Natural disaster

மூலம் : மலேசிய நண்பன்


மூலம் : மக்கள் ஓசை


மூலம் : மக்கள் ஓசை

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Source :- BERNAMA

September 06, 2011 13:05 PM

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 6 (Bernama) — Malaysian citizens aged 21 and above can now register online as voters by downloading and filling Form A from the Election Commission’s (EC) website,

EC secretary Datuk Kamaruddin Mohamed Baria said in a statement today that the facility was being provided from today to encourage more citizens to register as voters.

“This is provided for the voter registration assistant registrars and the public, whereby the assistant registrars appointed by the EC can download the Form A according to their needs,” he said.

Before this, they had to obtain the forms from the offices of the state election directors.

Kamaruddin said Malaysian citizens aged 21 and above who had not yet registered as voters, could download and fill Form A. However, they are required to keep a copy for themselves before submitting the downloaded form to the EC voter registration counter.

Information on how to fill up and send in the Form A is provided in the EC website.

More information on the online voter registration can be obtained by calling the EC headquarters in Putrajaya at 03-88856500.

Source: The New York Times

Ko Sasaki for The New York Times

The Chugoku Electric nuclear power plant in Kashima. A third reactor is currently under construction.

By and
Published: May 30, 2011

KASHIMA, Japan — When the Shimane nuclear plant was first proposed here more than 40 years ago, this rural port town put up such fierce resistance that the plant’s would-be operator, Chugoku Electric, almost scrapped the project. Angry fishermen vowed to defend areas where they had fished and harvested seaweed for generations.

Fishermen in Kashima, on the Sea of Japan, fiercely resisted plans for a nuclear plant 40 years ago. Now, many embrace the largess it provided.

Two decades later, when Chugoku Electric was considering whether to expand the plant with a third reactor, Kashima once again swung into action: this time, to rally in favor. Prodded by the local fishing cooperative, the town assembly voted 15 to 2 to make a public appeal for construction of the $4 billion reactor.

Kashima’s reversal is a common story in Japan, and one that helps explain what is, so far, this nation’s unwavering pursuit of nuclear power: a lack of widespread grass-roots opposition in the communities around its 54 nuclear reactors. This has held true even after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami generated a nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi station that has raised serious questions about whether this quake-prone nation has adequately ensured the safety of its plants. So far, it has spurred only muted public questioning in towns like this.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan has, at least temporarily, shelved plans to expand Japan’s use of nuclear power — plans promoted by the country’s powerful nuclear establishment. Communities appear willing to fight fiercely for nuclear power, despite concerns about safety that many residents refrain from voicing publicly.

To understand Kashima’s about-face, one need look no further than the Fukada Sports Park, which serves the 7,500 mostly older residents here with a baseball diamond, lighted tennis courts, a soccer field and a $35 million gymnasium with indoor pool and Olympic-size volleyball arena. The gym is just one of several big public works projects paid for with the hundreds of millions of dollars this community is receiving for accepting the No. 3 reactor, which is still under construction.

As Kashima’s story suggests, Tokyo has been able to essentially buy the support, or at least the silent acquiescence, of communities by showering them with generous subsidies, payouts and jobs. In 2009 alone, Tokyo gave $1.15 billion for public works projects to communities that have electric plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Experts say the majority of that money goes to communities near nuclear plants.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg, experts say, as the communities also receive a host of subsidies, property and income tax revenues, compensation to individuals and even “anonymous” donations to local treasuries that are widely believed to come from plant operators.

Unquestionably, the aid has enriched rural communities that were rapidly losing jobs and people to the cities. With no substantial reserves of oil or coal, Japan relies on nuclear power for the energy needed to drive its economic machine. But critics contend that the largess has also made communities dependent on central government spending — and thus unwilling to rock the boat by pushing for robust safety measures.

In a process that critics have likened to drug addiction, the flow of easy money and higher-paying jobs quickly replaces the communities’ original economic basis, usually farming or fishing.

Nor did planners offer alternatives to public works projects like nuclear plants. Keeping the spending spigots open became the only way to maintain newly elevated living standards.

Experts and some residents say this dependency helps explain why, despite the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the accidents at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants, Japan never faced the levels of popular opposition to nuclear power seen in the United States and Europe — and is less likely than the United States to stop building new plants. Towns become enmeshed in the same circle — which includes politicians, bureaucrats, judges and nuclear industry executives — that has relentlessly promoted the expansion of nuclear power over safety concerns.


NUCLEAR POWER | 21.05.2011


Precautionary measures and routine maintenance have shut down all but four German nuclear power plants. Chancellor Merkel’s Bavarian sister party now says it wants to bring down the curtain on atomic energy altogether.


German power companies have warned consumers that they might face power shortages in the coming weeks, as only four of the country’s 17 nuclear power plants were providing electricity to the national grid starting from Saturday, May 21.


Eight of the stations were taken offline as a result of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s three-month moratorium on a law lengthening the running time of German nuclear plants. This freeze on the extension, introduced in response to the problems at the Fukushima plant in Japan, effectively removed the mandate allowing the oldest stations in the country to operate.


As of Saturday, the Emsland bei Lingen nuclear plant in north-western Germany became the fifth station to close its doors for three weeks of routine maintenance and safety checks, meaning that 13 of the country’s power plants are temporarily out of commission for one reason or another.


The German power grid says it’s currently buying electricity from Poland and the Czech Republic at most times of the day and night.


Bavaria goes anti-nuclear


The Bavarian faction of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative union, the CSU, set its first-ever target for Germany to stop using nuclear power late on Friday, suggesting a total withdrawal by 2022. The markedly conservative group that dominates Bavarian politics held a closed-door meeting for its top brass which ran several hours late as they debated the issue.


Bavarian State Premier Horst Seehofer said providing a fixed date would encourage the energy sector to concentrate on alternative solutions like renewable energies.


“There will only be investment if we establish clarity,” Seehofer said.


This puts the CSU at odds with their national sister-party, Merkel’s CDU, and with their pro-business FDP coalition partners, both of whom have not named a date for nuclear shutdown. Merkel tends to refer to nuclear power as a bridging technology on the path towards increased renewable-usage, but has shied away from any specific timelines.


“There will be very tight-knit solidarity within the Union,” Seehofer said after the meeting, when asked whether his party’s stance could damage relations with the national office. Merkel was also present in Andechs on Friday evening, although officially, she was visiting the after-party, not the CSU debate.


Workers at the Isar I nuclear plant in Bavaria protested the CSU decision, asking party leaders in an official letter to “stop fuelling fear and mistrust of nuclear power among the people.”


Not soon enough?


Germany had been scheduled to stop all nuclear power production by 2020 as part of a legislation introduced by Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democrat and Green coalition, until the current administration overturned this law.


The Social Democrats were also set to debate Germany’s energy policy over the weekend, with party leader Sigmar Gabriel advocating a return to the 2020 shutdown, and a reduced market share for the major players E.On, RWE, Vattenfall and EnBW.


The Green party, meanwhile, says the current government should complete a nuclear withdrawal before the end of the current legislative period in 2017, arguing that events at the Fukushima plant showed that nuclear power is not safe.


For years, Germany’s anti-nuclear movement has been particularly strong, and public opposition has been further fueled first by the government’s new energy policy and then by the earthquake- and tsunami-triggered accident at Fukushima. Poor showings in recent regional elections for Merkel’s conservatives and their liberal allies were perceived in part as a public expression of this dissatisfaction.


Author: Mark Hallam (AFP, dpa, Reuters)

Editor: Toma Tasovac


An open letter from an international group of scientists and engineers

by Dr. Stoyan Sarg Acad. Dr. Asparuh Petrakiev, Dr. Andrew Michrowski, Dr. Victor Zhuravlev, Dr. Todor Proychev

May 14, 2011

The expansion of nuclear power during the past 60 years was dominated by the opinion that there is no alternative to nuclear energy. Presently it provides about 14% of the total energy. The policy makers even envisioned that this would be the energy of the future. The dangerous consequences, however, were not correctly predicted. They include nuclear catastrophes from earthquakes, terrorist attacks, nuclear weapons acquired by rogue regimes, and contamination from radioactive waste. During the last one and a half years, the average rate of the earthquakes increased 3 times, and this trend continues. The main reason for the adopted energy strategy was the lack of fundamental research on alternatives to nuclear energy.

Nuclear energyPresently, the total number of commercial nuclear reactors in the world is 442, the number of research reactors is 250, and the number of reactors in ships and submarines is 180. By countries: USA – 102 and 14 under construction; Europe – 195; Japan – 55; Russia – 45 and 6 under construction; Canada – 20; China – 13  and 25 under construction.

Radioactive spill and contamination may come not only from nuclear accidents, but also from the highly radioactive waste material. This waste grows by 12,000 metric tons per year—a volume equivalent to 100 double-decker buses or a two-story building with a footprint the size of a basketball court. By year 2015, it will reach about 250,000 tons. Its management is problematic, and there is a constant leak ending in the food chain, but this is not sensational enough to catch the media’s attention. The nuclear catastrophes in Chernobyl[1] and recently in Japan[2] show that they are unpredictable, and the consequences, unmanageable.[3] A similar disaster might happen in any country relying on nuclear power. The radioactive contamination of the atmosphere and the ocean with its long-term health consequences is equally hazardous for the population of all countries.

Are there alternative options that can replace nuclear power? From a scientific point of view, a solution exists, but it has been neglected for decades. Specifically, we must re-evaluate what is currently being taught in the universities concerning the concept of space as “the physical vacuum”. The concept of the physical vacuum adopted at the beginning of the 20th century does not correspond to reality. That is why a wide range of phenomena cannot be explained logically. While human logic is blamed for the failure, the enigmas themselves are indications that some of the adopted assumptions are wrong.

Since mathematical logic does not have the restrictions of physical reality, abstract theories can be built which are based on wrong assumptions. But sooner or later, physical phenomena will be encountered that cannot be explained by such theories. This kind of physics does not offer a complete understanding of processes in the micro cosmos. According to current teaching in physics, nuclear energy arises from the nuclear forces, yet the physical origin of these forces is a mystery. Why? This is because according to the currently adopted concept, the space is empty, while at the same time it has quantum mechanical properties. Many physics scholars are not aware that in 1922 Albert Einstein came to the conclusion that there is an indispensable need for a space-filling ether. “According to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Ether. According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable.”[4] Much accumulated evidence now indicates that space contains a unique superfine but dense lattice structure whose elements are far beyond the reach of the most powerful electron microscopes. It possesses not only quantum mechanical properties but also defines the speed of light, the relativistic effects, the propagation of Newtonian gravitation, inertia, and the electrical and magnetic fields. In contemporary physics, only some of the properties of this structure are described by mathematical expressions, while its existence is dismissed. This leads to incomplete knowledge of some essential physical processes at the level of the micro cosmos.

The correct understanding of these processes is of vital importance now at the time of the global energy crisis. The main question is: Is there a safer replacement for nuclear energy? The correct answer is: Yes! It comes from the revised concept of space—the physical vacuum [5,6,7]. The superfine structure of the physical vacuum is a source of two types of primary energy: (1) Static Energy not of EM type related to gravitational mass with a detectable signature: Casimir Forces; and (2) Dynamic type of energy (lower amount), which is behind the electrical and magnetic fields and has a detectable signature of 2.72K estimated from the Cosmic Microwave Background.[6] THE STATIC TYPE OF ENERGY IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY. IT IS NOT CONTAINED IN NUCLEI BUT IS UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED IN SPACE, SO EVERY CUBIC CM CONTAINS 1.37 E20 JOULES = 3.8 E13 (KWH) OF THIS ENERGY. IT IS ALSO THE SOURCE OF THE DYNAMIC TYPE OF ENERGY, KNOWN AS ZERO POINT ENERGY (ZPE), WHICH COULD BE REACHED BY SPECIFIC ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTIONS.

The alternative solution for replacement of the energy from nuclear plants will come from development of other methods and techniques for extracting energy from the primary source (1) mentioned above. The theoretical understanding of this non-EM type of energy is elaborated in the treatise BSM – Supergravitation Unified Theory (BSM-SG).[6]  The theory also describes the structural features of the electron[8] that permitted to suggest a method for accessing this hidden space energy. The method, called the “Heterodyne Resonance Mechanism,”[9] involves an electromagnetically activated plasma where quantum mechanical interactions occur between oscillating ion-electron pairs and the space-time continuum.  Other alternatives to nuclear power, such as Cold Fusion and Torsion technologies, access the same primary source and they also lack official support.[10]

In the university text books of the past 50 years, information that could challenge the validity of the ether concept was gradually excluded, so generations of physicist are presently unaware of the problems discussed amongst physicists in the first half of the 20th century. Since the ether was not accepted, it could not be envisioned as the primary source of nuclear energy. This has had a direct impact on research that might lead to alternatives to nuclear power. Although such research has not been officially funded, it has been addressed by some lone researchers and research groups. In the time of the Internet, this new research, known as free energy, zero point energy, or energy from the vacuum, has spread to different countries. It involves individuals or collaborating groups. Without funded scientific research, however, the physics is not well understood and the positive results are sporadic or not reproducible. The lack of official support, as well as opposition from some established scientific groups, diverts attention from this research. One additional concern, expressed by us, is the need for simultaneous research on the side effects. When exceeding some power level the Zeropoint energy devices may radiate scalar (longitudinal) waves that have some biological effects. Most individual researchers are not aware of this issue. One should remember that the adoption of nuclear energy, for example, was preceded by decades of scientific research on radioactivity. Consequently, the new technology based on the energy from the physical vacuum may not be suitable for use in the home, so it should still be centralized. The most suitable location initially will be the nuclear plant locations, where the existing infrastructure may be used for power distribution.

In conclusion:

Environmental damage with health consequences from a nuclear catastrophe is a more immediate threat than global warming.  Alternatives to nuclear energy based on methods not recognized so far must be considered, such as the possibility of accessing the energy of the physical vacuum by the Heterodyne Resonance Mechanism. The need for scientific research on these alternatives must be officially recognized and funded. Implementations of promising technologies could be made available in the very near future. The safer replacement of nuclear energy will not eliminate the need for oil, but could ease the tension caused by gradually shrinking oil resources.

Note: List of most dangerous radioactive products. The video [11] shows how they are detected and the units of measurements.

Iodine-131: half-life of 8 days, accumulates in the thyroid gland

Cesium-134: half-life of 3.25 yrs; and Cesium-137: half-life of 30 yrs, water soluble, penetrates into the soil and the food chain through plants and animals, causes muscle tumors

Strontium-90: half-life of 30 yrs, penetrates through skin, in bone marrow causes leukemia.

Plutonium-239: half-life of 14.4 yrs, the main and most dangerous product of the nuclear fuel, difficult to detect alpha emitter. A micrograms dose of Plutonium leads to ill conditions, with a life expectancy of less than ten years.[12]

About the authors:

Dr. Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, 35 years in space research institutions of Europe, USA and Canada, currently with York University, Toronto, experimenter and theorist, author of monographs: BSM-SG Unified Theory and Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity, international collaborator with ZPE research groups, over 80 scientific publications.

Acad. Dr. Asparuh Petrakiev (two doctorates), a retired professor who has had a broad international collaboration, (professor in Department of Nuclear Physics, Sofia University, /1963-78/, senior fellow researcher in KFA-Julich, Germany as a member of the International Agency for Atomic Energy, Vienna /1974-75/), a member of the International Academy of Ecology and Life Protection Science, over 300 scientific publications.

Dr. Andrew Michrowski, Dott. Arch, President of the Planetary Association for Clean Energy, a Canadian Learned Society and an international collaborative network of advanced scientific thinking with an emphasis on peer review of fundamentals of advanced physics and electrodynamics. Over 100 scientific publications.

Dr. Victor Zhuravlev, Novosibirsk, Russia, former Director of the Filial of Sibir’s Center for Anomalous Phenomena, Novosibirsk, multidisciplinary research including: mechanisms of chemical reaction – radiolysis, termolysis, photolysis, and search for new energy sources.

Dr. Todor Proychev, a retired professor with an European international collaboration in the field of control engineering, over 60 scientific publications.

Private researchers, supporting the need to study energy alternatives to nuclear power:

Nikolaos Balaskas, Physicist, nuclear plant operator trainee and seismologist, currently with York University

Vasilj Petrovic, O. Eng. PgMP, PMP Secretary for Canada of  Nikola Tesla Society of New York

David Marrett, Physicist, Heliognosis, ZPE researcher, Toronto, Canada

William Treurniet, Research scientist (retired), Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada

Peter Turrell, expertise in the radioactive contamination of environment, Millennium Institution, Canada

Knud Jespersen, Engineer, Former President of Infinite Energy Corp., Toronto, Canada

Joseph Kennedy, Engineer, President of WCI Environmental Solutions Inc., Ottawa, Canada

Penn Penev, Engineer, alternative energy researcher, Toronto, Canada

Dechko Dechev, Engineer, alternative energy researcher, Bulgaria

Allen A. Rutke, Lasertek Precision Cutting, Canada


[1] The True Battle of Chernobyl Uncensored,


[3] A. V. Yablokov, V. B. Nesterenko, A. V. Nesterenko, Chernobyle Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, N. Y. Academy of Sciences, (2009),

[4] A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, translated by: G. B. Jeffery and W. Perret, Methuen & Co. London, (1922); republished by Dover, New York, (1983), p. 23.

[5] S. Sarg (2002)

[6] S. Sarg, Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory, NLC archive 2002, Trafford Publ. (2006), Chapter 5.

[7] Review of S. Sarg books, Physics in Canada, v. 62, No. 4,  206-207, (2006).

[8] S. Sarg, Physical model of the electron according to BSM, Physics essays, v. 16, No 2, 180-185, (2003)

[9] S. Sarg, Field propulsion by control of gravity – theory and experiments,, (2009)

[10] E. Mallove, Open letter to the World, (2004),


[12] Voelz, George L. “Plutonium and Health: How great is the risk?”. Los Alamos Science (Los Alamos (NM): Los Alamos National Laboratory) (26): 78–79, (2000)

Source: Guang Ming

  • 查爾斯(左)評擊警方持有雙重標准。左2起巴生市議員楊文來、范新麟與巴生社青團團長黃進興。(圖:光明日報)

(雪 蘭莪‧巴生20日訊)巴生區國會議員查爾斯抨擊警方持有雙重標準,針對他於4月3日號召的“反對建核電廠集會”採以嚴正管制,並指他抵觸警方法令第25條 文,但同一時間卻任由反對雪州不法陣線(Gaps)在巴生北區警局前大動作的舉行抗議行動,並且未有採取任何對付行動。












Next Page »