5.5 Nevada Quake NEAR FED.GOV'T NUCLEAR STORAGE SITE,YUCCA MOUNTAIN,HIDDEN on USGS - Why?

You are quite right! I just checked www.drudgereport.com and clicked his "Quake sheet" which
then links one to the "official" USGS's website: Earthquake Hazards Program, and then it's easy
to click on their "Worldwide Earthquake Activity in the Last Seven Days" listing...nothing is said
about this Nevada quake...not a word....wonder WHY? The time I checked is listed on their time
update>>>>updated as of Fri Dec 26 19:30:57 UTC 2003. They've had more than sufficient time
to get it up on their listing. These bureaucrat's are selling USa out to the KorpAmerika whores,
it seems! Are we surprised?

If you look on a map that has indications of latitude and longitude, such as a Rand McNally road atlas, you'll see that the earthquake's location is near Winnemucca, NV, several hundred miles north of Yucca Mountain.

Monday's 6.5 earthquake near San Luis Obispo was about as close to Yucca Mountain as the 5.5 quake near Winnemucca and given the logarithmic scale used to measure quakes, a lot stronger.

I don't know why the USGS is not reporting the 5.5 quake, but I doubt Yucca Mountain has anything to do with it. Maybe there's something else going on in that remote location the government doesn't want to call attention to.

I've done some more looking around on the Internet, and so far the only source I've come up with for the reported 5.5 earthquake in Nevada is the one the first poster listed. This source is based on an GEOFON, a network of seismology stations headquartered in Potsdam, Germany. The stations reporting on the quake are all located in Europe.

I've found nothing other than this one site listing a 5.5 earthquake in Nevada. As I mentioned in my previous post, this one site located the earthquake several hundred miles north of Yucca Mountain. The only other quake anywhere near this one in both space and time is the one listed in the original post:
2003/12/23 18:17:11 35.65N 121.04W 6.9 4.9 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA.

Compare that listing to the one from Germany:
NEVADA mb=5.5 2003/12/23 18:17:43 40.9 N 118.7 W

There's only a 32 second time discrepancy.

If you go site listed in the first post and delete everything in the URL after the last slash, you get to a page that lists all earthquakes around the world, and just above that list is a bit of explanation, which includes this:

"Please note that the GEOFON network is not optimized to locate events, especially not world-wide. And please also note that not all data arrive in real-time. Therefore the epicenter and magnitude estimation may not be very precise for many parts of the world and the quality of the solution may be still improved with data coming in from dial-up stations later on."

My thoughts are that the earthquake reported by the Potsdam, Germany site is actually the one listed for Central California and is really an aftershock of Monday's quake near San Luis Obispo. Since my search didn't locate any other reports of a 5.5 quake in Nevada around the time given for the Potsdam report, I've concluded that the location and magnitude of the report are not correct.

Both the location reported by the Potsdam people and the aftershock of Monday's California quake are around 300 miles from Yucca Mountain. It's unfortunate that "web" didn't check out the proximity of the quake's location as reported by Potsdam, and instead seems to have jumped to the conclusion that "Nevada" = proximity to Yucca Mountain = government coverup conspiracy.

I happen to agree that Bush and his cronies put corporate profits before people every time, and we need to move away from any dependence on nuclear power. But jumping to erroneous conclusions doesn't help. The defenders of corporate fascism are only too eager to jump all over erroneous reports to discredit their opposition. Corporate fascists are frequently wrong, but they yell a lot louder and longer until people start to think their BS must be true.

So the facts:

1 US does not report siesmic activity.
2 Activity is remote

conclusion

classifeid

 http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsUS/Quakes/nn00022946.htm

could be this?

1. German site says:

"Please note that the GEOFON network is not optimized to locate events, especially not world-wide. And please also note that not all data arrive in real-time. Therefore the epicenter and magnitude estimation may not be very precise for many parts of the world and the quality of the solution may be still improved with data coming in from dial-up stations later on."

2. Rearranging the order of the German sites information to test the German recording 'lag theory', shows:

2003/12/23 18:17:43 40.9 N 118.7 W mb=5.5 NEVADA

a. which is very different geographically in location to the closest one in the published USGS data record:

2003/12/23 18:17:11 35.65N 121.04W 6.9 4.9 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA

b. though very close in time. 32 seconds different, yes.

3. The magnitude is still much higher, given the exponential quality of the log scale that is used for earthquakes.

4. It all depends how many times you will keep trusting US government data, I guess, for anything.

5. I would want another country's data to triangulate.

6. I would want to know how fast an earthquake 'hit' can move from California to Germany.

7. The issue of the missing/different scale of the quake more than the geography seems interesting. Personally, I'm inclinded to consider the US government guilty before proven innocent, given its repeat offender record. . .

Any other quake records globally out there on the web someone can find?

In the news today: Deathtoll may reach 40,000 in Iran Earthquake. Don't know all that much about the quake in Nevada,
which obviously didn't do much damage, if it did indeed occur, which I'm inclined to believe it did and our ever so trust-
worthy government just don't want to tell us about it. This one in Iran is far more troubling for a number of reasons.

First, of course, the horrible lost of life will pang the heart's of anyone who loves his fellow man; and we should be deeply
moved to wish to render any aid/assistance we can do, and demand our government to give aid generously.

Secondly, earthquakes are not just by Mother Nature anymore. It is a fact that the technology now exists with the sordid
capability of causing earthquakes and controling weather. These things are no longer necessarily "acts of God". While,
the quake in Iran may be 100 percent natural, there is also the possibility it was artificially caused by some "government"
that has this technology, which is well-known to science as the Tesla Technology.

Those who wish to explore this matter further are invited to do Yahoo or Google searches on HAARP, Tom Bearden, and
Scalar Weapons, and such will yield detailed information on this amazing technology. If so, then surely "man" has now
achieved the capacity to be like the god's, but in so using it may well become worst than any devil in hell itself. This is
something we should ALL become well versed on, so we are assured our government--such as it is--isn't invovled in
any Satanic uses of this technology, which surely they have.

In response to "Earthquakes are not just by Mother Nature anymore. It is a fact that the technology
now exists with the capability of causing earthquakes...", I'd like to remind that in today's news, we
have "Bush Says U.S. Willing to Help Iran" as we have "Iran Fears Quake Toll May Reach 40,000
Dead"; and so, then if this is not a "natural earthquake", but a man-made disaster via HAARP Tesla
Technology and Scalar technology, then it was sure fortuitously good timing to provide the perfect opportunity for accomplishing with "kindness" (albeit, after-the-fact from a contrived means to induce
such, possibly) what Bush has been unable to accomplish with open outright threats regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. Such "kindness" in rushing American aid to such a hotbet of political intrique as
Iran has become of late, could easily add to destablization of the existing poltical order, which, as is
reported in numerous places, is a primary objective of the neocons in Bush's White House.

If it's true that such technology--which there is absolutely no doubt that such exists--was used in a
manner suspected, then it's horrible to contemplate that 40,000+ innocent human lives could be so
willingly sacrificed in such "the ends justify the means" approach to diplomacy. It's frankly, not very
humane, but is most assuredly demonic in the extreme, in my opinion.

Truly, we need to ask ourselves: "if" these people could do such to "foreigners"--as so many of the
right wing section seem to view the proverbial "other" in this world--then, pray tell, what would keep
them from doing same, or perish the thought, worst to our own here in America? This why such a
question becomes important beyond the other obvious ones that would be evoked due to truest
sense of humanity, for we are living in "strange times" in which "strange people" are afoot with lot's
of lies easily cast all about to veil their true motivations and mask their hidden "agenda"!

Frankly, there is sufficient suspecion's raised in my mind...enough so...that I'd like to yank the big
curtain back from the door to the government's inner room and see just "what" the little men on in-
side are REALLY doing on this one! I think we'd be mortified and totally appalled in seeing "what"
is going on...in our name! It's not unpatriotic, nor the craft of "terrorists" to want to see just what is
behind that damned curtain, especially if we're the one's paying for it all...is it? It's called being an
"intelligent citizen" that demands "accountablity" as well as "responsibility" from their government!
Anything less, is pure insanity...in my humble opinion! What yours? Let's read it...

You guys are getting a little nuts to be blaming the Iran earthquake on Bush&Co. Combine that with the "leap to conclusions" of the original story here and it actually is a little upsetting.

I always get mad when folks mainstream left blogs like atrios and dailykos dismiss Indymedia as 'loony'. Some news is here that you clouldn't get anyone else. But this is encroaching on loony.

The Diablo Canyon NUCLEAR POWER PLANT was acknowledged to have shook during that 6.5 earthquake in California last week. If it had been a direct hit (which is still possible because the reactors were built on a fault [economics]) a meltdown would have ruined a lot of people's day.

One mans looniness is another man's science. I respectfully submit that the difference is simply related to your comfort expectations about knowledge instead of these topics being unfathomably impossible.

After I looked myself into scalar weaponry and Tesla Technology (and its progeny, like HAARP), you can rest assured that the weather and Mother Nature has indeed become a Demon that can serve whoever is at the military controls of this technology. Find the US military's "Owning the Weather by 2025" on the web. Read it. Read the PNAC documents that recommend ethnic based bioweaponry/viruses being deployed.

The charm of it is that so many people are so WILLINGLY brain-dead that such technologies can be used and elites can almost rest assured that the masses will ignore them because. What was it said about science once? That good science is indistinguishable from magic? Anyone intersted in 'electo-gravitation'--and how it changes our knowledge of the very fabric of the universe--for gravitation to be manipulatable through electomagnetic fields and rotations--certainly there is much that people can stand to know to catch up with what has been known in black projects work for the whole 20th century almost (see the great book "The Hunt for Zero Point : Inside the Classified orld of Antigravity Technology -- by Nick Cook.

 link to www.amazon.com


What is magic except science/artifice that the population has yet to have explained to them?

Yes, I will admit that I have in the past few days thought the hypothesis that Iranian quake seems rather convenient and possibly might imply HAARP focusing below the surface somehow. It can be expected for the US military to learn how to do this and 'experiment:' for instance if they can (and this is established) manipulate the atmosphere, raise/heat the ionosphere and disrupt all telecommunications, as well as focus it on the earth (likely Tesla technology in the early 1900s was reponsible for that huge blast in Siberia). It would be simple to triangulate energy waves below the surface of the earth as much as above it or on the surface. . . If you combine this with a knowledge of fault lines you have a great (sorry for the term) weapon to use against Iran, a country that the US has alrady surrounded on both sides in Iraq and Afghanistan, and seems ready to attack as well.

However, I am aware that I have little evidence for this. However, there is plenty of evidence for surface and upper-atmospheric manipulation through tesla tech (HAARP). It may have some connections worldwide to the huge aberrant amounts of large electrical grid blackouts in the past year that have occurred worldwide. On these topics showing possibly for human induced earthquakes, Please see:

1.

Iran earthquake triggered by HAARP?
Phase III. Folks, it's just my opinion, but I believe that Iran was hit with an earthquake by means of HAARP, here is why:
 http://www.prisonplanet.com/122703iranearthquake.html

Iran earthquake triggered by HAARP?

Phase III

Folks, it's just my opinion, but I believe that Iran was hit with an earthquake by means of HAARP, here is why:

I remember reading yesterday (I believe on a link from Propaganda Matrix and LibertyThink.com) on CyberSpaceOrbit.com about HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) being turned on at the same time that the terror color alert was issued (HAARP comes on in idle Hi-power mode just after High terror alert issued).

I told one of my friends that I wouldn't be surprised if we started getting hit with earthquakes, volcanoes, or some other condition that HAARP reportedly causes (HAARP Home Page - Radar Matrix - HAARP.net).

I then got a phone call this morning as I was on the way back home, that Iran was hit with a massive earthquake with reported deaths at around 5,000-6,000 (Iran Quake Reportedly Kills 5,000-6,000). Once I arrived home, I began pulling articles and have found that now the number is estimated more closely to 20,000 (Thousands Feared Dead in Iran Earthquake).

I began talking to my friend Eric Hufschmid about this, in which case he sent me a copy of recent massive earthquakes (Data of MAJOR Earthquakes within the past 5 days)... NOTICE HOW THERE HAVE BEEN 8 MAJOR EARTHQUAKES (7 listed on the article, 8 listed on the Govt's website) THAT HAVE BEEN OCCURRING SINCE DECEMBER 21st?! BUT YET THE NEWS IS TRYING TO WHITEWASH THIS BY LISTING MAJOR EARTHQUAKES SINCE 1923, AS IF THIS IS A RANDOM AND NATURAL OCCURRENCE?! (Raw Data: Major Earthquakes Since 1923). They even go so far as to call it "raw data" --- GIVE ME A BREAK!

I then called my friend and told her that I'm sure there will be a press conference, that will try and justify this as a convenient excuse to invade, er, help Iran (White House Offers Aid to Iran After Earthquake) --- even though we were gearing up to invade them a while back... (U.S. Accuses Iran of Trying to Make Nuclear Weapons - In-House Memos on Television and Print Media News Presentations - Project for the New American Empire & Archie's Comments)

Now I can only wonder what pre-text we're going to use to go after Syria, since it appears that we'll now use this to get Iran. [IF of course this is accurate. If you believe that the idea of a disciplined mind is to be able to entertain ideas that you don't necessarily believe in, then read on:]

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/122703iranearthquake.html


2.

and see, on this public testimony to the government investigation committee board for the US blackout in the East Coast. The boardmembers were as concerned as this loyal patriotic citizen. It was reported that the board took furious notes as the man spoke. You can hear his testimony about the blackout--and very likely the HAARP connection to it, and noticably the governmetns preparations for the blackout and using the blackout to lay down contrails over the city (when all airplanes were diverted away and all airports were closed):

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/120803blackout.html
[it automatically opens an audo recording of one an American citizen from Long Island who connects it to HAARP, there is an article to read there as well]


In conclusion, my point is that thereis a lot going on that we rely on each other to find out.

Sketicism is very welcome though if it reeks of ideological blinders--or refusal to look at data--then it is ideological blinders instead of skepticism and should be called out as such.

The glass may be more than half full most of the time instead of half empty--so bear with us as we learn and share how evil and repugnant is the United States of America and its government and how it corporate state miltary economy is destroying the whole fabric of human and ecological life on the planet.

peace



a short summary of everything going on to mull on:

What Do We Do?
By John Kaminski
 skylax@comcast.net
12-27-03
 http://www.rense.com/general46/whatdo.html


If you are going to want freedom of thought, you are required to have the bravery to use it--and likely be expected to be howled at by people raised like sheep by elites to be intellectual cowards and to lack curiousity about elite motivations to manipulate you, your health, and your life, for their profit.


Check out the links. Listen to that testimony about HAARP and the blackouts. Remember the huge number of large earthquakes that have occured since Dec. 21, worldwide. Keep an open mind, instead of pretending you have one.

We are veering off the original topic I know. Sorry. I would like more information if say, Canada has such a website for their earthquake reporting. What does it say about the missing USGS quake?

Candian site POLARIS fails to even have the main california quake much less the 'Nevada' quake.

data is from
 http://www.polarisnet.ca/data/plots.html

Full data below means that I got it from the .ca site. Into this list (which is updated in real time and refreshes before your eyes), I inserted USGS data and German data from the original post into this list. I noted that the .ca site even fails to record the main California quake on December, 22, 2001. Seismography seems to be a spotty science.

Polaris Current Seismograms ... last updated on 2003/12/28 at 21:26 UT for event 2680
Event Data Agency Date Time UT Lat Long Depth Mag Q Comments
2678 U NEIC 2003/12/27 22:55:01 21.75S 169.75E 10.0 5.8 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2677 U NEIC 2003/12/27 22:38:01 21.82S 169.70E 10.0 6.6 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2674 U NEIC 2003/12/27 16:01:00 22.01S 169.61E 10.0 7.0 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2675 U NEIC 2003/12/27 15:23:15 43.59N 127.30W 10.0 5.0 U OFF COAST OF OREGON
2676 U NEIC 2003/12/27 04:55:25 22.17S 169.32E 10.0 6.1 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2673 U NEIC 2003/12/26 21:26:03 22.41S 169.27E 10.0 6.6 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2671 U NEIC 2003/12/26 01:56:56 29.01N 58.27E 33.0 6.7 U SOUTHEASTERN IRAN
2672 U NEIC 2003/12/25 23:09:43 22.43S 169.49E 10.0 5.9 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2670 U NEIC 2003/12/25 20:42:37 22.30S 169.46E 33.0 6.2 U SOUTHEAST OF LOYALTY ISLANDS
2669 U NEIC 2003/12/25 14:21:15 34.84S 178.45W 33.0 5.9 U SOUTH OF KERMADEC ISLANDS
2668 U NEIC 2003/12/25 07:11:11 8.43N 82.82W 33.0 6.3 U PANAMA-COSTA RICA BORDER REGION
2665 U NEIC 2003/12/24 11:33:08 5.73S 102.11E 33.0 5.5 U SOUTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
2679 U PGC 2003/12/24 05:21:46 48.46N 123.28W 21.7 0.5ML P HARO STRAIT NEAR VICTORIA, B.C.
2680 U PGC 2003/12/24 04:11:39 48.48N 123.15W 26.9 0.6ML P HARO STRAIT NEAR VICTORIA, B.C.
2662 U GSC 2003/12/23 23:23:22 44.74N 73.69W 10.0G 2.0MN G 66 KM SE, SALABERRY-DE-VALLEYFIELD.
2003/12/23 23:54:48 26.38N 125.92E 33.0 4.9 NORTHEAST OF TAIWAN [USGS, missing on .ca site]
2003/12/23 23:15:27 26.27N 125.63E 33.0 5.6 NORTHEAST OF TAIWAN [USGS,same as .ca site]2667 U NEIC2003/12/23 23:15:27 26.27N 125.63E 33.0 5.6 U NORTHEAST OF TAIWAN
2003/12/23 23:01:15 26.28N 125.68E 33.0 5.3 NORTHEAST OF TAIWAN [USGS, missing on .ca site]
2003/12/23 18:17:43 40.9 N 118.7 W mb=5.5 NEVADA [German site, missing .ca and USGS]
2003/12/23 18:17:11 35.65N 121.04W 6.9 4.9 CENTRAL CALIFORNIA [USGS, missing on .ca site]
2003/12/23 15:37:23 13.06N 88.45W 33.0 4.7 EL SALVADOR [USGS, missing on .ca site]
2003/12/23 14:02:03 40.03N 29.62W 10.0 5.6 AZORES ISLANDS REGION
2655 U NEIC 2003/12/23 14:02:03 40.03N 29.62W 10.0 5.5 U AZORES ISLANDS REGION
2660 U NEIC 2003/12/23 05:58:37 0.62S 20.39W 10.0 5.8 U CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
2661 U GSC 2003/12/23 04:24:09 50.84N 63.74W 18.0G 3.1MN G 200 KM E FROM SEPT-ILES, QUE.
2663 U PGC 2003/12/23 01:19:45 50.70N 117.65W 1.0G 2.7ML P SELKIRK MOUNTAINS, B.C.
2649 U NEIC 2003/12/22 08:47:06 42.33N 144.57E 33.0 5.7 U HOKKAIDO, JAPAN REGION
2664 U PGC 2003/12/22 01:52:50 49.15N 125.77W 19.4 1.0ML P BARKLEY SOUND, B.C.
2647 U NEIC 2003/12/21 07:40:45 0.75S 20.60W 10.0 5.8 U CENTRAL MID-ATLANTIC RIDGE
2648 U NEIC 2003/12/21 06:29:16 8.73S 158.48E 42.9 5.5 U SOLOMON ISLANDS
2651 U GSC 2003/12/21 03:13:34 45.78N 77.65W 18.0G 1.7MN G 32 KM SW FROM PETAWAWA, ONT.
2654 U GSC 2003/12/21 02:44:42 46.50N 81.12W 1.0G 2.4MN G ROCKBURST, 9 KM W FROM SUDBURY, ONT.
2656 U PGC 2003/12/20 08:34:48 48.86N 129.19W 10.0G 2.7ML P WEST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C.
2652 U GSC 2003/12/20 02:39:19 46.45N 75.20W 18.0G 2.2MN G 26 KM SE FROM MONT-LAURIER, QUE.
2657 U PGC 2003/12/20 02:32:41 48.16N 124.91W 1.0G 1.2ML P WEST COAST OLYMPIC PENINSULA, Wash.
2658 U PGC 2003/12/20 00:18:44 48.91N 125.08W 38.0 2.0ML P BARKLEY SOUND, B.C.
2666 U NEIC 2003/12/19 22:57:51 3.73S 102.53W 10.0 5.6 U CENTRAL EAST PACIFIC RISE
2659 U PGC 2003/12/19 19:11:39 48.54N 123.00W 57.6 1.0ML P NEAR LOPEZ ISLAND, WASHINGTON.
2641 x NEIC 2003/12/19 13:03:43 5.53S 102.82E 33.0 5.5 U SOUTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
2653 U GSC 2003/12/19 12:40:17 47.47N 70.13W 12.9 2.5MN G CHARLEVOIX SEISMIC ZONE, QUE.
2650 U PGC 2003/12/19 11:27:44 48.40N 121.23W 1.0G 1.8ML P NEAR GLACIER PEAK, WASHINGTON.
2638 A NEIC 2003/12/19 05:32:52 49.10N 128.90W 10.0 5.0 U VANCOUVER ISLAND, CANADA REGION
2637 x NEIC 2003/12/19 00:12:01 19.88N 95.74E 33.0 5.7 U MYANMAR
2642 x PGC 2003/12/18 14:32:19 50.89N 129.83W 10.0G 3.1ML P WEST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C.
2643 x PGC 2003/12/18 08:50:49 48.62N 125.37W 28.4 1.4ML P WEST COAST VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C.
2634 x GSC 2003/12/18 07:36:46 44.98N 74.51W 18.0G 1.8MN G 18 KM E FROM CORNWALL, ONT.
2633 x NEIC 2003/12/18 05:41:57 6.23S 151.25E 49.1 5.8 U NEW BRITAIN REGION, P.N.G.
2639 x PGC 2003/12/18 00:46:07 49.78N 130.29W 10.0G 2.7ML P WEST OF VANCOUVER ISLAND, B.C.
. . .


So, more questions that it answers, if the Canadian site even fails to have the Dec.22, 2003 California quake.

Conspiracy schmucks abound.

As a geologist who has spent a lot of time in Nevada and who uses basic data provided by the USGS on a regular basis, I have always found their basic data to be complete, reliable, and the best available. Although politically motivated "science" happens in the USGS, suppression of basic seismic data isn't one of their shortcomings. It isn't uncommon to for seismic data from various sources to disagree about magnitude and location, unfortunately heterogeneity abounds in the earths crust and introduces error into calculations. Currently the USGS has the most extensive network of seismic recording in Nevada and California, and for my money, they probably generate the most reliable data. It's too bad that their data don't support your agenda at this time.

Although I may be a liberal greenie, I would rather be a good scientist than true to my ideology. What is truly distressing is that the worst politically motivated "crap science" surrounding Yucca Mountain has come from the environmental side (which I support). Conspiracy-crap peddlers who use out of context data and innuendo to argue their case make us all look like charlatans. You aren't helping the cause by spreading this fertilizer around.

Wrong. The record of the United States has been criminal in this risky venture. Junk science regarding Yucca Mountain has come from the federal government and from corporate lobbyists. Almost always this can be used as a rule of thumb: corporate and government science is junk science, and as people find this out, they scream and rant to maintain their illegitimate corrupt power, and call people names--just like you do. And they attempt to cover up their crimes.

Yucca is unsafe.

Even "government science" says so. So what did they do? Make huge changes and loopholes in the rules, and note the conflicts of interest and hypocricies as well! There's hardly any science going on at Yucca mountain anymore. When the original actual science found out it was unsafe, then science was killed and all the rest has been conflict of interest politics that have been against science.

In the interests of helping inform, instead of stuck up geologists like you, who only have an interest in insulting people you work for, the citizens of the United States: you have a lot of explaining to on why you are angry--without any attribution to what you are saying. Science should serve the public interest, and if you support Yucca Mountain, with the below evidence in hand, you are obviously working against the public interest. And if you are that ignorant to the story of Yucca Mountain, you are working against the public interest as well, by claiming to be some informed geologist (wihtout of course in your note informing us of anything!). Your ego seems to be interfering with your ability to help people through your job.

Plus, as you know you are welcome to make a case here at the IMC to your peers, though of course since you fail to do so, you are wasting everyone's time. What data you are looking at, or are you part of the fake geologist team that simply uses public relations firms to sell Yucca Mountain as safe? If you actually are a geologist, given what is written below, certainly I'd certainly question your credentials. You seem to be more at home in spin than science. When are you going to wake up and realize you have a cushy bureaucratic job for one of the most evil countries in the history of the world?

The best--and only--long term solution is to end all nuclear power and then use the more sound original guidelines instead of the juryrigged later fake guidelines (tailor made to ignore the many already discovered flaws of Yucca Mountain) to find better long term storage. Or will your geologist job be endangered if it changes? Inquiring minds want to know. What are your conflicts of interest here?

----------------------------------------------------SUMMARY START

Thirty-three earthquake faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site, with additional fault lines expected to develop over time. The proposed repository would lie about 1,000 feet above a freshwater aquifer, which currently provides the only source of drinking water for area residents in Amargosa Valley, Nevada, and parts of Inyo County, California.

If radioactivity from the proposed repository reaches the aquifer below, it not only will contaminate this important source of drinking water, which is in short supply, but also will provide a pathway for potentially dangerous levels of radioactivity to reach the accessible environment.

. . .

Although the climate at Yucca Mountain is generally dry, evidence points to relatively rapid movement of water through the rock. Elevated levels of the tracer isotope Chlorine-36 found in the DOE s test tunnel at Yucca Mountain indicate that water traveled from surface- to repository-level (about 1,000 feet) in 50 years or faster. ***The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.***

***The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.***

***The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.***

***The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.***

***The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.***

The EPA s radiation standards (40 CFR 197) also ***establish a lower level of environmental protection for Yucca Mountain than the generic rule applicable elsewhere,*** by expanding the unregulated zone to 18 kilometers from the repository boundary. This ***site-specific rule*** allows the DOE to rely on dilution and dispersion in groundwater, rather than containment of radioactivity, and as such sets an inadequate benchmark for performance assessment evaluations. Public Citizen, together with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental and public interest organizations, filed a lawsuit last June challenging these aspects of the EPA rule.

. . .

. . .a December 2001 report by the General Accounting Office highlighted 293 unresolved technical issues, identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that require further study and analysis. As the GAO report suggests, Secretary Abraham s site recommendation is premature at best.

. . .

Also, NRC license requirements for high-level radioactive waste transport casks rely on computer modeling. Amazingly, currently licensed casks have never had full-scale, dynamic tests. Limited dynamic tests in the 1970s were performed on now-obsolete casks and have not been repeated. In those tests, cask valves and shielding failed during extended fire tests.

. . .

According to our research, the nuclear industry contributed $82,728 to Secretary Abraham s failed bid for re-election during the 2000 election cycle, and in 2000 alone, top nuclear contributors to his campaign spent more than $25 million nearly half a million dollars each week on lobbying efforts ***that included support for the [flawed Yucca Mountain] repository proposal.

. . .

The DOE, as a federal agency, is supposed to be objective and unbiased in its evaluations of the repository proposal and to uphold the same standards of integrity for its contractors. Yet it hired a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry that specifically advocates in favor of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which would serve the narrow financial interests of its nuclear industry members. The involvement of Winston & Strawn lawyers in both shaping the DOE s Yucca Mountain activities and advising and lobbying on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on nuclear waste legislation undermines the integrity of the recent site recommendation.

. . .

On September 11, 2001, and again in October when U.S. forces entered Afghanistan, Secretary Abraham suspended all nuclear shipments because of the security risks they pose. Yet his Yucca Mountain site recommendation, issued only 5 months later, failed to acknowledge or address this security concern in relation to the tens of thousands of nuclear shipments that would be launched by the Yucca Mountain Project.

----------------------------------------------------


Testimony of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, Yucca Mountain: The Hazards of Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation

Click here to view this document with footnotes (PDF)

The U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
April 18, 2002
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the president's February 14th recommendation that a nuclear waste repository be developed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. I am President of Public Citizen, a national non-profit public interest organization with 150,000 members nationwide. Public Citizen works to protect citizens and the environment from the dangers posed by nuclear power and advocates for safe, affordable, and sustainable energy policies.

In the coming months, Congress will face an unprecedented decision about whether to support or override the ***Governor of Nevada s Notice of Disapproval*** to prevent establishing a Yucca Mountain repository for 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste from commercial nuclear power plants and Department of Energy (DOE) weapons activities.

Public Citizen urges the Committee to decisively reject Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's unscientific site recommendation, support the Notice of Disapproval and stop the Yucca Mountain Project, in order to protect public health and safety. The DOE has a long record of investing in wasteful ventures and white elephants at a cost of tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. taxpayer. No private business could survive operating with such a string of misjudgments and failures. It is time for the Congress to insert a dose of reality and pull the plug on the hazardous Yucca Mountain venture. Just look at the DOE s mishandling of military nuclear waste projects, some of which were highlighted by 60 Minutes on Sunday, March 17, 2002 (transcript attached). Yucca Mountain is poised to become another contaminated DOE site if the repository proposal moves forward.

The site is unsuitable

***After fifteen years of site characterization studies at a cost exceeding $5 billion,*** DOE scientists have been unable to demonstrate that a repository at Yucca Mountain could effectively isolate high-level nuclear waste throughout the quarter million years it remains dangerously radioactive. Having originally instructed the DOE to assess the suitability of the site for a geologic repository, Congress should now consider this question answered in the negative, and terminate repository activities at Yucca Mountain.

The geology of the site is ill-suited to the task of containment. Yucca Mountain is a ridge of porous volcanic tuff, highly fractured as a result of seismic activity. Thirty-three earthquake faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site, with additional fault lines expected to develop over time. The proposed repository would lie about 1,000 feet above a freshwater aquifer, which currently provides the only source of drinking water for area residents in Amargosa Valley, Nevada, and parts of Inyo County, California. If radioactivity from the proposed repository reaches the aquifer below, it not only will contaminate this important source of drinking water, which is in short supply, but also will provide a pathway for potentially dangerous levels of radioactivity to reach the accessible environment.

Although the climate at Yucca Mountain is generally dry, evidence points to relatively rapid movement of water through the rock. Elevated levels of the tracer isotope Chlorine-36 found in the DOE s test tunnel at Yucca Mountain indicate that water traveled from surface- to repository-level (about 1,000 feet) in 50 years or faster. The original siting guidelines (10 CFR 960) would have disqualified the Yucca Mountain site on the basis of water flow time alone.

To prevent the site from being disqualified, the government changed the rules. The DOE inappropriately rewrote the repository siting guidelines in November 2001 to accommodate the deficiencies in the Yucca Mountain site. [Is this what you do as a geologist, my friend?] The revised guidelines (10 CFR 963) are a dangerous departure from the concept of geologic containment and offer an inadequate basis for site recommendation. The new performance-based siting guidelines permit a reliance on "engineered barriers" in an attempt to mask the many problems that should disqualify the Yucca Mountain site. DOE s repository design proposals rely more than 99% on engineered barriers for containment. The geology of Yucca Mountain contributes less than 1%.

Given the difficulties in accurately predicting, on the basis of very limited experience, the performance of engineered barriers over tens of thousands of years, coupled with the inadequacies of the "natural barriers" at Yucca Mountain, it is only a question of when not if the proposed repository s isolation systems would fail.

High-level nuclear waste is intensely radioactive and very long-lived. It is one of the most hazardous substances ever created. The waste s dangerous radioactivity will outlast any engineered barriers employed at Yucca Mountain. The Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) site-specific radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain (40 CFR 197) arbitrarily established a 10,000-year limit on containment requirements at the repository, which has been subsequently adopted by the DOE in its siting guidelines and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in its Yucca Mountain licensing rule.

Yet high-level nuclear waste will remain dangerously radioactive for much longer. For example, Plutonium-239, which accounts for approximately 1-4% of high-level nuclear waste by weight, has a half-life of 24,400 years and remains dangerously radioactive for close to a quarter-million years. If DOE s optimistic predictions are correct and the underground nuclear waste storage containers at Yucca Mountain do not begin failing from corrosion for 40,000 years, peak radiation dose rates from the proposed repository are expected 100,000-200,000 years into the future outside EPA s inadequate regulatory timeframe.

The EPA s radiation standards (40 CFR 197) also establish a lower level of environmental protection for Yucca Mountain than the generic rule applicable elsewhere, by expanding the unregulated zone to 18 kilometers from the repository boundary. This site-specific rule allows the DOE to rely on dilution and dispersion in groundwater, rather than containment of radioactivity, and as such sets an inadequate benchmark for performance assessment evaluations. Public Citizen, together with the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental and public interest organizations, filed a lawsuit last June challenging these aspects of the EPA rule.

But even projections of the proposed repository s compliance with this inadequate standard are inconclusive. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board advised Congress on January 24, 2002, that "the technical basis for the DOE s repository performance estimates is weak to moderate." Also, a December 2001 report by the General Accounting Office highlighted 293 unresolved technical issues, identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that require further study and analysis. As the GAO report suggests, Secretary Abraham s site recommendation is premature at best.

The risks of nuclear waste transportation cannot be justified

Intrinsic to any assessment of Yucca Mountain s suitability as a national nuclear waste repository is the feasibility of transporting waste to the site. Yet the DOE has consistently downplayed the transportation impacts of the Yucca Mountain proposal. Secretary Abraham s site recommendation does not detail a specific plan for transporting waste from the 77 nuclear power plants and DOE weapons sites across the country where it s currently stored to Nevada. Basic decisions about the mode of transportation (truck, train, or barge) and routes have not yet been made.

The maps of potential Yucca Mountain transport routes, included in the project s final Environmental Impact Statement, indicate that tens of thousands of high-level radioactive waste shipments would likely pass through 44 states and the District of Columbia en route to Yucca Mountain. Recognizing the explosive nature of route designations, the DOE refuses to announce a specific proposal for transporting nuclear waste until after Yucca Mountain is licensed. But based on the Environmental Impact Statement, I have attached a list of members of this committee through whose districts high-level nuclear waste likely will be transported in route to Yucca Mountain We urge the full committee not to vote on the Yucca Mountain Project until DOE reveals precisely which routes would be used for nuclear waste transportation.

Transporting nuclear waste is inherently dangerous because it increases the likelihood of radioactive release and introduces this risk to densely populated areas where the emergency response/public health infrastructure may lack the capacity to respond effectively to a nuclear emergency. The Department of Transportation (DOT) recorded 453,000 crashes involving large trucks in 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, including 8,857 hazardous materials shipments. Over the same period, the Federal Railroad Administration reported 2,768 train crashes. According to RailWatch analysis of accident reports, a train carrying hazardous materials in the U.S. runs off the tracks, spills some of its load, and forces an evacuation about once every two weeks.

Since the dawn of the Nuclear Age, approximately 3,000 shipments of high-level nuclear waste have traveled on U.S. roads and rails. This number would be exceeded within the first two years of shipments to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. While the nuclear industry frequently refers to an accident-free shipping history, a 1996 analysis of DOE accident reports documents 72 "incidents" since 1949 involving nuclear waste shipments, including four involving "accidental radioactive material contamination beyond the vehicle," four with radiation contamination confined to the vehicle, 49 of accidental container surface contamination, 13 traffic accidents with no release or contamination, and 2 incidents with no description. Extrapolating on the basis of this past history and considering, statistically, general traffic crash rates along probable nuclear waste transportation routes, crashes involving Yucca Mountain shipments are certain to occur if the repository program moves forward.

Given the statistical certainty of crashes involving Yucca Mountain nuclear waste shipments, the DOE and nuclear industry safety assurances rest upon the robustness of shipping containers, or "casks," and their ability to contain radioactivity even in the event of a crash. However, we are concerned that in the event of a severe crash, casks may not perform as expected. DOE accident analyses fail to consider the statistical likelihood of manufacturing and human error and its impact on cask performance. Also, NRC license requirements for high-level radioactive waste transport casks rely on computer modeling. Amazingly, currently licensed casks have never had full-scale, dynamic tests. Limited dynamic tests in the 1970s were performed on now-obsolete casks and have not been repeated. In those tests, cask valves and shielding failed during extended fire tests.

Furthermore, the NRC s performance requirements for nuclear waste casks (10 CFR 71.73), established in the 1970s, are outdated and dangerously underestimate the conditions of today s worst-case accident scenario:

The drop test requires casks to withstand a fall from 30 feet onto an unyielding surface, which simulates a crash at 30 miles per hour. Yet no regulations are in place to limit to 30 mph the speed at which nuclear waste shipments can travel. This test condition could easily be exceeded, if, for instance, a cask traveling at regular highway speeds (now 65-75 miles per hour) crashed into oncoming traffic or a virtually unyielding structure such as a bridge abutment.

The burn test requires casks to withstand an engulfing fire at 1475 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes. Other materials routinely transported on our roads and rails could spark a hotter fire (diesel burns at 1850 degrees) and could potentially burn for longer than half an hour. Last summer s fire in Baltimore s Howard Street train tunnel which the DOE has identified as a potential Yucca Mountain shipment route - burned for more than 3 days and likely reached temperatures of at least 1500 degrees. If a nuclear waste cask had been on the train involved in that accident, its containment would have been breached, exposing 345,493 people in the area to radiation and costing at least $13.7 billion dollars to clean up.

The puncture test requires casks to withstand a free-fall from 40 inches onto an 8 inch-long spike. A train derailment or a truck crash on a bridge could result in a fall from much higher than 40 inches and potentially result in puncture damage to the cask s shielding.

The same cask is required to withstand submersion in 3 feet of water, and a separate test requires an undamaged cask to withstand submersion in 200 meters of water (656 feet) for 1 hour. If a crash involving a nuclear waste shipment occurred on a bridge or barge, a damaged cask could be submerged in depths greater than 3 feet. Furthermore, given the weight of nuclear waste transport casks, it is not reasonable to assume that a submerged cask could be rescued within one hour. Licensed truck casks weigh 24-27 tons, loaded, and train casks can weigh up to 125 tons, loaded. In the case of a barge transport accident, if a crane capable of lifting such a massive load out of the ocean were not immediately available, water pressure over longer periods could result in cask failure and radiation release.

The prospect of transporting high-level nuclear waste across the country through major population centers also poses a security risk, particularly in the current context of heightened national security concerns. Immediately following the September 11th terrorist attacks, at least 10 people were arrested on charges of possessing fraudulent permits for transporting radioactive and hazardous materials.

Regulatory requirements are also inadequate to protect against the risk of terrorist attacks. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not require transportation casks to be tested against this vulnerability, tests and studies have demonstrated that an anti-tank weapon could easily penetrate a nuclear waste transportation cask and result in a potentially catastrophic release of radiation. In a 1998 demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground, a TOW anti-tank missile shot at a Castor V-21 storage cask blew a hole through the wall of the cask. Analysis by the state of Nevada indicates that a successful terrorist attack on a GA-4 truck cask using a common military demolition device could cause 300 to 1,800 latent cancer fatalities, assuming 90% penetration by a single blast. Full perforation of the cask, likely to occur in an attack involving a state-of-the art anti-tank weapon such as the TOW missile, could cause 3,000 to 18,000 latent cancer fatalities. Cleanup and recovery costs would exceed $17 billion.


Yet just last month, on March 11, 2002, CIA national intelligence officer Robert Walpole told the Senate Government Affairs Committee that while the chance that a missile with a nuclear, chemical, or biological warhead will be used against U.S. forces or interests is greater today than during most of the Cold War, the agency's analysts believe there is an even greater threat that such a weapon will be delivered by truck, ship or airplane "because non-missile delivery means are less costly, easier to acquire, more reliable and accurate".

On September 11, 2001, and again in October when U.S. forces entered Afghanistan, Secretary Abraham suspended all nuclear shipments because of the security risks they pose. Yet his Yucca Mountain site recommendation, issued only 5 months later, failed to acknowledge or address this security concern in relation to the tens of thousands of nuclear shipments that would be launched by the Yucca Mountain Project.

The unintentional and non-accident risk of nuclear waste transportation is also a concern. NRC regulations allow nuclear waste shipping casks to emit 10 millirem of radiation the equivalent of a chest X-ray per hour from a distance of 6.5 feet. The cumulative impact of routine radiation exposure from Yucca Mountain nuclear waste shipments on other motorists (maximized in gridlock traffic scenarios) and people who live or work along transport routes has not been adequately examined.

The multiple risks associated with transporting large volumes of nuclear waste over long distances to an unsuitably sited repository in Nevada simply cannot be justified. Since a repository at Yucca Mountain necessarily involves an unprecedented program of nuclear transportation, we urge the Committee to fully consider the impact of the many transportation dangers in its evaluation of the Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation.

The integrity of the process has been undermined

The dramatically flawed process railroading the Yucca Mountain Project toward approval undermines the credibility of Secretary Abraham s site recommendation. The downgrading of environmental regulations (EPA s more lenient site-specific radiation protection standards and DOE s revised siting guidelines that prevent Yucca Mountain from being disqualified) has set a dangerous precedent of sacrificing public health and environmental safety to nuclear industry interests. And yet even these underhanded decisions cannot mask the fact that this site is not suitable, as the GAO, IG, and Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have made clear.

A Public Citizen report released April 1, 2002, indicates that nuclear industry interests may have directly biased Secretary Abraham s site recommendation. The report is attached. According to our research, the nuclear industry contributed $82,728 to Secretary Abraham s failed bid for re-election during the 2000 election cycle, and in 2000 alone, top nuclear contributors to his campaign spent more than $25 million nearly half a million dollars each week on lobbying efforts that included support for the repository proposal.

Public Citizen, in January 2002, requested that Secretary Abraham recuse himself from Yucca Mountain site recommendation activities, based on the precedent of Attorney General John Ashcroft recusing himself from the Justice Department s Enron investigations because the failed energy trading company had contributed $75,000 to his election campaign. Our letter to Secretary Abraham is attached. We have received a legalistic response that doesn t deal with the issue of the appearance of impropriety.

As another indication of pro-industry bias in the Yucca Mountain Project, a November 2001 report by the DOE Inspector General disclosed that the law firm Winston & Strawn was simultaneously employed as counsel to the DOE, working on the Yucca Mountain Project, and registered as a member of and lobbyist for the Nuclear Energy Institute between 1992 and 2001. The executive summary of this report is attached. The DOE, as a federal agency, is supposed to be objective and unbiased in its evaluations of the repository proposal and to uphold the same standards of integrity for its contractors. Yet it hired a member of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry that specifically advocates in favor of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which would serve the narrow financial interests of its nuclear industry members. The involvement of Winston & Strawn lawyers in both shaping the DOE s Yucca Mountain activities and advising and lobbying on behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute on nuclear waste legislation undermines the integrity of the recent site recommendation. After this conflict was publicly disclosed, Winston & Strawn resigned from the Yucca Mountain Project. But even in the wake of this scandal, but the firm s work was not withdrawn.

The same Inspector General report notes that TRW, Inc., hired by the DOE as the managing and operations contractor for the Yucca Mountain Project until February 2001, was simultaneously engaged in lobbying activities on nuclear waste storage issues. TRW was additionally implicated in December 2000 as the author of a memo attached to a leaked overview of the DOE Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation Considerations Report (later released as the Preliminary Site Suitability Evaluation and the Science and Engineering Report). The memo indicated that the overview was intended to help supporters of the Yucca Mountain Project express their support for a favorable site recommendation and that "the technical suitability of the site is less of a concern to Congress than the broader issue of whether the nuclear waste problem can be solved at an affordable price in both financial and political terms."

Clearly, the DOE has failed to exercise necessary and proper oversight of its contractors, resulting in an obvious pro-industry bias in the agency s site characterization and site recommendation activities. In January, Public Citizen joined 232 public interest and environmental groups calling on Congress to suspend consideration of the Yucca Mountain Project pending a thorough review of the causes and consequences of contractor conflict of interest in the DOE s site characterization and site recommendation activities. This letter is attached. The public cannot and lawmakers ought not have confidence in Secretary Abraham s site recommendation, which has arisen out of such a conflicted and compromised process.

Conclusion

The 1957 National Research Council report, commissioned by the Atomic Energy Commission and which marked the beginning of this government s continuing process to identify "disposal" options for high-level nuclear waste, stated in its summary, "Unlike the disposal of any other type of waste, the hazard related to radioactive waste is so great that no element of doubt should be allowed to exist regarding safety." Numerous unresolved technical, environmental, and policy issues plague the Yucca Mountain Project. To approve the repository proposal would directly threaten the health and safety of current and future residents of Nevada and more than 50 million people who live along likely nuclear waste transportation routes. Furthermore, the failed Yucca Mountain Project serves as a distraction from the serious policy examination and scientific study that is needed to more appropriately address the increasingly urgent issue of high-level nuclear waste management.

We recommend that:

the Committee uphold Nevada s anticipated Notice of Disapproval of the Yucca Mountain Project and reject any siting approval resolution;

the Committee hold additional hearings in all major cities along nuclear waste transportation routes identified in the final Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca Mountain Project to give the public a voice in this decision;
Congress and its Committees maintain vigorous legislative oversight of the nuclear waste transportation program that accompanies any repository proposal; and

Congress initiate a complete review of the civilian nuclear waste management program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office analysis of DOE presentation to Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, 1/25/99.

The presidential-appointed Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is an independent agency of the U.S. Government. The Board provides independent scientific and technical oversight of the civilian high-level radioactive waste management program.

Nuclear Waste: Technical, Cost and Schedule Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Project (December 2001).

Large Truck Crash Facts, 1999, Analysis Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (April 2001).

Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety,  http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/, viewed 3/16/02.

Why Is There a Train Accident Every 90 Minutes? RailWatch (revised March 1999).

Reported Incidents Involving Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments, 1949 to Present, Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office (1996).

Radiological Consequences Of Severe Rail Accident Involving Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments To Yucca Mountain: Hypothetical Baltimore Rail Tunnel Fire Involving SNF, Radioactive Waste Management Associates (September 2001).

"Potential Consequences of a Successful Sabotage Attack on a Spent Fuel Shipping Container: An Analysis of the Yucca Mountain EIS Treatment of Sabotage," Radioactive Waste Managemet Associates, April 2002.

The Boston Globe March 12, 2002 and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel March 12, 2002 quoting the Associated Press.

11 The Disposal of Radioactive Waste on Land, National Research Council (1957).


 link to www.publiccitizen.org

ANSS Maps of Recent Earthquake Activity in the USA


Magnitude 2.1 - NEVADA
2004 January 3 03:54:56 UTC
Preliminary Earthquake Report
Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno

A micro earthquake occurred at 03:54:56 (UTC) on Saturday, January 3, 2004. The magnitude 2.1 event has been located in NEVADA. (This is a computer-generated message -- this event has not yet been reviewed by a seismologist.)





Magnitude 2.1
Date-Time Saturday, January 3, 2004 at 03:54:56 (UTC)
= Coordinated Universal Time
Friday, January 2, 2004 at 7:54:56 PM
= local time at epicenter

Location 38.205°N, 117.873°W
Depth 0 km (~0 mile) set by location program
Region NEVADA
Distances 21 km (13 miles) ESE (109°) from Tonopah Junction, NV
41 km (26 miles) NW (318°) from Weepah, NV
43 km (27 miles) SE (141°) from Luning, NV
58 km (36 miles) WNW (285°) from Tonopah, NV
316 km (196 miles) E (96°) from Sacramento, CA

Location Uncertainty Error estimate not available
Parameters Nst= 33, Nph= 33, Dmin=0 km, Rmss=0 sec, Gp= 0,
M-type=local magnitude (ML), Version=1
Source Seismological Laboratory, University of Nevada, Reno

Event ID nn00024100

I am an italian (democratic!!) seismologist . In 5 minutes (it is my work...) I have checked that:

the location made with the only german stations is completelly wrong!

I report down here the location made with some european stations (using also german ones). The location is in the sea.

I have also made an extraction of earthquakes near the wrong coordinates ( near the YUCCA MOUNTAIN, I suppose) made by a web page of the
USGS, National Earthquake Information Center.
It does not seem to me that those scientists are trying to keep uninformed anyone. ( http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_rect.html)


European location follows: see at  http://www.emsc-csem.org/

BEGIN GSE2.0
MSG_TYPE DATA
MSG_ID 031223181716 EMSC
DATA_TYPE BULLETIN GSE2.0

EVENT 20031223181716
Date Time Latitude Longitude Depth Ndef Nsta Gap Mag1 N Mag2 N Mag3 N Author ID
rms OT_Error Smajor Sminor Az Err mdist Mdist Err Err Err Quality

2003/12/23 18:17:15.8 35.5626 -121.7911 40.0 14 14 232 mb 5.6 5 MIX 00000001
0.64 +- 0.49 31.3 5.6 25 12.55 91.12 +-0.1 a i ke

( Data from stations operated by : ALQ, ATX, FUR, GFU, GRF, JEN, NEIC, NERS, NNC, OBM, OBN, WAR )
( YARS )

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Sta Dist EvAz Phase Date Time TRes Azim AzRes Slow SRes Def SNR Amp Per Mag1 Mag2 ID
ANMO 12.55 88.3 m i P 2003/12/23 18:20:15.0 0.3 T GSRC
HKT 22.51 97.0 m i P 2003/12/23 18:22:12.7 -0.4 T GSRC
COLA 33.25 340.0 m e P 2003/12/23 18:23:51.0 -0.4 T GSRC
BILL 50.83 332.5 m e P 2003/12/23 18:26:14.8 0.2 T GSRC
TIXI 62.38 340.3 m e P 2003/12/23 18:27:35.5 -1.3 T GSRC
YAK 67.14 331.0 m e P 2003/12/23 18:28:06.8 -0.8 T GSRC
MOX 84.85 27.7 a P 2003/12/23 18:29:46.9 -0.7 T 246.4 2.90 mb 5.8 GFZ
GRFO 85.46 28.5 a P 2003/12/23 18:29:51.2 0.6 T 92.9 1.50 mb 5.6 GFZ
NKC 85.50 27.5 a P 2003/12/23 18:29:50.6 -0.2 T 94.1 2.00 mb 5.5 GFZ
SUW 85.79 19.9 a P 2003/12/23 18:29:52.3 0.1 T 59.5 1.20 mb 5.5 GFZ
ULN 86.17 329.5 m e P 2003/12/23 18:29:54.5 0.2 T GSRC
WET 86.55 27.9 a P 2003/12/23 18:29:56.2 0.2 T 303.4 4.10 mb 5.7 GFZ
OBN 87.80 12.2 m e P 2003/12/23 18:30:00.9 -1.0 T GSRC
BRVK 91.12 352.7 m e P 2003/12/23 18:30:18.4 0.7 T GSRC

STOP


Extraction from the USGS National Earthquake Information Center:

 http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/epic/epic_rect.html

NEIC: Earthquake Search Results

U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y

E A R T H Q U A K E D A T A B A S E



FILE CREATED: Mon Jan 26 04:57:01 2004
Geographic Grid Search Earthquakes= 13
Latitude: 41.400N - 40.500N
Longitude: 118.200W - 119.500W
Catalog Used: PDE
Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data


CAT YEAR MO DA ORIG TIME LAT LONG DEP MAGNITUDE

PDE 1973 05 31 053413.70 40.61 -119.31 5 .... .......
PDE 1975 08 31 112739.70 40.95 -119.11 33 4.20 MLBRK .... .......
PDE 1985 01 26 184323.47 40.90 -119.12 5 3.70 MLBRK .... .......
PDE 1985 02 23 153629.34 41.17 -118.73 5 4.40 MLBRK .... .......
PDE 1988 04 29 180000.01 40.75 -119.12 0 .... ....E..
PDE 1988 09 21 144341.56 41.38 -118.85 5 3.10 MLBRK .... .......
PDE 1990 11 30 191832.30 40.93 -119.36 5 2.60 MLBRK .... .......
PDE 1993 03 28 073424.14 40.57 -119.39 5 3.90 MLGS 4F.. .......
PDE 1995 11 11 002634.28 40.63 -119.49 5 2.90 MLGS .... .......
PDE 1999 08 20 020400.69 40.81 -119.21 5 3.20 MLGS .... .......
PDE 1999 08 21 121240.03 40.83 -119.18 5 3.10 MLGS .... .......
PDE-W 2003 02 14 234822 41.33 -118.70 0 3.40 MLREN .... .......
PDE-W 2003 10 01 083343.04 40.62 -119.32 11 3.30 MLREN .... .......

Are you people aware that the Yucca Mountain Complex is situated on a fault-line meeting point? The nexus of the point is nearly in the center of the Yucca Mountain Complex. The DOE had the Architectual Model for the Complex on display at their information booth at the Nevada State Fair a few years back.

The very first thing I noticed when I saw the Yucca Mountain Model was three fault-shift line cracks that (again) met at very near the center of the site. I asked the DOE personnel If this model was accurate, and if the geological layout shown was a correct duplication of the site. They informed me that it was. I then traced the fault-lines with my finger and asked them to verify that these were fault-lines. They answered affirmatively. Then I asked "...and they meet here on the real site as well?" They looked a bit uncomfortable at that question, and one of the men reluctantly answered that that was correct. His companion then quickly added that the fault-lines were stable, and were expected to remain stable for very many years. I asked how many years and he estimated a thousand or so. I asked if that could be gauranteed, and the reply was negative. Looking at the site again I questioned, why that location was chosen rather then moving the site over just a little bit so that it was not directly on the fault-lines. Their answer was that they honestly didn't know. My wife and I looked at each other incredulously. We took some of their brochures, thanked them and left.

Think about it. There have been many historic cases of fault-lines, volcanoes and other such "stable" geological features suddenly shifting or erupting. Surprizing geologists and nearby settlements, and causing disasterous results. Now I ask you all. What kind of idiot builds a complex of any kind, directly on a fault-shift nexus or with a fault-line running straight though it?