East Coast Expecting The Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/x_large/public/201507/usgs-earthquake-map_0.jpgUnited States Fault Lines Map – Earthquakes could also happen in East Coast and in the Midwest Cites

[BestSyndication News] Earthquakes are always a concern out in Alaska and in California, as it is full of fault lines that are continually shifting. There are some fault lines that are overdue to shift, especially the California San Andres fault line that runs through the mountain ranges and close to Wrightwood. But did you know there is a United States Fault Lines Map that illustrates great potentials for earthquakes outside of our state?

New Madrid Fault Line

The New Madrid Fault Line has records of over 4000 earthquake reports since 1974. This fault line is also called the New Madrid Seismic Zone and has potential to devastate the states of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. The biggest part of the New Madrid Fault Line sits in Missouri.

We often forget that this Midwestern fault line is there, but in 1811-1812 there was a series of earthquakes that shook with estimated magnitudes of 8.1 – 8.3, with several aftershocks of 6.0 magnitudes. Since those big ones, the largest earthquake that this fault line produced was in a 6.6-magnitude quake that happened on October 31, 1895. It’s epicenter was in Charleston, Missouri.The damage from these earthquakes were extensive, and there has been recent speculation by the scientific community that believe that this fault line might be shutting down and moving elsewhere. In an issue of Nature, scientist believe the current seismic activity at the New Madrid Fault line is only aftershocks from the earthquake back in 1811 and 1812.

Ramapo Fault Line

The Ramapo Fault Line spans 300 kilometers and affects the states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. These faults run between the Appalachian Mountains and Piedmont areas to the east.

This fault remains relatively inactive, but scientists believe that it could produce some serious earthquakes. There was a study completed in 2008 that believes a 6 – 7 magnitude earthquake will very likely occur from this fault line. The last time this fault was the most active was believed to be 200 million years ago.

San Andreas Fault Line

The last few years Southern California has been preparing for the next big one with government sponsored Earthquake Drills. Scientist are predicting that the next big one with a magnitude of a 7.0 or higher for this fault line will happen any time, it could be now or 10 years from now. They believe the areas that are going to be hit the hardest are going to be Palm Springs and a number of other cities in San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties in California, and Mexicali municipality in Baja California.

To learn more about earthquakes you can visit http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/

The Truth About Nuclear Winter

We are all familiar with the climate change denial of Donald Trump and the US Republican Party. Motivated by the greed of giant fossil fuel corporations, climate change denial contradicts the research of the vast majority of scientists and endangers the futire of human civilization and the biosphere.

There exists another very similar greed-motivated denial: It is the denial of the peer-reviewed scientific research on the environmental effects of a nuclear war. In this case, the greed is that of the military-industrial complex against which US President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his famous farewell address.

The danger of a catastrophic nuclear war casts a dark shadow over the future of our species. It also casts a very black shadow over the future of the global environment. The environmental consequences of a massive exchange of nuclear weapons have been treated in a number of studies by meteorologists and other experts from both East and West. They predict that a large-scale use of nuclear weapons would result in fire storms with very high winds and high temperatures, which would burn a large proportion of the wild land fuels in the affected nations. The resulting smoke and dust would block out sunlight for a period of many months, at first only in the northern hemisphere but later also in the southern hemisphere.

Temperatures in many places would fall far below freezing, and much of the earth’s plant life would be killed. Animals and humans would then die of starvation. The nuclear winter effect was first discovered as a result of the Mariner 9 spacecraft exploration of Mars in 1971. The spacecraft arrived in the middle of an enormous dust-storm on Mars, and measured a large temperature drop at the surface of the planet, accompanied by a heating of the upper atmosphere. These measurements allowed scientists to check their theoretical models for predicting the effect of dust and other pollutants distributed in planetary atmospheres.

Using experience gained from the studies of Mars, R.P. Turco, O.B. Toon, T. Ackerman, J.B. Pollack and C. Sagan made a computer study of the climatic effects of the smoke and dust that would result from a large-scale nuclear war. This early research project is sometimes called the TTAPS Study, after the initials of the authors.

In April 1983, a special meeting was held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the results of the TTAPS Study and other independent studies of the nuclear winter effect were discussed by more than 100 experts. Their conclusions were presented at a forum in Washington, D.C., the following December, under the chairmanship of U.S. Senators Kennedy and Hatfield. The numerous independent studies of the nuclear winter effect all agreed of the following main predictions:

High-yield nuclear weapons exploded near the earth’s surface would put large amounts of dust into the upper atmosphere. Nuclear weapons exploded over cities, forests, oilfields and refineries would produce fire storms of the type experienced in Dresden and Hamburg after incendiary bombings during the Second World War. The combination of high-altitude dust and lower altitude soot would prevent sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface, and the degree of obscuration would be extremely high for a wide range of scenarios.

The temperature inversion produced in this way would lead to superstability, a condition in which the normal mixing of atmospheric layers is suppressed. The hydrological cycle (which normally takes moist air from the oceans to a higher and cooler level, where the moisture condenses as rain) would be strongly suppressed. Severe droughts would thus take place over continental land masses. The normal cleansing action of rain would be absent in the atmosphere, an effect which would prolong the nuclear winter.

In the northern hemisphere, forests would die because of lack of sunlight, extreme cold, and drought. Although the temperature drop in the southern hemisphere would be less severe, it might still be sufficient to kill a large portion of the tropical forests, which normally help to renew the earth’s oxygen.

The oxygen content of the atmosphere would then fall dangerously, while the concentration of carbon dioxide and oxides of nitrogen produced by firestorms would remain high. The oxides of nitrogen would ultimately diffuse to the upper atmosphere, where they would destroy the ozone layer.

Thus, even when the sunlight returned after an absence of many months, it would be sunlight containing a large proportion of the ultraviolet frequencies which are normally absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere, and therefore a type of light dangerous to life. Finally, after being so severely disturbed, there is no guarantee that the global climate would return to its normal equilibrium.

Even a nuclear war below the threshold of nuclear winter might have climatic effects very damaging to human life. Professor Paul Ehrlich, of Stanford University, has expressed this in the following words:

“…A smaller war, which set off fewer fires and put less dust into the atmosphere, could easily depress temperatures enough to essentially cancel grain production in the northern hemisphere. That in itself would be the greatest catastrophe ever delivered upon Homo Sapiens, just that one thing, not worrying about prompt effects. Thus even below the threshold, one cannot think of survival of a nuclear war as just being able to stand up after the bomb has gone off.”

A few days ago I received a letter from the distinguished English author Anne Baring, whose review of my book “Nuclear Weapons: An Absolute Evil” can be found on the following link:


Anne Baring informed me of an article published in The Times (February 19, 2018), entitled “Russian spies’ role in the great green hoax”. Here is her letter:

Dear John,

There is an article in The Times today by Matt Ridley (a scientist) that says that the idea of a nuclear winter following a nuclear war or exchange of bombs was propaganda put out by the Soviets during the Cold War in the 80’s to frighten the West. This contradicts the evidence you bring in your book. I wish you could write a letter to The Times mentioning the different research you mention in your book that describes the atmospheric effects of such an exchange.

Best wishes, Anne

I immediately contacted Dr. Steven Starr, whom I knew personally and whom I knew to be an expert on the nuclear winter effect. He quickly wrote the following refutation of the nuclear winter denial that had appeared in The Times:

Regarding  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-spies-role-in-the-great-green-hoax-rf8h26cd2  

To the Editors of the Times,

Matt Ridley and Rupert Darwall are either unaware of ¨C or choose to deliberately ignore ¨C the relatively recent series of peer-reviewed studies done on nuclear winter that have fully substantiated the original studies of the 1980s.  Ridley apparently quotes Warner in stating, “By 1986 the theory [of nuclear winter] was effectively dead, and so it has remained.” Sorry, this is factually incorrect.

Beginning in 2007, some of the world’s leading climatologists and physicists at Rutgers, University of Colorado-Boulder, and UCLA used state-of-the-art computer modeling to evaluate a range of possible nuclear conflicts.  They found that even a so-called “regional” nuclear war between India and Pakistan, in which a total of 100 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs were detonated in the megacities of these nations, would cause at least 5 million tons of black carbon soot to quickly rise above cloud level into the stratosphere, where it would not be rained out.  The smoke would circle the Earth in less than two weeks and would form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would remain for more than a decade.

The smoke would absorb warming sunlight, which would heat the smoke to temperatures near the boiling point of water, producing ozone losses of 20 to 50 percent over populated areas. This would almost double the amount of UV-B reaching the most populated regions of the mid-latitudes, and it would create UV-B indices unprecedented in human history. As the smoke layer blocked warming sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface, it would produce the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1,000 years.

The scientists calculated that global food production would decrease by 20 to 40 percent during a five-year period following such a war. Medical experts have predicted that the shortening of growing seasons and corresponding decreases in agricultural production could cause up to two billion people to perish from famine.

The climatologists also investigated the effects of a nuclear war fought with the vastly more powerful modern thermonuclear weapons possessed by the United States, Russia, China, France, and England.  Their research found that nuclear firestorms created in such a war would produce up to 180 million tons of black carbon soot and smoke, which would form a dense, global stratospheric smoke layer. The smoke would remain in the stratosphere for 10 to 20 years, and it would block as much as 70 percent of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35 percent from the Southern Hemisphere.

Under such conditions, it would only require a matter of days or weeks for daily minimum temperatures to fall below freezing in the largest agricultural areas of the Northern Hemisphere, where freezing temperatures would occur every day for a period of between one to more than two years. Average surface temperatures would become colder than those experienced 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age, and the prolonged cold would cause average rainfall to decrease by up to 90%. Growing seasons would be completely eliminated for more than a decade; it would be too cold and dark to grow food crops, which would doom the majority of the human population to death by starvation.

The 21st-century peer-reviewed studies that Ridley and Darwall fail to mention are considered to be the most authoritative type of scientific research, which is subjected to criticism by the international scientific community before final publication in scholarly journals. No serious errors were found in these studies and their findings remain unchallenged.

Ridley’s and Darwall’s attempt to characterize valid nuclear winter science as “fake news” ¨C created, of course, by the Russians ¨C is in itself both fake news and a continuation of the smear campaign that has been waged against nuclear winter (and the scientists who discovered it) since the mid-1980s. By publishing “Russian spies’ role in the great green hoax”, the Times did a disservice to its readers.

Steven Starr

Steven Starr MPH, MT(ASCP)BB
Clinical Laboratory Science Program Director
Assistant Clinical Professor
University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics

John Avery received a B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D. there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998. Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the Danish Peace Academy, April 2004.

Saudi Arabia Will Seek Nukes (Daniel 7:7)

The negotiations on nuclear cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia were renewed recently; the contacts had hit a dead end a few years ago because of the kingdom’s refusal to give up its “right” to enrich uranium. But the Trump administration is considering changing its approach and allowing enrichment.

U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has visited Riyadh to discuss the developing agreement, and senior administration officials hinted in a briefing for Congress that Washington might drop its objections to a deal. President Donald Trump, who wants to strengthen his relations with the Saudis and also has in mind U.S. business interests, could very well sign an agreement that would be problematic for Israel.

Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to lag behind Iran, and a few years ago unveiled an ambitious program to build 16 nuclear reactors. The kingdom received proposals from the United States, China, Russia, France and South Korea, and announced that it would choose the companies to start building the first two reactors by April. The reactors are expected to begin operations toward the end of the next decade.

Saudi Arabia has raised serious claims about its need for a civilian nuclear program to meet its growing energy demands, reduce its dependence on oil and free up more oil for exports, but its main motive for a nuclear program is defense. The Saudis feel that the big powers’ signing of the nuclear agreement with Iran increased Tehran’s aggressiveness and didn’t halt its long-term nuclear aspirations.

The United Arab Emirates is close to completing its first civilian nuclear reactor and committed, in an agreement with the United States in 2009, not to enrich uranium if it received the international help needed to build the reactor. This level of restrictions is considered the gold standard for nuclear nonproliferation, which the Saudis are unwilling to accept; they feel that if the Iranians are allowed, why not them?

Saudi Arabia seeks to have as many options available as possible, including the nuclear option. The Saudis have the strategic motive and financial capacity to do so – more than anyone in the region. A sustainable nuclear program would help the country keep up not only with Iran, but also with the UAE, Turkey and Egypt, which are all at the beginning of the road but further along than Saudi Arabia.

But the development of a civilian nuclear program is a long-term goal because of the kingdom’s lack of basic knowledge and appropriate facilities. The nuclear agreement with Iran, if it remains in place, will give Riyadh about a decade for developing a “civilian” nuclear effort – without any intention to leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the short term, in the scenario of an Iranian breakout for building nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia might already have something of a response in the form of Pakistan, which, despite disagreements between the two countries in recent years, still serves as a strategic buttress for Saudi Arabia and could very well help it with its nuclear program.

Israel now faces a dilemma. On the one hand, giving an official stamp of approval to the Saudi enrichment capability would lead to regional proliferation with countries such as Jordan, Egypt and Turkey asking for the same “rights.” The UAE could then say it’s no longer bound by its current agreement, as it has hinted in the past, and the United States would have a hard time justifying additional restrictions on nuclear development in Iran. If Saudi Arabia decides in the future that it needs a military nuclear capability, today’s planned civilian nuclear project could enable a fast track.

On the other hand, it’s in Israel’s interest for the United States, which is much more committed than China or Russia to preventing nuclear proliferation, to be the big winner in the Saudi nuclear market. In this way Washington could remain aware of events in the Saudi nuclear industry while acquiring another area of leverage on Riyadh. It could also reduce Saudi Arabia’s ability and motivation to secretly develop a nuclear capability.

Thus, even though Israel shares significant interests with Riyadh – and according to press reports enjoys strategic cooperation with it – it should work in Washington to keep from the Saudis an unrestrained enrichment capability. It should try to ensure that the U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal comes as close as possible to the nuclear non-proliferation gold standard.

Yoel Guzansky is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Saudis Prepare to Become Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7)

See the source image

Saudi Nuclear Power Plants and the Danger of Proliferation

Simon Henderson

February 28, 2018

Riyadh’s continuing closeness to Pakistan could prevent Washington from allowing the export of nuclear technology to the kingdom.

Sometime in March, Saudi Arabia is expected to announce favored bidders for multibillion-dollar contracts for two nuclear power projects. The need for nuclear power in the kingdom, which has the world’s largest easily recoverable oil reserves, is justifiable in terms of freeing more oil for export and providing a baseload of electricity generation not achievable by solar power. A U.S. consortium led by Westinghouse is competing with bids from Russian, Chinese, French, and South Korean companies for orders eventually projected to total sixteen reactors over the next twenty-five years. In order to improve American chances of winning, the Trump administration is reported to be considering weakening or not applying proliferation controls.


If Saudi Arabia were, say, Denmark, this would merely be a matter of ensuring conformance with U.S. law, but in the Middle East, fears prevail that any concession of such controls would open the floodgates of proliferation. Apart from Israel’s longstanding, implicitly acknowledged nuclear arsenal, the only other regional power with nuclear weapons is Pakistan, whose strategic focus tends to be in the other geographic direction, on India. But Pakistani uranium-enrichment centrifuge technology was sold to Libya and Iran, and similar equipment was delivered from Europe to Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. In the cases of Iraq and Libya, the technology was destroyed, respectively, in 1991 and 2003. Iran’s program, which Tehran claims was and remains nonmilitary only, is now constrained by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear deal with the United States and its partners is known. But crucially, the JCPOA allows Iran to continue to enrich—although it is neither allowed nor technically able to use this process to produce weapons-grade uranium. Under the agreement, Iran cannot reprocess plutonium either, an alternative path to a nuclear explosive.

Riyadh is believed to want, at least in theory, the right to either enrich or reprocess. In 2009, Washington persuaded the United Arab Emirates to forsake both technologies before the Gulf state signed an agreement with South Korea for four nuclear power reactors. But, if another country in the region avoids such a restriction, the UAE retains the right to revisit its “123 Agreement”—a reference to Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which requires the conclusion of a peaceful nuclear cooperation deal for significant transfers of nuclear material, equipment, or components from the United States.

The UAE-U.S. agreement is held up as a gold standard and a reflection of the Emirates’ maturity and responsibility. U.S. achievement of the restrictions was particularly striking given the UAE’s checkered history with A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist and proliferator. For many years, Abu Dhabi allowed Khan to operate his front companies out of nearby Dubai. Aided by Emirati officials who smoothed his entry and exit, Khan—until his arrest in 2003—used Dubai as both a cutout for technology destined for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and a transshipment point for technology being smuggled to Libya and Iran. Khan had close relations with the UAE leadership and also hosted them in Pakistan.

Of equivalent concern with respect to Saudi Arabia is a visit then defense minister Prince Sultan made to the Pakistani enrichment plant at Kahuta, outside Islamabad, in 1999, a year after Pakistan conducted nuclear tests with bombs containing high-enriched uranium. A published photograph commemorates Prince Sultan’s visit, showing him sitting alongside then Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Dr. Khan. The head of the Pakistan Army, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who later overthrew Prime Minister Sharif and later still arrested Khan, is also pictured. The visit, in which the Saudi delegation was reportedly shown and allowed to handle parts of a Pakistani nuclear weapon, led to a formal U.S. diplomatic protest and boosted the still-prevailing rumor that the kingdom has an understanding with Pakistan for the transfer of nuclear-tipped missiles during a period of crisis. (Since 1988, Saudi Arabia has had Chinese nuclear-capable but conventionally armed missiles that could reach Tehran.)

That was then. The question is what, since the JCPOA conceded Iran’s right to enrich, is the operating premise now. Such a judgment is rendered more challenging by the two visits to Pakistan, in January and August 2016 made by Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, aka MbS, who is also the Saudi defense minister, since his father became king in 2015. In turn, Pakistani leaders have made a series of top-level visits to the kingdom. Earlier this month, the Pakistan Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, visited Riyadh to meet MbS “to discuss matters of mutual interest and military ties.” It was Bajwa’s second sojourn in the kingdom within two months. In the current politics of Pakistan, Bajwa is not only the lead on foreign and security policy but a more dominant figure overall than either the president or prime minister. On February 10, the Pakistan military announced an agreement wherein a thousand Pakistani military personnel will be sent on an unspecified training mission to the kingdom. This news prompted an outcry in the Pakistani National Assembly, which three years ago blocked a Saudi request for Pakistani troops to fight in Yemen. During the debate, it also emerged that an additional 1,600 Pakistani troops are already in the kingdom and 10,000 Saudi personnel have been trained at unspecified Pakistani military academies and institutions. Just last week, a further indication arose regarding the closeness of the ties, and the extent to which Riyadh acts independently of Washington’s wishes, when Saudi Arabia was briefly involved in blocking a U.S.-led attempt to put Pakistan on an international terrorism-financing watch list.

The question of whether the United States will make any nuclear concession to win a lucrative deal comes just before a lengthy U.S. visit by MbS, aimed at showcasing the strength of the bilateral relationship and encouraging American businesses to partner with Saudi Arabia in the crown prince’s Vision 2030 plans for economic and social transformation. Despite the uncertain status of the JCPOA, given repeated doubts expressed by the Trump administration, the dilemma is simple: can Saudi Arabia be persuaded to forsake, perhaps even temporarily, enrichment and reprocessing in return for choosing U.S. technology for its ambitious nuclear power plans? The wrong business deal could undermine the current fragile status quo and elevate regional antagonisms to a new level.

Simon Henderson is the Baker Fellow and director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute.

Russia Realizes Trump is Preparing for Nuclear War

Russia’s foreign minister on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of helping European countries get ready to use “tactical nuclear weapons against Russia.”“It should be clear to one and all that the U.S. military thereby prepares the European countries for using tactical nuclear weapons against Russia,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said during a United Nations conference on disarmament.
Lavrov reiterated Russia’s belief that NATO nuclear exercises involving non-nuclear European countries violates international law restricting the spread of nuclear weapons. He accused the United States of taking “an outspokenly aggressive stance” by deploying nuclear weapons in Europe — a posture he portrayed as a vivid threat of attack against Russia.”I hope that the European citizens will manage to say a firm ‘no’ to the deployment in their territory of weapons of mass destruction that belong to a country that had already used them once against the population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” Lavrov said, according to TASS, a state-run media outlet.

Lavrov’s remarks come against the backdrop of changes to the nuclear posture of both the United States and Russia. U.S. officials have accused Russia of deploying a land-based cruise missile in violation of a 1987 arms control treaty. Russia denied that charge.

Russia also envisions the use of low-yield nuclear weapons to win limited conflicts, according to military officials, whereas the U.S. nuclear force is geared towards the kind of total war reflected by Cold War strategy. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis unveiled a Nuclear Posture Review that calls for the development of smaller nuclear weapons to counteract Russian plans.

“Russia must instead understand that nuclear first-use, however limited, will fail to achieve its objectives, fundamentally alter the nature of a conflict, and trigger incalculable and intolerable costs for Moscow,” the review said. “This strategy will ensure Russia understands it has no advantages in will, non-nuclear capabilities, or nuclear escalation options. Correcting any Russian misperceptions along these lines is important to maintaining deterrence in Europe and strategic stability.”

Lavrov replied by turning that accusation back on the United States, and the Pentagon’s call for low-yield nuclear weapons “lower[s] the threshold of using nuclear weapons” and thus threatens Russia.

“Russia has no deployed tactical nuclear weapons,” he said. “In this situation the existence in Europe of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons ready for use is not just a Cold War rudiment, but an outspokenly aggressive stance.”