Peter Fainton's blog

Billions Will Die If Iran Bombed

A recent paper published by Dr. Helfand estimated the human and climatic consequences of limited regional nuclear war.[1] Although Dr. Helfand considered the conflict between two nuclear armed states, the consequences are likely to be similar if active nuclear reactors and materials in Iran are subjected to nuclear bombing by the United States or Israel.

In his paper Dr Helfand said:” The recent study by Robock et al on the climatic consequences of regional nuclear war shows that even a “limited” nuclear conflict, involving as few as 100 Hiroshima-sized bombs, would have global implications with significant cooling of the earth's surface and decreased precipitation in many parts of the world. A conflict of this magnitude could arise between emerging nuclear powers such as India and Pakistan. Past episodes of abrupt global cooling, due to volcanic activity, caused major crop failures and famine; the predicted climate effects of a regional nuclear war would be expected to cause similar shortfalls in agricultural production. In addition large quantities of food might need to be destroyed and significant areas of crop land might need to be taken out of production because of radioactive contamination.”

He added: “ Even a modest, sudden decline in agricultural production could trigger significant increases in the prices for basic foods and hoarding on a global scale, both of which would make food inaccessible to poor people in much of the world. While it is not possible to estimate the precise extent of the global famine that would follow a regional nuclear war, it seems reasonable to postulate a total global death toll in the range of one billion from starvation alone. Famine on this scale would also lead to major epidemics of infectious diseases, and would create immense potential for war and civil conflict.”

Dr Helfand is not the only commentator to raise concerns about the human consequences of nuclear war. Two respected organisations, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Physicians for Social Responsibility, have been raising concerns for some years.[2],[3]

Bombing targets for at least 10,000 facilities in Iran have been identified by U.S. military planners.[4] Primary targets include Iran’s nuclear facilities at Bushehr, Natanz, and Esfahan. Bushehr is an industrial city with a population of around 1 million people. Esfahan has a population of around 2 million people. Natanz is Iran’s primary enrichment site.

China and Israel have recently reported that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor has 82 tons of enriched uranium (U235) loaded into it as the plant is scheduled to become operational this summer, producing electricity. The IAEA reports that the Natanz enrichment facility is running at full capacity producing enriched uranium for use in nuclear reactors.

You need around 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (HEU) 235 for a nuclear weapon. Uranium 235, as used in nuclear reactors has a half-life of 700 million years. Although stable, radioactive isotopes, such as uranium 235 are hazardous to human health because they emit alpha particles which are chemically toxic if ingested or breathed in by human beings. Inhaling causes lung tissue damage and lung cancer. Ingestion causes kidney and liver damage along with bone cancer.[5],[6]

Ignoring for the moment the effects of intentionally bombing an active nuclear reactor on the yield of any nuclear weapon used - which could be catastrophic - a nuclear strike on an active reactor would release a particle matter dust cloud of uranium 235 particles into the atmosphere.

The fallout pattern would be dependent on prevailing atmospheric conditions and wind-stream weather patterns active at the time of bombing. The radioactive fallout might be carried north into Europe. Depleted uranium (DU238) shells were used during the 2003 attack upon Iraq by the U.S. and U.K. military. Air sample filters measured in England showed a 300% increase in uranium particles, directly attributable to DU weapons, 9 days after the attack.

The 1981 study by Fetter and Tsipis in Scientific American on “Catastrophic Releases of Radioactivity” estimated that bombing a nuclear reactor would cause 8600 square miles around the reactor to be uninhabitable, depending on which way the wind blows. It would also mean that half the world’s oil would no longer be accessible.[4]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that:”

Bombs and explosions can cause unique patterns of injury seldom seen outside combat. The predominant post explosion injuries among survivors involve standard penetrating and blunt trauma. Blast lung is the most common fatal injury among initial survivors. Explosions in confined spaces (mines, buildings, or large vehicles) and/or structural collapse are associated with greater morbidity and mortality.

Any U.S. air assault would not be limited to the use of high explosive weapons, however. Attacks on hardened and buried facilities would very likely also involve the use of both thermobaric and depleted uranium weapons. Thermobaric weapons produce a fireball capable of reaching temperatures up to 3000°C and blast overpressure in excess of 430 pound per square inch (psi). The fireball not only burns, it creates a vacuum which kills everything in its path. The primary injury mechanisms are blast and heat, with secondary effects from flying fragments and toxic detonation gases. The “kill radius” for the blast is usually greater than that for burns, so that protection against thermal injuries has little benefit. Blast injuries include internal injuries that can be difficult to diagnose and treat without sophisticated medical support.

Depleted Uranium (DU) is used to ensure that a high explosive charge or kinetic warhead penetrates a hardened target. Depleted uranium is both a radiological and chemical toxic hazard. As an emitter of alpha radiation, it is potentially carcinogenic and mutagenic. Because DU is also a heavy metal, it can produce kidney damage.”[8]

Releasing large quantities of uranium into Earth’s atmosphere by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would have catastrophic effects on all life on the planet, particularly human life. On the dangers of uranium The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state: “

Uranium-235 (U-235) 
Half-life: 700 million years
Uranium-238 (U-238)
Half-life: 4.47 billion years

How can it hurt me?

Because uranium decays by alpha particles, external exposure to uranium is not as dangerous as exposure to other radioactive elements because the skin will block the alpha particles. Ingestion of high concentrations of uranium, however, can cause severe health effects, such as cancer of the bone or liver. Inhaling large concentrations of uranium can cause lung cancer from the exposure to alpha particles. Uranium is also a toxic chemical, meaning that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.”[9]

[1] Dr Helfand Paper

[2] Union of Concerned Scientists

[3] Physicians for Social Responsibility

[4] Floyd Rudmin Article

[5] Key Nuclear Explosive Materials

[6] Centre For Disease Control

[7] Fallout Fact Sheet

[8] War is Not The Answer

[9] Centre for Disease Control

Murdoch's Times Threatens Media-Lens With Legal Action

Billionaire media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, has threatened the shoestring media critics, media-lens, with legal and police action in a bid to silence their criticism.

In a post on their website speaking about the incident the Media Lens editors, David Edwards and David Cromwell said: "On June 28 and July 3, Media Lens received repeated threats of both legal and police action from Alastair Brett, legal manager of News International’s Times Newspapers. Brett claimed Times journalist Bronwen Maddox had been subject to “vexatious and threatening” emails from Media Lens readers, which constituted “harassment”. If this did not stop, Brett told us, he would notify the police who might wish to investigate the matter with a view to bringing a criminal prosecution. As former New Statesman editor, Peter Wilby, noted in his Guardian article on the Times threat, this was no joke - prosecution for criminal harassment “can lead to six months' imprisonment or, if a court order is breached, up to five years”."

The Media Lens 'alert' which triggered the confrontation included email comments from Times journalist Bronwen Maddox which explained why she'd ignored the United States most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) over Iran's nuclear programme. The NIE report, published last November, summarised the work of the 16 American intelligence agencies. The report disclosed that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapons development programme for the previous four years: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme." And: "We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon."

The Maddox article that Media Lens were challenging appeared in Rupert Murdoch's The Times newspaper on June 17, titled: “The Wrong Timing is Right for Tougher Sanctions with Iran”. Maddox's article was written as a 'scare piece' in order to frighten the public over the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and she dismissed the NIE as a propaganda coup for Iran.

Billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, used News International’s top legal manager, Alastair Brett, to silence media lens's criticism of the Maddox article by threatening legal action on the pretext of breached copyright of email correspondence between Maddox and media lens, along with the claim of harassment. Murdoch clearly doesn't want any interruption to the propaganda role of his newspapers and journalists from media critics, as they prepare public opinion for war with Iran.

Frightening the public with scare stories is a key propaganda role for journalists. [3] As Hermann Goering noted:

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Of course, to scare the public you need first to convince them that the threat from WMD is real, even if it turns out to be non-existent - as with Iraq.[2] Otherwise you lack the pretext for a military attack and the public would be outraged by such blatant aggression.

The billionaire, Rupert Murdoch, is asserting his right to employ journalists to write propaganda scare stories in order to massage public opinion for war, without interference from media critics. In response to a further media lens alert on this matter I sent the following email to The Times Letters :[4]

Sir,

it might help if your journalists who are writing scare stories about Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons actually produced some facts and evidence to support their assertions. Threatening to bring legal action against the media critics, media lens, simply reinforces the fact that The Times newspaper cannot substantiate the claims made by its own reporters in this regard. I understood that the first rule of journalism was to ensure the accuracy of the facts one is conveying to so many people.[1] Your readers should note that this rule as been replaced at The Times by: threaten anyone who questions your reporters assertions with legal action.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Fainton

[1] reference link

[2] Remember all those scare stories in the press about Iraq's WMD? Here's how Andrew Marr explains how the quality press make stuff up in his book 'My Trade', pp.53-54:

"He [Blair] was asked about the nuclear threat, yet again. And again he was general about it. Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear weapons and would get them some time. But as he'd said before, for four long years there had been no inspections. Here was the root of world scepticism: why now?

Was Britain really threatened by him? Blair answered that we were: if Saddam began a new war in the Middle East, we'd be drawn in as we were in the Gulf War. 'British interests' would be threatened. So much, so obvious. He wouldn't talk about timetables. There was nothing really newsy. It was frankly disappointing. As the journalists milled around afterwards, the Sunday reporters were under immediate pressure to deliver. Several thought 'Saddam's Nuclear Threat to Britain' was the headline...

By the time some of the Sunday's had done their work , you would have thought a nuclear strike on Birmingham was only weeks away. This distortion did not annoy Blair's team. Far from it. It helped them in their task of trying to move public opinion towards war; yet it did so in a way that could not be blamed on Blair. He had chosen his words carefully. Journalists had hyped them up in a way that was hugely helpful.

Number Ten benefited. The reporters benefited: they had justified their expensive airline tickets and salaries for another week. The newspapers benefited; they had strong-looking, dramatic front page stories that might help win sales in shops and petrol stations. Only the public had been short-changed. They had been given a story which happened to be a scare story. Some of them would remember and mistrust the news a little more next time. A handful might even stop buying the paper. But most would forget the distortion. Nuance doesn't make for good headlines...

Soon, photocopies of the Sunday front pages were faxed to the Downing Street staffers with us, who passed them around. There were hoots of laughter and wry grins at the spine-chilling headlines and shameless overwriting."

[3] Public Opinion, by Walter Lippmann

[4] In response to the original alert I sent the following email to The Times journalist Bronwen Maddox, for which, as yet, I've received no reply:

Dear Ms Maddox,

I’m writing in response to your June 17 article in The Times “The Wrong Timing is Right for Tougher Sanctions with Iran”: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/bronwen_maddox/article4152213.ece

You say: “Gordon Brown was right yesterday to threaten Iran with tougher sanctions immediately”. Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Gordon Brown is unelected by anyone, let alone the British people, even if he had been what right does he have to threaten other countries? Isn’t this an act of state terrorism, as defined by the United States Congress? [1] Clearly it is dangerous behaviour, based upon the presupposition that “we rule the world” and therefore have the authority to threaten other countries in order to influence their policy by coercion and intimidation.

You go on: “The real task is to agree on ways of disrupting its [Iran’s] import of petrol and export of oil and gas.” Would you be happy for Iran to propose ways to disrupt Britain’s imports of petrol and our exports of oil and gas? Would you be Happy if Iran was calling for economic sanctions on Britain to coerce us to behave in ways that they commanded? If not, why do you consider it acceptable behaviour to advocate this kind of behaviour from your own government?

The presumption that Iran is enriching uranium to produce a bomb has no evidence to support it. Even the United States most recent National Intelligence Estimate admitted it had no evidence that Iran was trying to produce nuclear weapons and it’s perfectly entitled to develop nuclear technology for peaceful means. Why are you advocating “picking a fight” with Iran, when no one has produced any evidence that they have done anything wrong?

With Israel reportedly running dummy bombing missions of Iran there could not be a worse time to start massaging public opinion for another war and provoking our politicians into more gung-ho military adventures in pursuit of other people’s oil. You should be ashamed of yourself advocating more violence and state-sponsored terrorism on the basis of no evidence.

Regards,

Peter Fainton

[1] “An act of terrorism, means any activity that [A] involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and [B] appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2, par 3077, 98 STAT: 2707.

I might have added that the action Maddox advocated is also in direct contravention of the United Nations Charter.

Crewe & Nantwich biased BBC Coverage - formal complaint to the BBC

Crewe & Nantwich by-election coverage by the BBC

On-line article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412261.stm

States:" The exchanges came as the three main parties took to the streets of Crewe for the final day of campaigning." Under a picture featuring Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates prominently placed at the head of the article. Newsnight, last night, featured representatives from Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem Parties (Geoff Hoon, Michael Gove, Vince Cable) who Jeremy Paxman questioned in relation to the 'main' party campaigns, along with a selected audience - selection criteria not disclosed.

The parties which the BBC refers to as the 'main' parties remain so partly due to biased coverage and promotion of these parties by the public service broadcaster the BBC. This free promotion is not afforded to independent candidates and the other 'minor' parties, who are marginalised by this biased coverage. The people don't know about the other parties partly because the BBC denies them the oxygen of publicity for their campaigns, thus narrowing the political debate and the political spectrum by biased coverage. None of the political parties which the BBC calls the 'main' parties have a membership of greater than 200,000 members from an adult voting population in excess of 42 million people. By promoting the views and agendas of these minority parties as the 'main' parties, the BBC are helping to entrench a narrow and unrepresentative group in political power. This is not what people pay the BBC a license fee for, and it's essentially anti-democratic in nature.

Article mentioned has since been updated: http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/124881/diff/4/5