This is rather long but information is always valuable.
It will give you something to think about.
Update with new information added January 27 2010. Links near the bottom of the page.
A Haiti Disaster Relief Scenario Was Envisaged by the US Military One Day Before the Earthquake
by Michel Chossudovsky
January 21 2010
A Haiti disaster relief scenario had been envisaged at the headquarters of US Southern Command SOUTHCOM in Miami one day prior to the earthquake.
The holding of pre-disaster simulations pertained to the impacts of a hurricane in Haiti. They were held on January 10. (Bob Brewin, Defense launches online system to coordinate Haiti relief efforts (1/15/10) — GovExec.com, complete text of article is contained in Annex)
The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DoD), was involved in organizing these scenarios on behalf of US Southern Command.(SOUTHCOM).
Defined as a “Combat Support Agency”, DISA has a mandate to provide IT and telecommunications, systems, logistics services in support of the US military. (See DISA website: Defense Information Systems Agency).
On the day prior to the earthquake, “on Monday [January 11, 2010], Jean Demay, DISA’s technical manager for the agency’s Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project, happened to be at the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami preparing for a test of the system in a scenario that involved providing relief to Haiti in the wake of a hurricane.” (Bob Brewin, op cit, emphasis added)
The Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project (TISC) is a communications-information tool which “links non-government organizations with the United States [government and military] and other nations for tracking, coordinating and organizing relief efforts”.(Government IT Scrambles To Help Haiti, TECHWEB January 15, 2010).
The TISC is an essential component of the militarization of emergency relief. The US military through DISA oversees the information – communications system used by participating aid agencies. Essentially, it is a communications sharing system controlled by the US military, which is made available to approved non-governmental partner organizations. The Defense Information Systems Agency also “provides bandwidth to aid organizations involved in Haiti relief efforts.”
There are no details on the nature of the tests conducted on January 11 at SOUTHCOM headquarters.
DISA’s Jean Demay was in charge of coordinating the tests. There are no reports on the participants involved in the disaster relief scenarios.
One would expect, given DISA’s mandate, that the tests pertained to simulating communications. logistics and information systems in the case of a major emergency relief program in Haiti.
The fundamental concept underlying DISA’s Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project (TISC) is to “Achieve Interoperability With Warfighters, Coalition Partners And NGOs” (Defense Daily, December 19, 2008)
Upon completing the tests and disaster scenarios on January 11, TISC was considered to be, in relation to Haiti, in “an advanced stage of readiness”. On January 13, the day following the earthquake, SOUTHCOM took the decision to implement the TISC system, which had been rehearsed in Miami two days earlier:
“After the earthquake hit on Tuesday [January 12, 2010], Demay said SOUTHCOM decided to go live with the system. On [the following day] Wednesday [January 13, 2010], DISA opened up its All Partners Access Network, supported by the Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project, to any organization supporting Haiti relief efforts.
The information sharing project, developed with backing from both SOUTHCOM and the Defense Department’s European Command, has been in development for three years. It is designed to facilitate multilateral collaboration between federal and nongovernmental agencies.
Demay said that since DISA set up a Haiti Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Community of Interest on APAN on Wednesday [the day following the earthquake], almost 500 organizations and individuals have joined, including a range of Defense units and various nongovernmental organizations and relief groups. (Bob Brewin, Defense launches online system to coordinate Haiti relief efforts (1/15/10) — GovExec.com emphasis added)
DISA has a Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Field Office in Miami. Under the Haiti Disaster Emergency Program initiated on January 12, DISA’s mandate is described as part of a carefully planned military operation:
“DISA is providing US Southern Command with information capabilities which will support our nation in quickly responding to the critical situation in Haiti,” said Larry K. Huffman, DISA’s Principal Director of Global Information Grid Operations. “Our experience in providing support to contingency operations around the world postures us to be responsive in meeting USSOUTHCOM’s requirements.”
DISA, a Combat Support Agency, engineers and [sic] provides command and control capabilities and enterprise infrastructure to continuously operate and assure a global net-centric enterprise in direct support to joint warfighters, National level leaders, and other mission and coalition partners across the full spectrum of operations. As DoD’s satellite communications leader, DISA is using the Defense Satellite Communications System to provide frequency and bandwidth support to all organizations in the Haitian relief effort. This includes Super High Frequency missions that are providing bandwidth for US Navy ships and one Marine Expeditionary Unit that will arrive shortly on station to provide medical help, security, and helicopters among other support. This also includes all satellite communications for the US Air Force handling round-the-clock air traffic control and air freight operations at the extremely busy Port-Au-Prince Airport. DISA is also providing military Ultra High Frequency channels and contracting for additional commercial SATCOM missions that greatly increase this capability for relief efforts. (DISA -Press Release, January 2010, undated, emphasis added)
In the immediate wake of the earthquake, DISA played a key supportive role to SOUTHCOM, which was designated by the Obama administration as the de facto “lead agency” in the US Haitian relief program. The underlying system consists in integrating civilian aid agencies into the orbit of an advanced communications information system controlled by the US military.
“DISA is also leveraging a new technology in Haiti that is already linking NGOs, other nations and US forces together to track, coordinate and better organize relief efforts” (Ibid)
ANNEX
Defense launches online system to coordinate Haiti relief efforts
By Bob Brewin, Govexec.com 01/15/2010
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=44407&dcn=e_gvetwww
As personnel representing hundreds of government and nongovernmental agencies from around the world rush to the aid of earthquake-devastated Haiti, the Defense Information Systems Agency has launched a Web portal with multiple social networking tools to aid in coordinating their efforts.
On Monday [January 11, 2010, a day before the earthquake], Jean Demay, DISA’s technical manager for the agency’s Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project, happened to be at the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami preparing for a test of the system in a scenario that involved providing relief to Haiti in the wake of a hurricane. After the earthquake hit on Tuesday [January 12, 2010], Demay said SOUTHCOM decided to go live with the system. On Wednesday [January 13, 2010], DISA opened up its All Partners Access Network, supported by the Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project, to any organization supporting Haiti relief efforts.
The information sharing project, developed with backing from both SOUTHCOM and the Defense Department’s European Command, has been in development for three years. It is designed to facilitate multilateral collaboration between federal and nongovernmental agencies.
Demay said that since DISA set up a Haiti Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Community of Interest on APAN on Wednesday, almost 500 organizations and individuals have joined, including a range of Defense units and various nongovernmental organizations and relief groups.
APAN provides a series of collaboration tools, including geographical information systems, wikis, YouTube and MySpace-like pages and multilingual chat rooms.
Meanwhile, other organizations are tackling different technological challenges. Gianluca Bruni, the Dubai-based information technology chief for emergency preparedness and response for the World Food Programme, is setting up networks and systems to support United Nations and nongovernmental organizations in Haiti. WFP already has dispatched two communications kits to Haiti, with satellite systems that operate at 1 megabit per second and can support up to 100 users. It also has sent laptop computers, Wi-Fi access points and long-range point-to-point wireless systems to connect remote users to the satellite terminals. Bruni said eventually WFP plans to set up cyber cafés in Haiti for use all relief workers in the country.
Jon Anderson, a DISA spokesman, said the agency is supplying 10 megabits of satellite capacity to Navy, Marine and Air Force units engaged in the Haiti relief operation.
Many of the relief organizations and agencies in Haiti are bringing their own radio systems to the country. DISA has deployed a three-person team from its Joint Spectrum Management Element to help manage radio frequency spectrum.
The Joint Forces Command’s Joint Communications Support Element deployed two teams equipped with satellite systems and VoIP phones to support SOUTCOM in Port-au-Prince late Wednesday. Those systems were operational “in a matter of hours,” said JCSE Chief of Staff Chris Wilson. The organization will send another team to Haiti in the next few days.
Wilson said JCSE was able to get its gear into Haiti quickly because the systems already were loaded on pallets in Miami in preparation for an exercise that has been canceled.
So many governments and agencies from around the world have responded to the crisis in Haiti that they have overwhelmed the ability of the Port-au-Prince airport to handle incoming relief flights. The Federal Aviation Administration has had a ground-stop on aircraft headed for Haiti for much of the past two days.
FAA warned in an advisory Friday that “due to limited ramp space at Port-au-Prince airport,” with the exception of international cargo flights, “the Haitians are not accepting any aircraft into their airspace.”
The advisory added that domestic U.S. military and civilian flights to Haiti must be first be cleared by its command center. Exemptions will be based solely on the basis of ramp space. The agency also starkly warned “there is no available fuel” at the Port-au-Prince airport.
Well after reading that I got and OH REALLY feeling
Like that same feeling over 9/11 and 7/7 when they were doing a practice scenario both times. Well this little scenario makes me wonder. Finished the plan the day before did they?
Well can an earth quake be man made. Well yes of course it can. So dug through my archives and found a couple of story’s and also have a couple of newer ones as well.
So once upon a time. They did some bomb testing.
Earthquake Tsunamis and Nuclear Testing
Unnatural Disaster?
By LILA RAJIVA
December 30 2004
In the aftermath of a cataclysm like the Asian tsunami, speculation can run wild. Reserving judgment until we really know what happened, here is a list of salient questions and answers that I’ve compiled from news reports, government and other reliable sources.
Q: What set off the gigantic tsunamis that devastated coastal south-east Asia?
A: An undersea earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale with its epicenter about 160 km from the northern portion of the island of Sumatra in Indonesia on Sunday, December 26.
Q: How soon after the quake did the tsunami hit?
A: The earthquake hit Indonesia at 6:58 a.m; the tsunami arrived as much as 2 1/2 hours later, without warning, suggesting that it might not have been caused directly by the quake but by some other change triggered by the quake.
Q: How large was it?
A: It was the largest since the 9.2 quake in Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1964 and the 4th largest in the century. The quake moved the entire island of Sumatra about 100 feet toward the southwest and even disturbed the Earth’s rotation. It was the first tsunami in the Indian Ocean since 1883. Waves of around 30-40 ft in height and even greater were widely reported.
Q: What caused the undersea earthquake?
A: Compression between the Indian and Burmese tectonic plates. Scientists believe that one plate that comprised the landmass from India to Australia has broken up into two. The initial 8.9 eruption happened near the location of the meeting point of the Australian, Indian and Burmese plates
Q: What made the plates shift?
A: It may have been set off by another quake of about 8.1 on the Richter scale on the other side of the plate about 900 km SE of the coast of Tasmania on Thursday, December 24, which caused no serious damage however. The causal relationship is not proved but the time sequence is striking and some seismologists have considered it quite possible.
Q: Were tsunamis expected from that earlier quake?
A: The U.S. government’s Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said on its Web site that “widely destructive” tsunamis from the quake were possible in the open ocean
Q: Have there been similar earthquakes set off the South East of Tasmania before?
A: Yes, in 1998 a very large earthquake occurred south of Australia and New Zealand, between Macquarie Island and Antarctica on March 25 about 2,300 km south of Hobart in Tasmania, and 500 km north of the Antarctic coast
Q: Did this generate tsunamis?
A: Very large long-period surface waves were recorded in the hour after the earthquake.
Q: What connection if any is there between Tasmania and Antarctica?
A: Its capital Hobart on the South East coast is the base for the administration of Australia’s Antarctic program. The French regularly resupply their Antarctic base at Dumont d’Urville from the port, and American, Chinese, Russian and Italian ice breakers regularly visit.. Through its exploratory, commercial and scientific associations with the sub-antarctic and Antarctic regions, Hobart possibly enjoys a longer continuous Antarctic connection than any other spot on the planet.
Q: What are some other disturbances that can cause tsunamis?
A: Landslides or explosions such as underwater nuclear testing.
Q: Is underwater nuclear testing common?
A: Yes, The United States has conducted 1,054 tests of nuclear devices between July 16, 1945 and September 23, 1992. Before 1962, all the tests were atmospheric (on land or in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans) but overall the majority – 839 – were underground tests. From 1966 to 1990, 167 French nuclear test explosions have been performed on two atolls in French Polynesia, Morurua and Fangataua. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric. Atmospheric explosions were carried out until 1974, but only underground tests after that. The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself.
Q: What are the effects of underwater nuclear testing?
A: To quote from a 1995 case brought against the French government, Case T-219/95 R, by Marie-Thérèse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French Polynesia: “Short-term effects include geological damage and the venting of gaseous and volatile fission products into the biosphere. Nuclear tests, the applicants say, can cause landslides and did indeed cause a major underwater landslide at Mururoa in 1979, when a nuclear device was exploded after jamming half-way down its shaft. Since the geology of Mururoa is already unstable due to large-scale fracturing caused by previous tests, further major landslides are likely. Such landslides in the past have given rise to tsunamis causing coastal damage in areas as far away as Pitcairn and Tahiti and endangering residences such as that of Ms. Danielsson. They can also release radioactive material into the sea, with catastrophic effects on the food chain in an area such as French Polynesia where fish is an important part of the diet.
Q: What were the effects of the Murarao landslide?
A: It shifted at least one million cubic meters of coral and rock and created a cavity, probably 140 meters in diameter and produced a major tidal wave comparable to a tsunami, which spread through the Tuamotu Archipelago and injured people on the southern part of Moruroa Atoll. French authorities initially denied that any mishap had occurred and declared that the tidal wave was of natural origin, but in a publication in 1985 they did acknowledge “the accident of 25 July 1979”.
Q: Can landslides create tsunamis?
A: Research on underwater landslides is new and it is only in recent years that the potentially catastrophic results of a landslide have become known. Dr Summerhayes, Director of the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences in the United Kingdom, is quoted in the Independent Newspaper on 9 September 1995 as saying that volcanic islands like Mururoa were:
“… inherently unstable and may fail given an appropriate trigger like an earthquake or a very large explosion. Failure is likely to cause a giant submarine landslide which may demolish parts of the island and could create a tidal wave that may itself damage coastal installations on other islands nearby.”
Furthermore he stated that the creation of such a tidal wave was “a general threat to coasts as far away as New Zealand and Australia.”
Q: How predictable would earthquakes be in the region around Indonesia?
A: Indonesia, an archipelago of 17,000 islands, lies along the Pacific Ring of Fire where plate boundaries intersect and volcanoes regularly erupt.
Q: How common are tsunamis in the Indian Ocean?
A: Tsunamis are rare in the Indian Ocean though there have been 7 records of tsunamis set off by earthquakes near Indonesia, Pakistan and at the Bay of Bengal.
This is the first multi-ocean tsunami since Krakatau erupted in the nineteenth century.
Q: Is there a warning system for tsunamis in place?
A: An international system of buoys and monitoring stations ” the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center based in Hawaii ” spans the Pacific, alerting nations there to any oncoming disasters. But no such system guards the Indian Ocean. Neither India or Sri Lanka are part of the system and though Thailand is the south western coast does not have the system,s sensors floated on buoys.
Q: Could the carnage have been avoided?
A: Much of this death and destruction could have been prevented with a simple system of buoys. Officials in Thailand and Indonesia have said that an immediate public warning could have saved lives, but that they did not know about the danger because there was no international system in place to track tsunamis in the Indian Ocean.
Q: How difficult would it have been to set up?
A: The detector buoys have been around for decades and the U.S. has had a monitoring system for more than half a century. More than 50 seismometers dot the Northwest ready to monitor earthquakes that might cause tsunamis. There are 6 buoys in the middle of the Pacific equipped with sensors called “tsunameters” that measure changes in water pressure and programmed to alert the country’s two tsunami-warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska. Dr. Eddie Bernard, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, says just a few buoys could do the job.
Q: What held up putting a system in place?
A: Scientists wanted to place two more tsunami meters in the Indian Ocean, including one near Indonesia, but lacked funding, said Bernard. The tsunameters each cost only $250,000.
Q: How soon did people know about the tsunami?
A: Within 15 minutes of the earthquake, scientists running the existing tsunami warning system for the Pacific sent an alert from their Honolulu hub to 26 participating countries, including Thailand and Indonesia, that destructive waves might be generated by the Sumatra tremors.
Q: Did anyone warn Indonesia or any other country?
A: “We put out a bulletin within 20 minutes, technically as fast as we could do it,” says Jeff LaDouce of the NOOA. LaDouce says e-mails were dispatched to Indonesian officials, but he doesn’t know what happened to the information. Phone calls were hurriedly made to countries in the Indian Ocean danger zone, Dr. Laura S. L. Kong, a Commerce Department seismologist and director of the International Tsunami Information Center said, but not with the speed that comes from pre-established emergency planning. Reportedly, NOOA didn,t know whom to contact.
Q: What responsibility do Asian governments have in the lack of preparedness?
A: At a meeting in June of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, a United Nations body, experts concluded that the “Indian Ocean has a significant threat from both local and distant tsunamis” and should have a warning network but India, Thailand, Malaysia and other countries in the region have “never shown the initiative to do anything,” said Dr. Tad Murty, an expert on the region’s tsunamis who is affiliated with the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. “There’s no reason for a single individual to get killed in a tsunami,” he noted, “The waves are totally predictable. We have travel-time charts covering all of the Indian Ocean. From where this earthquake happened to hit, the travel time for waves to hit the tip of India was four hours. That’s enough time for a warning. In Thailand, officials reportedly played down warnings afraid that if there was a false alarm, tourism might be seriously damages as had happened once before.
Q: Were there any oddities about the quake besides this?
A: The quake was rated a 6.4 on the Richter scale according to an official at the Bureau of Meteorology and Geophysics in Jakarta. But the U.S. Geological Survey measured the earthquake at a magnitude of 8.1. The assessment significantly underestimated the size and impact of the quake.
Q: When were people in the affected regions warned?
A: Officials in Thailand issued the only warnings of the impending disaster, but broadcasts beamed to tourist resorts in the country’s south underestimated the threat and a Web site caution was not posted until three hours after the first waves hit.
Q: Was anyone warned in time at all?
A: Yes. The NOAA immediately warned the U.S. Naval Station at Diego Garcia, which suffered very little damage from the tsunami. NOAA was able to get the warning to the US Navy base in the area, but says it was unable to contact the civil authorities in the region to warn them.
Q: Was there any damage to Diego Garcia, the U.S. base in the Indian Ocean?
A: None, although Diego Garcia, the southernmost island of the Chagos Archipelag, lies about 1,000 miles south of India and about 2,000 miles from the earthquake,s epicenter. Meanwhile, Somalia, nearly 3,000 from the earthquake,s center, reported more than 100 deaths in coastal areas. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Geological Survey, said damage differs greatly because of differences in the undersea topography. The numerous coral reefs may have dissipated some of the waves, impact on the British-owned island, resulting in only a slightly elevated tide, hardly noticeable to residents
Q: Have tidal waves figured in weapons research?
A: Yes. Secret wartime experiments were conducted off the New Zealand coast to create a bomb that would trigger tidal waves, according to government files declassified in Auckland. But the tsunami bomb was never fully tested and the war ended before the project was completed. Its mastermind was Thomas Leech, an Australian professor who was the dean of engineering at Auckland University from 1940 to 1950. He set off a series of underwater explosions that caused mini tidal waves at Whangaparaoa, north of Auckland, in 1944 and 1945. Details of the research, known as Project Seal, are contained in 53- year-old documents released by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Q: Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to have triggered the Macquarie quake in some way and indirectly caused the changes that led to the Sumatra quake and the Asian tsunami?
A: It is possible that a very large explosion might have triggered the first quake directly in some way or that repeated prior testing could have induced changes that led to the quake indirectly, but research on the fall-out of nuclear testing is so highly classified that little is known of the possible impact. The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, leaving the door open to future U.S. testing despite an extended moratorium. There has already been a strong move toward resumption of testing since 2002. Now earth-penetrating nukes (bunker busters) and mini-nukes might provide the pretext.
Lila Rajiva is a free-lance journalist in the Baltimore area and the author of “The Language of Empire: Abu Ghraib and the American Media,” to be released by Monthly Review Press in 2005 Spring.
Environmental Effects of French Nuclear Testing
The following report has been distributed by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, as a result of renwewed interest in French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. It is an updated version of Chapter 9 from the book “Radioactive Heaven and Earth: the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing, in, on, and above the earth.”(New York, Apex Press, 1991) It is one of the few published sources for information on this subject, and reveals that although only limited environmental impact reports have been conducted in French Polynesia,and despite restrictions imposed by the French, they still highlight the threat to the environment in the Pacific posed by the French nuclear testing programme.
The report contains information under the following headings:
- Locations, Numbers and Types of Tests
- Historical Context of Testings
- Downwind Communities
- Army Personnel
- Hot Spots
- Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Testing
- Environmental Effects of Underground Testing
- References
For further information concerning the effects of nuclear testing on the health of French Polynesians, click here
For an update on the latest news concerning nuclear testing and disarmament issues, click here
Locations, Numbers and Types of Tests
The first French nuclear tests were conducted in Algeria between 1960 and 1965. The first test took place on February 13, 1960 at Reggan when Algeria was still a colony in the throes of a war for independence. In all, fourteen nuclear weapons tests were conducted at the two Algerian locations, four atmospheric and 10 underground. The French government made preparations to move the testing to its colony Polynesia after Algeria won its independence.
The French test sites in the Pacific are Moruroa and Fangataufa, two atolls in the southeastern area of the Tuamotu Archipelago, French Polynesia. The Moruroa Atoll (21.83o Southern latitude and 138.88o Western longitude) is one of the largest coral atolls in that area. The atoll, in the form of an incomplete ring encircling a lagoon, measures 26 km. east to west and 10 km north to south. The 65km.-long reefcrown, with a mean height of 2 meters and rarely exceeding 400 meters in width, is open, leaving a 5-km-wide passage into the lagoon on the northwestern side. The lagoon has an average depth of 40 meters and is the crater of an extinct underwater volcano, around which outer coral has grown above sea level to form the visible rim. The distance to the nearest inhabited island (Tureia) is 100 kilometers, the distance to Tahiti is 1,200 kilometers, and New Zealand is 4,200 kilometers away. The atoll was uninhabited before the installation of the test center.(1)
Fangataufa, a much smaller atoll, is located 41 kilometers south- southeast of Moruroa (22.25o Southern latitude and 138.63o Western longitude). It measures 5 by 8 kilometers and was also uninhabited before the tests. In contrast to Moruroa, Fangataufa was a closed atoll. The French military therefore opened a 400 meter gap in the coral ring to enable ships to enter the lagoon.(2)
From 1966 to 1990, 167 nuclear test explosions have been performed on these two atolls. These tests were used for the development of at least eight types of nuclear warheads. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric, 39 over Moruroa, 5 over Fangataufa. The overall yield of these atmospheric explosions was 12,000 kilotons of TNT. The first atmospheric test was performed on Moruroa on July 2, 1966, the last on September 15, 1974. Most of the early tests were performed on the surface or on a barge anchored in the lagoon. Because of the large amount of radioactive fallout resulting from the low burst altitude, most further tests were performed with warheads hanging under balloons. Very few tests were conducted as air-drops from planes. One test, designed to check the security apparatus of the warhead, resulted in no nuclear detonation, but the fragmented bomb spread huge amounts of plutonium over the coral rim. The first explosion of a two stage fissionfusion device on August 24, 1988 at Fangataufa was also the largest explosion, with a yield of 2.6 megatons.
After June 5, 1975 the tests were conducted underground. Since then between 4 and 11 underground explosions have been conducted each year. Of the total, 3 were in Fangataufa in 1975 and 1988, the other 120 at Moruroa. The yields of these explosions have never been officially released but the total yield is estimated at about 2,500 kilotons TNT. This estimate is based largely upon observations by the New Zealand Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR) and the Swedish National Defense Research Institute (FOA), which recorded and analyzed the seismic data from these tests.(3)
The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself. In 1986 all tests were shifted to this so called ‘zone-central’.(4)
Historical Context of Testing
The independence of Algeria in 1962 threatened further testing at the Algerian sites. The French Defense Department therefore started to look for other suitable test sites. Possible locations included Clipperton Island in the Pacific as well as the Kerguelen Islands in the Southern Indian Ocean, which were eventually ruled out because of their hostile climate and remote location. The final decision was in favor of the uninhabited islands of Moruroa and Fangataufa, and in 1962 the ‘Center d’Experimentation du Pacifique’ (CEP) was established.(5)
The main argument favoring the selection was that only 5,000 inhabitants lived within a 1,000 kilometer radius of the planned ground zero in Moruroa and that it would therefore be suitable for atmospheric testing. Although the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty banned the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater and in space, France was not a signatory to it, and the French government under President de Gaulle announced that it would continue its atmospheric nuclear tests using the Moruroa Atoll. (According to US government sources, President Kennedy offered help in the development of a French nuclear program if France would stop atmospheric testing. This offer was refused by the French government.)(6)
In 1972 the French government bowed to public pressure from Pacific and Latin American countries. The government tried to find a suitable location for underground testing. The island initially considered, Eiao, in the Marquesas Group, was found to be unsuitable because of fragile basalt layers. In 1973 Fangataufa was chosen, and in 1974 President Giscard d’Estaing announced that as of that year only underground tests would be performed. After initial tests in Fangataufa, the testing was moved back to Moruroa, presumably to avoid the costs of running two test-sites.(7) However, after many tests, Moruroa was deemed to fragile for larger underground testing, and in 1988 a high-ranking French officer commented that the larger tests would be relocated to Fangataufa to avoid serious damage to the rock of Moruroa. Although the remark was later denied, on November 13, 1988 a test was performed at Fangataufa.(8)
Sources of reliable information on the tests and their outcome are extremely limited due to the extreme secrecy of the French military. Limited investigations by four groups have been permitted by the French authorities in recent years: a French scientific mission in 1982;(9) a New Zealand, Australian, and Papua New Guinea scientific mission in 1983;(10) the Cousteau scientific mission in 1987;(11) and the mission of the associated French Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (AMFPGN), the IPPNW affiliate, in 1990.(12)
The reports of these committees are the most important available source of information on the consequences of the testing. All these missions were extremely restricted in duration, 3-5 days, and in preparation time. They were, therefore, only exploratory. All four missions were restricted in their access to relevant data, sites or samples, such as coral and sediment from within the lagoon and specific areas of the atoll. Epidemiological data presented by French authorities were insufficient or unreliable. Despite these deficiencies, these studies as well as New Zealand and Swedish seismic data are, to date, the best sources of information on the effects of French testing.
Downwind Communities
The French government has not made public any documents about nuclear tests in Algeria. In the absence of official documentation about armed forces participation, participation of Algerians and dose and contamination levels, there has been considerable speculation and rumor about all of these subjects. The one figure that we have seen on radiation doses was reported by Greenpeace:
“The first underground test, on 1 May 1962, code-named Beryl, was to test the prototype for the AN 11 bomb for the Mirage IVA aircraft. Despite adverse winds, and against the advice of the Commission of Nuclear Safety the explosion went ahead because two VIPs, one from the Ministere des Armees, were present. Twelve soldiers were contaminated when radioactive vapor escaped through a fissure in the rock; nine of them received more than 100 rem of radiation.”(13)
Moruroa was selected for atmospheric testing because only 5,000 inhabitants lived within a 1,000 kilometer radius of the testing site. Yet, the initial dangerzone around the test site, which was to be kept free of planes and ships during a test, contained seven inhabited atolls. When this was pointed out to the French authorities, they reduced the radius of the zone designated as dangerous, but the atoll of Tureia, with around 60 inhabitants, 100 kilometers away from Moruroa, remained in the danger area. This island seems to have received severe radioactive fallout several times. One occasion was the test series of JuneJuly 1967, when two French meteorologists on Tureia were evacuated two days after a test and transferred to the hospital at Hao. A complete evacuation of Tureia took place in 1968.(14) Despite these evacuations, the French authorities described the radiation doses on Tureia and Gambier from these tests as never exceeding 75 millirems per year.(15)
The French Atomic Energy Commission acknowledged many years later that the 1966 Aldebarran tests covered the islands of Mureia, Tamoure, and Gambier with radioactive fallout resulting in radiation doses of 200 to 400 millirems.(16) Because the immediate downwind communities are very small and under the control of the French government and independent radiation data are not available, the impact of the atmospheric tests on nearby communities cannot be judged. French military control over the health system of Polynesia is an obstacle to data collection. Health statistics from the period of atmospheric testing were either not collected, poorly collected, or not published. Missions of longer duration, a lifting of the “military secret” classification on health and environmental aspects of testing, and careful epidemiological surveys would be needed to assess the radiological impact of testing on the health of the population across the region.
The most intense monitoring program of the Pacific region was performed by the National Radiation Laboratory of the New Zealand Department of Health, in co operation with the Meteorological Service, the Australian Radiation Laboratory, and the governments of various Pacific islands. These measurements show that, although fission products from the tests were expected to circle the globe in an eastward direction, reaching the southern Pacific again after three weeks, rapid changes in radioactivity concentration in the days immediately after a test were occasionally observed in various Southern Pacific monitoring stations, indicating that radioactive material had been caught up and swept west to the central South Pacific.
The whole South Pacific should be considered a downwind community. Total beta activity in the air was elevated for all monitoring stations in New Zealand as well as on Pacific islands including Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Tahiti for the whole period from 1966 to 1975. The same is true for total beta activity in rain. Measurements of gamma emitters in air at Tahiti returned to pre test levels in 1975, after being elevated for the five previous years. Approximate mean effective dose equivalent commitments from nuclear test fallout in New Zealand, Fiji and Tahiti normalized finally between 1975 and 1980.(17) All these data suggest a strong linkage between the concentration of fission products and French atmospheric tests from 1966 until 1974.
In a broader sense, downwind communities also include the South American countries. Most tests were performed with winds blowing to the east to avoid direct contamination of the Pacific islands west of Moruroa. Radiation levels up to 12 millirems were attributed to the French test as far away as Peru and Baja California.(18)
Armed Forces Personnel
The tests at Moruroa are shrouded in extreme secrecy. All exposure information is controlled by the French military and nuclear establishment. Measurements of radiation exposure of armed forces personnel have never been made available the scientists or the public. No known followup of exposed personnel of the sort that was done on British, Australian and New Zealand personnel involved in British tests has taken place. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that comparable exposures have occurred. Measurements were performed by airplanes and helicopters flying into the radioactive clouds. There are also reports of equipment, planes, ships and shelters needing to be decontaminated after certain tests.(19)
To estimate the number of potentially exposed personnel it is relevant to consider the organizational structure of the CEP. The Center is run by the government authority ‘Directions des Centres d’Experimentations Nucleaires’ (DIRCEN), under the control of the French Ministry of Defense. This authority has personnel on the atolls of Moruroa and small peripheral stations on the atolls of Tureia, Tematangi and Reao. Between 3,000 and 3,600 people, military and civilian, are based at these locations. In the early 1960’s the atoll of Hao was used as a rear base for assembling the nuclear weapons to be tested, which came from France by plane. This airbase, 400 kilometers northwest of Moruroa, houses around 400 people, of whom 270 are French military personnel. An additional 1,100 people are based in Tahiti, providing the administrative and back-up services for the testing center.(20)
The first and only report about the problems encountered by personnel at the CEP came from the civilian technicians and engineers employed to conduct the tests on the atoll. A report by their trade union released in 1981 gave detailed information on the careless way in which waste has been managed on the Moruroa Atoll. The report does not contain radiation measurements.(21)
In summary, it seems highly likely that French and Polynesian civilian and military personnel at the CEP were exposed to radiation from the tests. However, the health implications of this exposure cannot be stated with any precision, due to lack of published radiation exposure data, epidemiological studies, or reasonable followup.
Hot Spots
At least two hot spots in the South Pacific have been identified by radiation measurements. Both are linked to rainouts. One occurred in Samoa, 3,610 kilometers from Moruroa, on September 12, 1966. This was a consequence of the test Betelgeuse on the previous day, in which a 120 kiloton bomb hanging under a balloon was exploded at a height of 600 meters, despite worsening wind conditions. (President de Gaulle attended this test, and it has been suggested that this was why the bomb was detonated in spite of unfavorable winds.)(22) As a result of that rain-out, the total beta activity in rain in Apia/Samoa in the year 1966 increased from a normal level of around 200 megabecquerels per square kilometer to 370,000 megabecquerels per square kilometer.
Another incident of similar magnitude occurred at Tahiti on July 19, 1974, following a test on July 17 or 18 of unknown yield and burst height. As a consequence, the average annual concentration of total beta activity in the air, which is normally below 0.3 millibecquerels per cubic meter, increased to 1,460 millibecquerels per cubic meter in Papeete Tahiti. The effective dose equivalent from nuclear test fallout due to external shortlived gamma exposure increased from below 1 millisieverts to 154 millisieverts.(23) It is not known whether there have been additional incidents because detailed information for other locations in French Polynesia is not available.
Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Testing
The total amount of plutonium-239 dispersed as a result of the 45 announced French atmospheric tests, including the four in Algeria, would be about 6750 curies, assuming 150 curies per test. Table 2, in Chapter 3, gives an estimate for the fission yield of the announced French atmospheric tests of about 10.9 megatons. On this basis, the amount of cesium-127 and strontium90 dispersed would have been 1.7 million curies and 1.1 million curies respectively. About onehalf of the cesium and strontium still remains in the atmosphere, on the ground, and in water bodies. French testing in the Pacific was the source of almost all the atmospheric fission product contamination, due to the much larger number of tests and the far greater yields of the French tests there than in Algeria.
Environmental Effects of Underground Testing at Moruroa
The possible environmental effects of underground testing include short-term and longterm effects. At the time of the explosion, fracturing of the atoll surface triggers landslides, tsunamis (tidal waves), and earthquakes. There is also evidence that radionuclides have vented to the environment. Possible long-term effects include leakage of fission products to the biosphere and transfer of dissolved plutonium from the lagoon to the ocean and the food chain.
- Physical Damage to the Reef
The upper layer of the atoll is made up of reef carbonates, mainly limestone. This limestone cover is approximately 300 meters in the south of the atoll, increasing to 430 – 550 meters in the north. The upper part of this limestone layer is undolomitized and comprises porous coral debris, approximately 125 meters thick. The lower part is dolomitized and therefore quite compact.
This limestone layer is separated from the underlying volcanic material by a transitional zone of variable thickness, composed mainly of weathered clays. It can vary in thickness from 40 to 45 meters below the atoll to a mere 50 centimeters or even nothing beneath most of the lagoon.
The clay zone is impervious. The underlying volcanics are initially aerial volcanics, which then change to more homogeneous submarine volcanics at greater depths.
Each scientific mission to Moruroa has described severe impairment of the integrity of at least the carbonate part of the atoll. The damage includes fissures in the limestone and surface subsidences of large areas of the atoll. Fissures are propagated by the testing, a result of the cumulative compacting of the limestone. Fissuring serves to increase lateral and vertical water transport in the carbonate body of the atoll,(24) possibly resulting in more rapid leakage of the fission products. The French authorities claim that no new damage is occurring because the tests are no longer conducted under the reef crown but under the lagoon.(25) This claim is contradicted by underwater observations of the Cousteau mission, which discovered recently fallen noncolonized limestone blocks, suggesting that tests were carried out in the months immediately preceding their arrival and that on-going tests are still damaging the reef. (26) - Triggering of Landslides, Tsunamis and Earthquakes
At least one major test-related landslide and consequent Tsunami in Moruroa, on July 25, 1979. Apparently, the 120kiloton weapon, which was supposed to be lowered into a shaft of 800 meters, got stuck at a depth of 400 meters and could not be dislodged. The French authorities decided to explode the device anyway. This explosion resulted in a major underwater landslide of at least one million cubic meters of coral and rock and created a cavity, probably 140 meters in diameter. The underwater landslide produced a major tidal wave comparable to a tsunami, which spread through the Tuamotu Archipelago and injured people on the southern part of Moruroa Atoll. (27)
French authorities initially denied that any mishap had occurred and declared that the tidal wave was of natural origin, but in a publication in 1985 they did acknowledge “the accident of 25 July 1979”.(28) - Venting of Gaseous and Volatile Fission Products
Unusual concentrations of short-lived iodine131 in marine organisms and krypton 85 and tritium in air or water indicate that venting has occurred.
The scientists of the Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea Mission in 1983 were authorized to carry out a single experiment in situ at Moruroa. Their measurements demonstrated a high level of tritium in the interstitial air of the surface terrain. The measured tritium levels were 500 Becquerels per liter while the expected concentration due to atmospheric fallout should have been in the range of 0.2 Becquerels per liter. The report of this mission offers two explanations for these extremely high unexpected tritium levels: either venting of gaseous tritium directly from underground cavities or a faster ground water flow rate than admitted. (29)
The venting explanation appears to be more likely, based on findings of Cousteau mission in 1987. Just days after a test, iodine 131 (half life of 8.05 days) was found in all sediment samples. The same mission measured radioactivity of plankton, which is an even better indicator of venting. In plankton, they found an iodine131 concentration of 22,000 picocuries per kilogram, by far the strongest radioactivity found during their mission. The Cousteau report stated that iodine-131 most likely reached the surface via the test bore. The report overlooked the fact that the spot with the maximum iodine131 concentration in sediment was the farthest away from the test site. Nevertheless, because of the short halflife of this radioisotope, its presence could only be attributed to a recent emission. Although authorities at the testing center claimed that this was due to an accidental leak of exceptional character during post-test drilling for purposes of monitoring, the Cousteau Mission was not able to verify that directly.(30) In any case, even such a posttest valve decoupling accident constitutes a venting phenomenon. The fact that the French did not report this venting accident until forced to do so by having to explain the presence of iodine131 indicates that venting may have been more common than the French nuclear authorities have so far acknowledged.
In summary, two scientific missions, on which major restrictions were imposed, were still able, independently of each other, to find typical indicators of short-term venting. - Medium and Long-term Leakage of Fission Products to the Biosphere
According to a model formulated by Hochstein and O’Sullivan (1985), an underground nuclear explosion in rock saturated with seawater can set up an artificial geothermal system. The heat stored in the explosion chamber is on the order of 10E12 calories per kiloton of yield. In addition, heat generation due to radioactive decay goes on after the explosion of fission bombs, at a rate of about 595 calories per second per kiloton of yield. After the explosion, seawater enters the chamber and is heated by about 25o – 50o C by both stored and newly generated heat. The heated seawater dissolves the glassy materials, liberating the nuclear waste.
At the same time, the heated seawater sets up an artificial geothermal system, which transfers the dissolved nuclear waste slowly upwards through the extended chimney. While the concentration of the radionuclides decreases by diffusion and absorption, the heated cell transferring the radionuclides moves upwards with a speed of about 10 meters per year, according to the computer simulation of Hochstein and O’Sullivan. Under the assumptions of this model, radionuclides from a depth of around 500 meters would reach the cracks of the lagoon in less than 50 years instead of the 500 to 1,000 years assumed by the French authorities.(31)
A first hint that the model of Hochstein and O’Sullivan might be correct was the discovery of cesium-134 by the Cousteau Mission in 1987.(32) In December 1990, too, Greenpeace found cesium-134 in plankton collected outside the 12-mile exclusion zone around Moruroa.(33) While the measured concentrations of cesium-137 are consistent with the consequences of local and global atmospheric tests, the concentrations of cesium134 are less explicable. Global atmospheric fallout does not contain cesium134, which is produced by the addition of one neutron to the nucleus of stable cesium-133.
A recent study reviewing the Cousteau Mission’s water samples comes to the conclusion that the measured concentrations of cesium-134 are attributable to the underground tests and that only leakage can explain the presence of this radionuclide in Moruroan waters. This study also attempted to identify the source of the leakage by matching the coordinates of French underground tests with the coordinates of the places where samples were taken. Leakage is occurring even faster than initially predicted by the model of Hochstein and O’Sullivan (which assumed equal permeability in all directions), probably only six years after a test.(34) Venting, which happens occasionally, may open pathways for more rapid leakage than predicted by the model.
The 120 underground tests conducted at Moruroa have in effect turned it into a longterm waste dump. The total amount of plutonium-239 from these tests and the three at Fangataufa is about 18,450 curies, assuming 150 curies per test. Based on a rough estimate of 2.5 megatons total yield of underground tests, the amount of cesium127 and strontium90 dispersed would have been 400,000 curies and 250,000 curies respectively. About three-fourths of the cesium and strontium still remain underground and some may have found its way into the lagoons and ocean. As a repository for nuclear wastes from underground testing, Moruroa is less than ideal. Natural barriers play the most important role in the confinement of nuclear waste.(35) Consequently, a planned storage site should meet very strict criteria including exclusion of water, lack of natural fractures or fissures, and a high absorption of radionuclides. According to these criteria, Moruroa is a very poor choice: the geological structure of Moruroa is water-saturated; there are natural fractures as well as a veritable network of fissures due to the explosions. These fissures affect the volcanic layer. Moreover, the absorption coefficient for the basalt of Moruroa as estimated by the French authorities is very low.
In conclusion, Moruroa Atoll is a very poor site for storing nuclear waste of any type. If certain confinement criteria are considered necessary for the storage of waste from nuclear power stations, the same would be necessary for the storage of waste as a consequence of nuclear explosions. The discovery of cesium-134 indicates only the beginning of longterm leakage from the underground “storage” sites.
Transfer of dissolved plutonium from the lagoon to the ocean as a consequence of poor waste management.
Radioactive materials deposited on Moruroa have found their way into the lagoon. The land area of Moruroa has been used to store radioactive waste (including metal scrap, wood, plastic bags and clothing) in a huge heap on the north coast of the atoll, which covers 30,000 square meters. In addition, on July 21, 1966 a bomb broke apart on the surface of Moruroa, dispersing plutonium239. This plutonium 239 was confined to the area by fixing it in place with a layer of bitumen. Moruroa was also used as a safety trial area.(36) (A safety trial area is a test to check whether an atomic bomb will explode on impact with a hard surface -as in the event of a plane crash. In the case of a “safe” bomb, or a “successful” safety trial, the impact does not cause a nuclear detonation but breaks apart the bomb, scattering plutonium-239 about the site.) Cyclones hit Moruroa mainly in 1981, washing radioactive waste from the coral rim into the lagoon, including the plutonium-impregnated bitumen.
Due to these waste management practices, the sediment of the lagoon contains an estimated 20 kilograms of plutonium. At the time the Australian, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea Mission visited Moruroa, plutonium239 concentrations in the air were about 4 times greater than in continental France. The Mission estimated that about 20 gigabecquerels of plutonium from the sediment of the lagoon are transported annually to ocean waters.(37)
This is consistent with findings of the Cousteau Mission that concentrations of plutonium in the lagoon entrance are about 10 times greater than in the lagoon itself. They also stated that the observed concentrations in the sediment and in the water are much too high to be attributed to global atmospheric fallout and are therefore of local origin and due to remobilization from sedimentary deposits.
There is evidence that plutonium-239 is accumulating in the food chain. While the concentration of plutonium-239 and plutonium 240 are around .01 picocuries/liter in the water of the lagoon, the respective concentrations for dry sediment are 1,1OO picocuries/kilogram and for dry plankton 9,700 picocuries/kilogram. (Enrichment can be found for cesium 137, also, where the respective concentrations are 0.14 picocuries/liter, 3.5 picocuries/kilogram and 70 picocuries/kilogram.)(38) - Ciguatera Fish Poisoning Due To Changes in Reef Ecology
Ciguatera fish poisoning, discussed in Chapter 5, is a major public health problem in the South pacific, with nutritional, social, and economic implications. The annual average incidence for the South Pacific area is around 200 cases per 100,000 population per year, but incidences as high as 20,700 per 100,000 population per year are reported for the Gambier Islands.
A review of the epidemiology of ciguatera in French Polynesia from 1960 to 1984 clearly demonstrates a general flare-up in ciguatera, with more than 24,000 cases among a population that grew from 84,500 in 1962 to 174,000 by mid1985. The incidence rose dramatically through the 1960s, peaking from 1972 to 1975 at 1,200 per 100,000, a tenfold increase over the 1960 figure.(39) Some of this increase may be due to improved case reporting, but this has never been presented as a major reason for the increase. In the areas most affected, the eastern Tuamotu, Gambier, and Marquesas Archipelagos, the incidence in the 1980s remains at high levels.
The most important cause of ciguatera outbreaks is the disturbance of the sensitive ecology of the coral reef. Natural events, such as storms, earthquakes and tidal waves, can disturb reef ecology, as can human activities. Nuclear test explosions and the construction of supporting infrastructures have been linked with ciguatera outbreaks.(40) For example, the Tuamotu Archipelago was more or less free of ciguatera before the early 1960’s. Epidemiological studies show that in parallel with the installation and running of the test facilities, repeated outbreaks occurred. This is the case for the Hao Atoll (staging base for the testing since 1965, first ciguatera outbreak in 1966), the Gambier Islands (construction of military facilities in 1967, first outbreak in 1968) and Moruroa Atoll (highest density of Gambierdiscus toxicus after the Gambier Islands in 1981 ).(41)
A study by the US Atomic Energy Commission showed no correlation between radioactivity and ciguatoxicity in fish.(42) It is most likely that ancillary military activities linked to the nuclear testing facilities, like runway construction, waste dumping, ship decontamination, are causing ciguatoxicity by disturbance of reef ecology.
More information on this site.
Nuclear Tsunamis—Weapons of Mass Destruction Revealed At Last!!
Or there is also this one
The earthquake that struck the Indonesian island of Sumatra occurred in a location geologists know is susceptible to powerful earthquakes. The quake occurred along a “subduction zone,” in which the Indian tectonic plate is being subducted, or pulled beneath, the Burma tectonic platelet. The overlying plate jumped upward more than 4.5 metres, lifting the water above it and setting off the tsunami.
For some, the finger of blame doesn’t point squarely at nature but at top secret military testing in the waters of the Indian Ocean.
The Egyptian weekly magazine Al-Osboa claimed the earthquake that triggered the tsunami “was possibly” caused by an Indian nuclear experiment in which “Israeli and American nuclear experts participated”.
Even Bunker Busters can cause and earthquake. Read up on that a few years ago.
Other causes.
Man-made earthquake? 1, 2, 3, and 4
Even mining operations can cause an earhtquake.
Loads of ways man can mess things up.
HAARP caused earthquake in China? Could it be they used it?
If you Google ( HAARP Earthquake) you will find a lot of information.
Could it be they used some new technology, they are after all, always coming up with new ways to destroy? Could they been testing a new weapons to see what would happen.
They did test nuclear bombs all around the world. History tells us that.
Chevez may very well be right. It could be man made. It could be natural. It is something we should all think about however. At the site below there is a video and a few other links to information.
Chavez: US weapon test caused Haiti earthquake
So you decide for yourself. These are just a couple of thoughts.
Haiti: War Crimes and Oil
Here is a bit more information I found today January 27 2010, as I was roaming around. So I firgured the post is long but now it is longer. Some of the things at this link are on this site but one would have to do do a bit of digging to find it.
This Reporter put a lot of information together and it is 5 pages long but do take the time and you may learn something new.
Did mining and oil drilling trigger the Haiti earthquake?
I also discovered this as I was reading another blog as well.
Earthquakes created on purpose.
The Seismologic Division of the Ministry of National Infrastructure’s Geophysical Institute will attempt to simulate an earthquake in the southern Negev on Thursday. The experiment, financed by the U.S. Defense Department, is a joint project with the University of Hawaii and is part of a scientific project intended to improve seismological and acoustic readings in Israel and its environs, up to a 1,000 km/621 mile radius. For the rest go HERE.
BIG OIL BEHIND HAITI QUAKE?
By Victor Thorn
February 15 2010
Did American petroleum companies murder hundreds of thousands of Haitians while extracting oil from their shores? In an exclusive Jan. 28 interview, social commentator and human rights attorney Ezili Danto believes “hydraulic fracturing” caused by drillers searching for oil may have caused the Jan. 12 earthquake.
Yes, oil is Haiti’s smoking gun. Why do you think 20,000 American troops now occupy and control this impoverished nation? On Jan. 28, 2009, geologist Daniel Mathurin revealed, “Haiti’s oil reserves are larger than those of Venezuela. An Olympic pool compared to a glass of water is the comparison.”
Indeed, Haiti may have 20 times more oil than Venezuela. Daniel and Ginette Mathurin mapped 20 oil sites (five of them major), and, oddly enough, the quake’s epicenter occurred in the exact same area where the Port-au-Prince resources exist. Imagine, one of the largest caches of oil in the Western Hemisphere, and now over a million residents are displaced or deceased.
In a Jan. 26 commentary, Pastor Chuck Baldwin asked, “Why was an
earthquake of this magnitude not felt beyond Port-au-Prince?” He continues, “People living in the adjoining country of Dominican Republic universally say they felt nothing.” He concludes, “It is being called ‘miraculous’ that an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale did not
produce a colossal tsunami.”
Ms. Danto also found the localized destruction very suspicious.
“Port-au-Prince hasn’t had an earthquake since 1771,” she said. “What we’re seeing is similar to Hurricane Katrina. Look at how many people never returned to where they originally lived. Perhaps the oil cartels needed to get rid of certain people near the coastline where they wanted it cleared. If Haiti were a piece of dirt with just black people and no oil or minerals, they would have left us alone. We wouldn’t see all the investment money and troops; nor would the U.S. have built the fifth largest embassy in the world in this tiny little country.”
To whom specifically is she referring? U.S. companies have known since 1908 that Haiti teemed with oil reserves. In the 1950s and 1960s, two different contractors were bought off to not develop these sites. CIA files also show that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) verified contracts in 1962 regarding these possible oil reserve sites.
Ms. Danto explores the economic ramifications of this situation: “Oil companies in the 1960s and 1970s didn’t want to add more supply to the market and allow prices to plummet,” she said. “So, they locked down these deposits and kept them in reserve until the 21st century when Middle Eastern reserves began waning. For the past 50 years, Haiti has been called the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country. Oil profits could have vastly changed the lives of these people. Now we’re being fleeced, and our resources are being stolen. Haiti has always been a dumping ground, including the theft of our forests and minerals.”
In mining Haiti’s riches, Ms. Danto recounts, “There were areas in Haiti hidden behind UN guns, fenced off where Haitians knew nothing about what these soldiers were doing,” she said. “There were barricades around Port-au-Prince, and we couldn’t see what the UN soldiers were doing. This activity started after the Bush-led coup d’tat in 2004. The areas blocked off were the same places where experts said oil reserves existed.”
To illustrate the abundance of this natural resource, Dr. Georges Michel wrote on March 27, 2004, “In 1975 we bathed in the waters of Les Cayes and noticed that our feet were covered by a sort of black oil seeping from the seabed.”
An even more interesting point is Ms. Danto’s revelation that a series of minor “earthquakes” registering near 2.0 on the Richter scale have been occurring for the past couple of years. A geologist also informed her that the 7.0 earthquake took place six miles below where oil companies were drilling.
Also curious is a Jan. 15 statement by Bob Brewin, a military-technology writer and editor at the popular web site Next Gov.com. Brewin said that one day prior to the earthquake, Jean Demay of the Defense Information Systems Agency visited the U.S. Southern Command in Miami, where U.S. forces were conducting exercises on how to deal with a major earthquake in Haiti.
Indeed, one day later this catastrophe transpired. As the U.S. military now controls Port-au-Prince, are U.S. government efforts to rebuild their infrastructure simply a ruse to grab Haiti’s oil?
Ms. Danto answers this question very adroitly. “Most of Haiti’s major deep water ports have been privatized since the Bush 2004 regime change in Haiti.” She then noted in 2009, “If there are substantial oil and gas reserves in Haiti, the U.S.-Euro genocide and crimes against the Haitian population has not begun.” Source
Related
Haiti: War Crimes and Oil
Updates
Recent new stories on man made earthquakes
Fracking for oil triggers manmade earthquakes, studies confirm
April 16, 2012
Both studies confirm that hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can trigger manmade earthquakes when water, sand and chemicals are blasted deep into the ground to fracture rock to obtain oil and natural gas. For the rest of the story go HERE
Manmade quakes: Spanish 2011 deadly tremor caused by water extraction – study
October 27, 2012
Researchers used satellite data to map the ground deformation caused by the Lorca earthquake and then modeled the data.
They found a correlation between the water being sucked out of the ground to meet the domestic supplies and the quake.
According to the study, loss of water changed the Earth’s crust along the Alhama de Murcia fault line and that disturbance was enough to trigger an “elastic rebound” (a rupture) in the rock, leading to the earthquake. For the rest go HERE
Chinese earthquake may have been man-made, say scientists
An earthquake that killed at least 80,000 people in Sichuan last year may have been triggered by an enormous dam just miles from the epicentre
Feb 2, 2009
The 511ft-high Zipingpu dam holds 315 million tonnes of water and lies just 550 yards from the fault line, and three miles from the epicentre, of the Sichuan earthquake.
Now scientists in China and the United States believe the weight of water, and the effect of it penetrating into the rock, could have affected the pressure on the fault line underneath, possibly unleashing a chain of ruptures that led to the quake. For the rest of the story go HERE
VIDEO: Was Oklahoma earthquake man–made?
Weather.com video Oklahomans are somewhat use to tornadoes, but earthquakes? Oklahoma has been seeing more and more earthquakes, and meteorologist
Recent
Did You Know 
Check out this article on creating artificial earthquakes: http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/3634.asp
India, Japan, Russia & UK have the technology to create artificial earthquakes.
If you can maneuver through the ads, read the articles at haarp.net
Chek out the HAARP info at http://ahrcanum.wordpress.com
Someone should ask Marcia McNutt; Director of USGS, advisor to the Secretary of the Interior and expert in earthquake predictions on what she thinks about all this.
How does the USGS get its detailed Oil and Gas locations around the Carribean. Is HAARP or a similar device used? Can it be denied that these devices can cause earthquakes?