shtfusa

Are you Prepared?

You Won’t Believe Why Washington State Isn’t Allowed to Prepare for Nuclear War May 15, 2017

If the government was able to take care of everyone during any foreseeable disaster, there probably wouldn’t be a thriving prepper movement today. So many people have taken it upon themselves to prepare for disasters, because they know how the government often reacts to crisis situations. Our government’s response to disasters is often slow and lacking, and the victims of these events are frequently forced to fend for themselves. Still, what they do is better than nothing, and at least at the local level first responders do a great job.

With that said, there’s an expectation among most people that when disaster strikes, the government will do something. And worst case scenario, sometimes there are disasters that the government doesn’t foresee, and they simply don’t have a plan. However, most people don’t realize that sometimes, not only does the government not have a plan, they deliberately avoid making a plan for political reasons.

That may sound totally asinine, but it’s absolutely true. Especially in the state of Washington. With all the hype surrounding North Korea’s missile tests, many states are reexamining their nuclear preparedness plans, except in Washington, where apparently it’s illegal for state authorities to even make those plans. According to King5 news out of Seattle:

Despite the constant threats and missile tests coming out of North Korea, emergency management officials in Washington state say they are prevented from forming an evacuation plan in the event of a nuclear attack.

“State law does not allow any advanced planning,” said Karina Shagren with the Washington State Emergency Management Division.

RCW 38.52.030, passed in 1983, says “The comprehensive, all-hazard emergency plan authorized under this subsection may not include preparation for emergency evacuation or relocation of residents in anticipation of nuclear attack.”

Can you believe that? You might be wondering why any government would actively refuse to prepare for a nuclear war. It turns out that the only thing dumber than this law, is the reason why it exists.

The author of the state law preventing a nuclear attack plan, former Democratic state lawmaker Dick Nelson, says at the time, Washington state was inundated with nuclear threats, and the idea was to create an example of peace.

“It was about finding a middle ground we could all agree on,” he said.

Nelson also felt that if Seattle were to be attacked, the chances of survival would be so low that a preparation plan would have been moot anyway.

Today, Nelson still says he has no regrets.

So in other words, the state decided that refusing to prepare for a nuclear war would send the message that nuclear war is bad and peace is good…or something. I’m struggling to follow the logic here.

It’d be like refusing to prepare for hurricanes, because hurricanes are bad and destructive. It doesn’t make any sense. Trying set a peaceful example by refusing to prepare for war; a preparation that I might add is totally non-violent and only exists to save civilians, doesn’t do anything to actually reduce the probability of that war happening. It doesn’t bring more peace to the world, and it doesn’t save anyone. With this law, Washington has traded the safety of many of their citizens for a shallow political statement.

Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter.

Joshua’s website is Strange Danger

This information has been made available by Ready Nutrition

Originally published May 15th, 2017
Comments Off on You Won’t Believe Why Washington State Isn’t Allowed to Prepare for Nuclear War

The Next Fukushima? These Nuclear Power Plants Reside in Earthquake Zones April 20, 2017

Nuclear power once had so much promise. We were assured that nuclear reactors would provide cheap, abundant, safe, and clean energy. And for the most part, that promise was delivered. Nuclear power is still one of the most effective forms of energy production.

But over the years a glaring weakness has emerged with this technology. When it’s implemented correctly, with extreme prudence and respect, it works wonderfully. However, on the rare occasion that a government or a company doesn’t take all of the necessary precautions, the ramifications are immense. Even if every precaution is taken, and the risk of a nuclear meltdown is slight, you’re still talking about a disaster that can utterly destroy a civilization (here’s what you should do to prepare yourself for that kind of disaster).

Take Fukushima for instance. Last year former prime minister Naoto Kan revealed that the TEPCO power plant meltdown could have been far worse. If the situation hadn’t been brought under control, he would have had to order the evacuate 50 million people, or about 40% of the population of Japan. He told the Telegraph that “The future existence of Japan as a whole was at stake. Something on that scale, an evacuation of 50 million, it would have been like a losing a huge war.”

Of course, Japan isn’t the only country that could face that kind of disaster in the future. The United States is filled with nuclear reactors that could be at risk. In fact, according to a recent report from Natural News, there are dozens of nuclear power plants in the US that lie within earthquake zones.

A new interactive chart created by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is really a database of U.S. nuclear reactors and safety issues associated with them, shows a higher-than-average concentration of nuclear plants along the nation’s East Coast that are at risk of being damaged or destroyed by an earthquake.

They include: St. Lucie Units 1 & 2 at Hutchison Island, Fla.; North Anna Units 1, 2 & 3 at Mineral, Va.; Peach Bottom Units 1, 2 & 3, Delta, Pennsylvania; Limerick Units 1 & 2, Pottstown, Pa., Indian Point Units 1, 2 & 3, Buchanan, N.Y., and Seabrook Unit 1, Seabrook, New Hampshire.

Further inland, there are other nuclear plants at risk, though they are not as concentrated as those on the East Coast, and many have only a single nuclear reactor. They include plants in Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, South Carolina, Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and Kansas.

More to the point, these are nuclear reactors that “face a level of seismic risk that’s greater than what they’re currently equipped to withstand,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

For years, government officials have been telling us that these plants are perfectly capable of withstanding natural disasters. However, that’s pretty much exactly what TEPCO and the Japanese government told their citizens, right up until the Fukushima power plant nearly destroyed their country.

With that in mind, we should be asking ourselves a very important question. Is the benefit of clean energy really a good trade-off for the risk of annihilation?

Joshua Krause was born and raised in the Bay Area. He is a writer and researcher focused on principles of self-sufficiency and liberty at Ready Nutrition. You can follow Joshua’s work at our Facebook page or on his personal Twitter.

Joshua’s website is Strange Danger

This information has been made available by Ready Nutrition

Originally published April 20th, 2017
Comments Off on The Next Fukushima? These Nuclear Power Plants Reside in Earthquake Zones