How to lose your job?

More Here

Nuclear power can never be made safe, never.

Victims of Chernobyl

With the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, some people ask: can nuclear power be made safe? The answer is no. Nuclear power can never be made safe.
This was clearly explained by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the "father" of the U.S. nuclear navy and in charge of construction of the first nuclear power plant in the nation, Shippingport in Pennsylvania. Before a committee of Congress, as he retired from the navy in 1982, Rickover warned of the inherent lethality of nuclear power -- and urged that "we outlaw nuclear reactors."
The basic problem: radioactivity.

"I'll be philosophical," testified Rickover. "Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on Earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn't have any life -- fish or anything." This was from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation when the Earth was in the process of formation. "Gradually," said Rickover, "about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet ... reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin."

"Now, when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible," he said. "Every time you produce radiation" a 'horrible force' is unleashed. By splitting the atom, people are recreating the poisons that precluded life from existing. "And I think there the human race is going to wreck itself," Rickover stated.

This was Rickover, a key figure in nuclear power history, not Greenpeace.

The problem is radioactivity -- unleashed when the atom is split. And it doesn't matter whether it's a General Electric boiling water reactor such as those that have erupted at Fukushima, or the Westinghouse pressurized water design, or Russian-designed plants like Chernobyl, or the "new, improved" nuclear plants being touted by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a nuclear scientist and zealous promoter of nuclear technology. All nuclear power plants produce radiation as well as radioactive poisons like the Cesium-137, Iodine-131 and Strontium-90 that have been -- and continue to be -- spewed from the Fukushima plants.
Upon contact with life, these toxins destroy life. So from the time they're produced in a nuclear plant to when they're taken out as hotly radioactive "nuclear waste," they must be isolated from life -- for thousands, for some millions of years.

Karl Grossman in The Huffington Post. More Here

Is India's GDP growth for Real?

Now, consider this. Assume that the 2009 drought had not happened. With the monsoon behaving normally, foodgrain production would have hovered around 232 to 234 million tonnes. If the foodgrain production had remained around twhat was achieved in 2008-09, this year's foodgrain production would not have shown a quantum jump of 14 million tonnes. Under the best of conditions, India could have claimed an increase in foodgrain production by say 2-3 million tonnes.

If the foodgrain production last year had remained at 230 million tonnes or more, the agriculture growth this year would not have been 5.4 per cent but somewhere in the range of 0.5 to 1 per cent. If the farm growth rate had remained at 1 or a maximum of even 2 per cent, the country's GDP would have been around 6 per cent.

The GDP estimates for 2010-11 therefore are fake.

As I said earlier, mere fluctuations in foodgrain production is not growth. In agriculture, it is wrong to compute growth based on annual production figures (now it is being done on a quarterly basis). Growth in foodgrain productions has to be estimated on a long-term basis, in any case not for a period less than an average of 5 years, to know whether there has truly been any growth or not.

Devinder Sharma in The Huffington Post. More Here.

Egypt fallout: "Will Saudi Arabia be Next?"

There is the thinking along conventional lines that if Tunisia, Egypt and Libya fall, then so must Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

The jury is out on Bahrain, although it does not look good for the Sunni monarchy. But Saudi Arabia? There is no question the Saudi government is a little more than nervous about the Shi'a-led protests in Bahrain. It is impossible to predict what the end result means to the Kingdom, but there is the odor of hope in the western media that Saudi Arabia will fall with the endless coverage of "Will Saudi Arabia Be Next?"

This leads me to wonder whether foreign policy analysts and so-called Middle East experts are being deliberately obtuse about Saudi Arabia's future. Since when do 465 people signing a Facebook Saudi "Day of Rage" page constitute a brewing revolution in a country of 16 million Saudis? It appears that most of the petitioners are non-Saudis with more than a few living outside the Kingdom. I am all for the democratic reforms they demand. However, will a thousand or even 465 people stage a demonstration in Riyadh on March 11 or March 20, or whatever day they decide, to vent their rage? Maybe, but the support from most Saudis is likely to be from the comfort of their homes while watching them on Al Jeezera.

Much is made of the couple dozen Saudi women staging a demonstration in Riyadh demanding the release of their men from custody because they have been charged with no crimes. Several dozen expatriate workers demonstrated in Makkah because they have not been paid. Legitimate grievances, sure. But are these public demonstrations out of the ordinary? No. Has anyone seen Saudi tribes gather in the desert for a meeting with an emir over water issues? I would not want to be on the receiving end of a finger wagging from a Bedouin tribal leader with an entire village standing behind him.

The west's argument that Saudi Arabia is poised to erupt in revolution is found in the reports about King Abdullah allocating an estimated $36 billion in social benefits to Saudis. The benefits will provide home loans, funding for NGOs, 15 percent fixed raises for government employees, scholarship money for Saudis studying abroad at their own expense and unemployment benefits.

News outlets ranging from Investment Watch to the Washington Post and the New York Times assert the money is simply to stave off protests with a Band-Aid. One BBC commentator likened the benefits to "bribery" to keep Saudis quiet.

One must wonder where these news organizations have been for the past five years. The Saudi government has been issuing these types of social welfare benefits annually since King Abdullah became the Kingdom's leader in 2005. Each year, usually in December, the Saudi government allocates massive funds to help Saudis keep pace with inflation, build more schools and universities, and send Saudis abroad for a western education. This year's announcement of providing unemployment benefits is not only new, but historic. Yet it is consistent with previous fund distribution schemes since 2005. This year's allocation occurred in February and not December because the King has been in Morocco for medical treatment.

It is convenient, if not lazy, to place the social benefits package in the context of the regional uprisings, but a look into the archives of any Saudi newspaper tells the story of consistent annual fund allocations for similar programs.

The Saudi government has been on a reform binge for five years, but its sometimes lethargic pace has little to do with the will of the government, but with some Saudis who have their own agenda. They have only their interests in mind, and government transparency and efforts to end corruption threaten those interests.

The true discontent among many Saudis is the lack of accountability for the rampant government corruption and the lack of transparency in how the government goes about its business. It botched the follow up to the 2005 municipal elections by not holding further voting, but I am not sure the average Saudi's interests truly lie in local elections.

There is no question now that Saudi Arabia needs to pick up the pace of reform. It cannot allow special interest groups in various government ministries to continue dragging their feet to implement programs ordered by the king. But the simplistic thinking that the Saudi government unleashed this huge sum of money to keep the Facebook revolutionaries at bay is laughable.

Sabria Jawhar in the Huffington Post. More Here.

Is it a leaderless revolution?

The revolution was successful because it had no leaders, only coordinators of bottom up energy. Its use of social media was brilliantly conceived to meld online organizing with offline action, not supplant it. The inability of older generations to understand the power of this new form of leadership among Egypt's, and ultimately the world's, young people suggests there will be many more such surprises in the future, both at home and abroad.

It's not surprising that the facility of young people in using new technology is the first thing older generations notice and comment upon when talking about "kids today."

Many older people, however, fail to look beyond those surface behaviors to the deeper values that now animate young people around the world. The belief of the emerging generation in democratic values, in the ability of people to govern themselves, free from dictation from above, and in the power of individual initiative to inspire collective action on behalf of the community's greater good, determine the way young people use technology, not the other way around.

All of those attitudes and values were in clear evidence in Egypt over the last few weeks, reminding those clinging to power and outdated perceptions of how to hold onto it, that a new generation has arrived. Like their civic-oriented counterparts in America eight decades ago, this century's emerging generation has a "rendezvous with destiny" and will lead the world in entirely new ways into a new era.

Michael Hais and Morly Winograd in The Huffington Post. More Here.