• Emails to Berkeley RE Fukushima (portions redacted)

    To: (redacted)
    Subject: Fukushima aftermath
    Date: Jun 25, 2017 9:54 PM

    (redacted), I don't know if you have been following the attempts at Fukushima to contain the ground water, it occurs to me they could set off an atomic bomb on site and perhaps fuse the area where the cores melted down. Do you think that could help the situation or is it too risky and might cause too many other problems? Sorry to bother you but I have trouble sleeping at times over the situation and its effect on the Pacific region. I would appreciate any thoughts you might have regarding the situation. David Curtis

    "Dear David, For your peace of mind, I think it is important to get into contact with reliable information about Fukushima.  I'm copying (redacted), (name redacted) who has been monitoring the situation since the beginning, and visits Fukushima regularly; (redacted) can both tell you (redacted), as well as point out sites where you can find reliable expert data.  For your information, the area has been largely remediated and people are already moving back into their homes, even very close to the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Complex. (redacted), so it may take a day for (redacted) to see this email and get back to you.

    Sincere regards,
    (redacted)"

    From: David Curtis <davidscurtis@earthlink.net>

    To: (redacted)

    Cc: (redacted)

    Subject: Re: Fukushima aftermath

    Date: Jun 28, 2017 7:53 AM

    Hello (redacted), thank you and (redacted) for your responses. I just noticed the story of the accidental exposures to plutonium in Nevada.

    My concern remains that the three cores did in fact melt down and remain down and nuisance water reaching that fuel is still migrating through subgrade fissures into the pacific.

    My question is not if a fission based explosion was possible, my question is if one now intentionally inserted a fission based explosion (or perhaps laser) at the fuel would that perhaps fix the area so that radioactive material would not transfer to the ocean? Or would that just make things worse?

    What portion if any of the fuel from the three former cores has been recaptured? I assume zero.

    I'm less interested in the residents moving back than I am with the fuel migrating through whatever containment they have rigged up.

    David

    -----Original Message-----

    From: (redacted)

    Sent: Jun 28, 2017 6:16 AM

    To: David Curtis

    Cc: (redacted)

    Subject: Re: Fukushima aftermath

    Dear David, Thanks for your inquiry with us. We appreciate that you reach out to us.

    We have been involved in measurements in Berkeley since the accident in Japan in March 2011. I have been in Fukushima 15 times now, performing measurements in evacuated areas and soon on the nuclear power plant site. Through our Institute for Resilient Communities, we have also reached out to communities in the Fukushima Prefecture to listen and understand their concerns and share our perspectives. 

    Regarding your concerns about the remaining risks due to leaking water or the fuel debris. Health risks or the risk for re-igniting fission to produce more radioactivity is extremely unlikely. A nuclear or fission-based explosion type event has been impossible from the start (nuclear reactors are not able to produce a nuclear explosion as in an atomic bomb). 

    There have been enormous efforts to maintain the water leakage and to ensure that no more fission is happening. It is indeed very impressive how the water is stored and cleaned. Several walls (out of concrete and ice) have been implemented to reduce the influx of ground water into the plant and leakage of cooling water out of the plant and into the environment including the Pacific Ocean. While there is no 100% protection and prevention of leakage, the leakage is relatively small, if detectable at all. Given the enormous challenges dealing with three reactors, there certainly were problems in containing the radioactive water initially, but by now the walls are in place and most of the stored water has been cleaned from the radioactive fission fragments such as Cs-137 and Cs-134. 

    As Prof. (redacted) indicated, most of the residents are allowed to move back. However, it is 6 years later now and quite a few reasons exists particularly for young families not to move back. One reason is simply that many families have moved on. It is a very complex topic and the reason for us to continue our activities there with our measurements and involvement with residents and communities. 

    I hope this addresses some of your concerns.

    (redacted)

    JUN 28, 17 11:02 AM

    To: (redacted) 
    Cc: (redacted)
    Subject: Re: Fukushima aftermath
    Date: Jun 28, 2017 9:13 AM

    It occurs to me that any subsurface membranes to contain the fuel/water would need to be self healing. That was my intent in the diagrams I posted in 2012 in the public domain. DC

    (emphasis added)

    JUN 28, 17 12:14 PM
  • Trump Tower Writing

    Trump_Tower_Lobby.jpg

    20 June 2017 NY, edits 27 June 2017

    unspeakable things

    Could (the) first family be anymore clearly an expression of predator capitalism? Are markets mostly what is left of democracy?

    We are allowed limited access to this public garden today, limited in that if any of us starts singing, for example, we will be asked to stop, (refusing to stop we will be asked to leave). I am told (indirectly) if we need to go to the toilet, we will be accompanied by security forces, in number, who will witness us urinate (as they pretend to wash their hands).

    (What then is activism during this administration?)

    This (writing) is something I can do. Writing is inherently unspoken (non threatening to my suburban location). To remain polite, an extension of all movement in the city. (One is expected) To remain within acceptable levels of movement and expression. If I remove my clothing for example, the security guards will remove me. If I sing, removal, admonishment and/or then removal.

    The heavily armed man carrying two Starbucks beverages. A show of commerce and weapons. We can come in but only here (the garden), now and in specific ways. I am a guest in this space. It was agreed to (the garden), a condition of the specter of the tower, incremental maintenance of one German named family as a brand. The presidency as a brand. The art of the deal artifice.

    Is the president legitimate? Is this really public space?

    Branded space, branded Trump, branded Starbucks. There is no ceiling here, no obvious security cameras. The opaque spandrel panels, the subtlety of the blue shirted maintenance worker, tipping the metallic tables and chairs to spill the nuisance waters. As long as we play by the rules it is seemingly polite. (There is no Bloody Mary available until after 11am.)

    When will we be allowed to speak of what remains? The left assumes Trump can be removed when he cannot be reached for discussion? Even he disputes the validity of the election results. His version is perhaps that he would have had more margin except for the illegal votes cast. In his mind he clearly must be the winner because obviously the Clintons are corrupt.

    No word of the hundreds of lawsuits against his actions, only how anything potentially effects his family business. The 1970s version of interior design that receives us. The flesh stone, the plated substitutes for gold, the multi levels of visible inclined transport. If you agree to allow this branding, you too can participate, receive momentary access to ascendancy. Be elevated for this specific moment as a concession for the implied monetary dominance his family projects. A projection of a fictional outcome. If one plays by these rules, one family projects its name on to surfaces of earth. The public is allowed this token concession.

    Our group today is all white. We are two male, four female. We are two couples and two singles. One of us is an employee, so to speak, of one of the couples. I am a partner to the employee to one of the couples. I am half of one of the couples. At the moment there is no visible presence of security. The constant exhaust fan buffers the street sounds. If we (announcement: 4 minutes) remain in this space the constant fan noise would eventually degrade our ability to hear.

    (in Casino, Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro meet in the desert with their hands covering their mouths so as not to be surveilled)

    A premise being reinforced: understand, speech is to be limited. Nearly all restaurants do this. The omnipresence of music (despite your choice, against your will) an effect being to limit speech, limit cross speech (cross hearing) reduce the range of any one voice.

    David Curtis, NYC

  • RE ACLU Action Survey

    logo.png

    As long as the CPD controls the POTUS debates we are not going to see progress on most of these (civil liberties) issues. As long as polling excludes 3rd parties we are not going to see progress on most of these issues. As long as the MIC has a 100 yr strategy of "spreading democracy" we are not going to see progress on most of these issues.

    David Curtis

  • Greens protest the CPD at Dominican University

    stein_photo.jpg

     

    photo of Jill Stein at Hofstra Debate in 2012

     

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    September 6, 2016

    Contact:  Laura Wells laurawells510@gmail.com510-504-4254

                    David Curtis davidscurtis@earthlink.net 415-317-4002

    Greens push for open debates at protest Tuesday

    at Dominican University - Similar 2010 demonstration

    led to arrest of the Green Party gubernatorial candidate

    San Rafael, CA - Tuesday, September 6, 2016 - Bay Area Green Party members and supporters will protest the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) at CPD’s student engagement program at Dominican University, 50 Acacia Avenue in San Rafael, outside Angelico Hall, beginning at 12:30 p.m.

    TUESDAY.

    Bay Area Greens report that the CPD and Dominican University have a history of locking the Green Party out of the political discourse and last week the University prohibited Greens Party members from registering voters on campus.

    The Greens didn't say they'd risk arrest Tuesday, but in 2010, Green Party gubernatorial candidate Laura Wells was arrested at Dominican protesting her exclusion from a debate. Wells, who will be at Tuesday's protest, said, “They arrested me at a gubernatorial debate when I was a candidate with a ticket in my hand just trying to be in the audience. The charge was ‘trespassing at a private party‘ — it sure is private, not public as it should be.”  

    The Greens are calling for the presidential debates to include all candidates who are on enough ballots to mathematically win the Presidency, which in 2016 would mean 4 candidates in the debates, including Clinton, Trump, Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

    The Greens object to the CPD’s 15% polling threshold for candidate eligibility in the debates, charging that requirement is designed to exclude emerging party candidates

    Greens point out it's a Catch 22 because, in order for a candidate to get to 15%, a candidate must be able to be presented to voters in a debate.  This is well demonstrated in the historical example of Ross Perot  polling at 7% before he was able to participate in the 1992 Presidential Debate and after the debates, Perot's numbers nearly tripled to 20%. 

    And, Jesse Ventura as an independent (Reform Party) candidate for Governor in 1998 was polling at less than 10 percent before he was allowed to debate against the Democrats and Republicans, and as a result of debating well his support increased and he went on to win.

    The protest of the CPD is taking place at Dominican University as the CPD has partnered with Dominican University to bring 150 college students from across the country together to the campus on September 6 to engage in political dialogue tied into the Presidential Debates. Dominican University's and CPD's program collegedebate16.org claims to be a "non-partisan initiative to empower young voters" to engage in the election and identify issues for the presidential debates.

    The protesters critique the CPD for appearing to be an impartial, public body, when it is actually a private organization run by the Democratic and Republican parties and funded by big business, acting to stifle real democracy by locking out the voices and ideas of independent candidates.  The CPD gained control of the presidential debates after the League of Women Voter's pulled out of the debates in 1988, when the League stated that the “unprecedented control” demanded by the Democrats and Republicans would make the debates “campaign-trail charades” that would “perpetrate fraud on the American voter”. [ http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud ]

    Marilyn Langlois, former Richmond Progressive Alliance candidate for City Council in Richmond, CA, said “I visited friends in Switzerland and Austria this year, and they are all shocked and incredulous when I tell them that all 3rd parties are absolutely excluded from televised presidential debates in the US.” 

    Langlois will participate Tuesday in the action, and present a statement by former Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who said: “Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are militaristic candidates who will not change the very frightening direction in which our country is going.” She added, “Voters need to hear that there are other perspectives out there and the purpose of holding debates is to showcase such differences.”

    Jill Stein’s platform calls for abolishing student debt and other policies attractive to Millennials. In a McClatchy/Marist poll, Jill Stein is polling over 15% among voters younger than 30.  Young Greens point out that the CPD’s exclusion of Jill Stein from the debates, disregards young voters while the CPD simultaneously asks them to promote dialogue related to the Presidential Debates on social media like Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat. Greens expect young voters will not be easily fooled by a rigged system geared toward those candidates who curry corporate money.  And, Greens are committed to calling out organizations like CPD which sports only the veneer of non-partisanship.  

  • GRN tabling at Dominican University

    Hi Hannalore, nice speaking with you today.

    Just a memo of our discussion:

    I spoke with the office of the Univ president, they directed me to you who then offered the (student debate) event was not open to any candidates or parties. You did offer to perhaps let us table in September and suggested you might send an invite to all the parties.

    I suggested that the DU partnering with the CPD is creating a message that only two candidates are being shown to the students.

    You expressed that you understand our point of view but are unable to accommodate us this week.

    I asked if the campus is indeed a private campus and if the events are open to the public and you said it is a private campus and the events are for the students.

    I expressed how it is important that the students be informed that the CPD is only presenting two parties to them.

    Thank you for your time today.

 
Reset the narrative