willing to help a corrupt industry that is more concerned with protecting their interests than the well being of people around the world. We shouldn't only be concerned with the health and wellbeing of people in Japan either. Today, the Medical Daily reported:

Study Connects U.S. Deaths to Fukushima, Contradicts EPA Reports

In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S., deaths reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, or roughly 14,000 deaths. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.

The reason they've tried to cover up the amount of radiation released and the harm caused by the Fukushima disaster is that it questions the legitimacy of the entire nuclear power industry... an industry that appears to be without any impartial or proper oversight.

It's time to follow Germany's lead and close all nuclear power plants worldwide.

Peter Garret on uranium exports

Last Saturday, ex frontman for Midnight Oil and now Australian Minister for School Education, Peter Garret, spoke out about Why it's too dangerous to sell uranium to India:

While the Labor Party continues to wrestle with the issue of the export of uranium, in government Labor has devoted considerable energy to disarmament. The Australia-Japan report on nuclear proliferation, co-written by the former foreign minister Gareth Evans, summarised the situation well, noting "so long as any state has nuclear weapons others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, misuse or design. Any such use would be catastrophic." 

The importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – committing nuclear states to reduce their nuclear arsenals and prohibiting other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons – is central. It stands as one of the foundation stones of the international disarmament framework, and Australia's support for the treaty has been rock solid.

However yesterday, idiotic delegates endorsed Prime Minister Julia Gillard's request that Australia should export uranium to India, with 206 people voting in favour and 185 opposing it. Unbelievable!

This is a terrible decision with Pakistan (also not signed to the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty) now requesting to have access to Australia's uranium as well.

Julia Gillard's argument was that it's unfair to sell uranium to China and not India. I wonder if this argument now applies to Pakistan or perhaps Iran?

Gillard is providing such a disingenuous argument being that Australia should not be selling uranium to China either, especially in light of the Fukushima disaster and the many thousands of calls for an end to the nuclear era.

The worst thing about all of this for New Zealand is that despite our Nuclear Free status, Australia has been shipping large quantities of uranium through our ports, completely ignoring the laws of this country. Australia cannot guarantee that the uranium they export is not being used to make weapons and is therefore committing a crime under current law.

A decision to export uranium to India is likely to increase the amount of unlawful cargo entering and exiting New Zealand's ports.

Some have argued that it's perfectly safe because the uranium is sealed in barrels. But it is likely that the recent grounding in Tauranga of the cargo ship Rena, spilled uranium (yellow cake) into the ocean. I don't know what else this stuff could be?

Perhaps the best argument for Australia to not continue its insane uranium mining program can be found in this Fact sheet (PDF) by Gavin M. Mudd:

The long-term management of uranium mill tailings present a major environmental challenge. Given the tailings contain most of the original radioactivity of the ore (i.e. the decay products), they must be isolated from the environment for periods of at least tens of thousands of years – a time scale which is beyond collective human experience and certainly challenges engineering approaches for waste containment.

Fukushima is worse

Study Shows Worse Picture of Meltdown in Japan

TOKYO (AP) — Radioactive debris from melted fuel rods may have seeped deeper into the floor of one of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant than had previously been thought, perhaps to within a foot of breaching a crucial steel barrier, a new simulation showed Wednesday.

The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company, said that its latest simulation showed overheated nuclear fuel at the No. 1 reactor may have eroded part of the primary containment vessel’s thick concrete floor. The vessel is a beaker-shaped steel container set into the floor. A concrete foundation below that is the last barrier before the fuel would begin to penetrate the earth.

In the worst-case scenario, according to the company’s simulation, the reactor’s fuel came to within a foot of the container’s steel bottom.

Nuclear power plants are far too dangerous to keep operational past their closure dates. It is a crime against humanity to continue to use a technology that has so much destructive potential.

With children in Japan now showing serious health issues because of exposure to radiation after the Fukushima meltdowns, now is the time to demand a nuclear free future.

Radiation release unaccounted for

On 11 November the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported higher than usual levels of iodine-131 had been measured in the atmosphere over the Czech Republic and the rest of the continent.

Higher than normal levels of radiation have been detected in the air in several parts of Europe, but officials said they don’t believe the public is at risk. 

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a statement Friday that “very low levels of Iodine-131” have been found in the atmosphere, the Associated Press reported. 

The radiation has been detected in the Czech Republic and in other parts of the continent. 

The IAEA said the cause of the radiation is unknown, but the increase in normal levels does not appear related to Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster, which showered the globe in radiation in March. 

The EPA said Iodine-131 can get into the environment after leaking from cracked fuel rods in nuclear plants. But the radioisotope will lose much of its radiation in roughly eight days.

The radiation is apparently not from Fukushima and the Czech Republic is adamant that none of their reactors have released radiation that would account for the higher levels of Iodine 131 in the atmosphere.

So where the hell did the radiation come from?

This just shows how lax regulations and oversight is within the nuclear industry. They can't even tell where the radiation was released from.

Occupy Movement Gains Momentum

Being that the mainstream media has done very little reporting on the topic, you'd be excused for not knowing that there's a huge groundswell of free people around the world protesting against the current destructive system. Many are simply fed up with the corporate agenda, and have started to organize en mass to express their wish for positive change.

There is no doubt that the Occupy Wall Street protest that started a few weeks ago is growing into a huge movement that now includes many cities around the world and hundreds of thousands of people.

Police in New York have harassed the peaceful protestor’s, with many hundreds arrested.  This does not seem to have dampened their spirits though, with numbers in recent days growing markedly.

They have one common goal: to end political and corporate corruption. Occupy Wall Street is also protesting against big business' influence on government, exploitation of the environment and the income disparity between the richest 1% and the other 99% of citizens. "We are the 99 percent" has been a popular catch phrase used by the protesters.

Occupy Dame Street in Dublin, Ireland 08-10-11

A few days ago we had an Australian example of the type of corruption the protesters are rallying against. The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

Some Reserve Bank's most senior officials were involved in covering up extensive evidence of corruption at the central bank's subsidiaries, Note Printing Australia and Securency.

An investigation has found top Reserve officials suppressed damaging information in 2007 and 2008 about the payment of secret commissions to middlemen hired by the Reserve firms to win bank-note contracts in Nepal and Malaysia.

Among officials who knew of the serious corruption concerns are the deputy governor Ric Battellino, a former deputy governor, Graeme Thompson, and former NPA boss Chris Ogilvy.

This revelation was met with astonishment by the Green party of Australia, with Adam Bandt asking the House of Representatives economics committee to recall the Reserve Banks governor, Glenn Stevens, and other bank officials to explain how these new revelations sat with their previous evidence.

Protesters occupy Wall Street, New York 06-10-11

Despite the length and amount of people involved in the protests, there's been an almost total blackout on the Global Occupy Movement by mainstream media. This shows that many media outlets are totally owned by those with the most to fear from the power of the people.

The scale of the peaceful protests are such that they could put an end to the underhanded practices of dishonest politicians, corrupt corporatism and much of the dysfunctional financial sector responsible for the worlds financial crises. It's something those in power of our mainstream media know all too well, and that others around the world have started to comment on. Today the ABC reported:

An Iranian military commander said Sunday that the protests spreading from New York's Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an "American Spring," likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East.

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri of Iran's Revolutionary Guard said the protests against corporate greed and the gap between rich and poor are a revolution in the making that will topple what he called the Western capitalist system.

The Occupy Wall Street movement started in New York City last month and is spreading to other parts of the country. The loosely affiliated movement is peacefully protesting the power of the financial and political sectors. Jazayeri said President Barack Obama's election promises of change have reached a dead end.

"The failure of the U.S. president to resolve the Wall Street crisis will turn this economic movement into a political and social movement protesting the very structure of the U.S. government," the official IRNA news agency quoted Jazayeri as saying Sunday.

"A revolution and a comprehensive movement against corruption in the U.S. is in the making. The last phase will be the collapse of the Western capitalist system," he said, according to IRNA.

I have to agree with Jazayeri there... The new American Revolution could indeed spell the end of Obama's presidency. Hopefully it will also drastically change the capitalist system that is responsible for so much misery in the world.

Learn more about the Occupy Movement in New Zealand and the protest organized for the 15 October, by visiting the Facebook website: 015- Occupy Queen Street- what you need to bring.

People who strongly feel the issue of political censorship is one that needs to be addressed BEFORE the next GA on 15/10/11, please attend the meeting at 7pm tonight at the Unite National Office.

When: Monday, October 10 - 7:00pm to 10:00pm

Where:
Unite office
6a western springs road
Auckland, New Zealand.