Again – climate change is the big one. As UN climate chief calls for clear report on ‘feasibility’ of 1.5C climate goal, it’s looking as though this goal is not achievable, and climate change could already be irreversible. In 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide will pass 400 parts per million – permanently. Speed of Arctic change shocks scientists.
But nuclear disaster could be imminent, too, as we consider the consequences of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan upping the ante, with belligerent threats to India.
On the so-called peaceful nuclear scene, the focus is on South Africa. South Africa’s corrupt nuclear politics is like a nasty boil that developed slowly over years, and could now be ready to burst.
Shadow Courts – The Secret Tribunals That Corporations Use to Sue Countries.
AUSTRALIA
CLIMATE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. An electricity blackout in South Australia gave the Turnbull government the opportunity to renew its attack on renewable energy, even though energy minister Josh Frydenberg and the grid operators admit that the source of energy had nothing to do with the catastrophic outage. However Frydenberg later toed the Coalition’s anti-renewables line. I got some amusement from ANC senior journalist Chris Uhlmann’s misguided rant against wind power. The ABC is always getting blamed for its “left wing” bias – Uhlmann showed the opposite here!
Sadly – all this political and media misinformation could affect the coming election in the Australian Capital Territory
World first wave/solar power grid for Western Australia.
Climate change shifting rain from Australia towards Antarctica. Urgent need for increased research on climate change impacts on Antarctic sea ice. Australian government has had no modelling done to show how Australia is supposed to meet Paris climate pledgen Australia’s farmers feeling the effects of climate change. Australia’s superannuation funds are backing exploration for fossil fuels.
NUCLEAR Australia’s $36 billion splurge on submarines, intended for nuclear later on.
South Australia‘s nuclear dump plan – fool’s gold? – senior Liberal MP. Premier Weatherill either dishonest or ignorant, about Finland’s nuclear waste dump plan. There would be a long delay for money in for South Australia’s proposed Temporary Nuclear Waste Storage facility. South Australian government’s barrage of pro nuclear advertising – making the unthinkable “normal”.
A week of anti nuclear protest at Australia’s top target – Pine Gap.
Northern Land Council delay agreement on Rio Tinto uranium exploration.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Christina reviews |
Leave a comment
Coalition launches rubbish attack on wind and solar after SA blackout, Independent Australia Giles Parkinson 30 September 2016 Coalition claptrap back on agenda: coal-fired power causes global warming which causes extreme weather. When record storm destroys transmission towers causing a blackout, BLAME RENEWABLES!
THE COALITION GOVERNMENT launched a ferocious attack against wind and solar energy after the major South Australian blackout, even though energy minister Josh Frydenberg and the grid operators admit that the source of energy had nothing to do with catastrophic outage.
Frydenberg, however, lined up with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and a host of conservative commentators, including Andrew Bolt, Alan Moran, the ABC’s Chris Ullmann, and Fairfax’s Brian Robins to exploit the blackout to question the use of renewable energy.
Frydenberg used the blackout to continue his persistent campaign against the renewable energy targets of state Labor governments in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland, saying that the blackout was proof that these targets were “unrealistic.”
He made clear that he wanted the states – South Australia and Queensland which are pushing for 50% renewable energy, and Victoria 40% – to abandon their schemes and conform to the Federal target, which has target of about 23.5% renewables.
The Federal scheme effectively ends in 2020, while the state based schemes provide longer term investment signals by providing a 2025 and 2030 timeframes…….
Electranet – which runs the grid in South Australia – and other grid authorities, have made clear that the blackout – which is unprecedented in Australia and led to its first ever “black start” – would have happened whatever the fuel source at the time.
Power lost after 3 of the 4 transmission lines were brought down by the storm
Bruce Mountain goes into detail about what was happening in this analysis here. But it is now clear that at least 23 high voltage power poles were lost in five different locations, bringing down three of the big four transmission lines that carry electricity to and from the north of the state, sparking a State-wide outage and its isolation from Victoria…….
His views were echoed by the likes of Roberts, Xenophon, the fossil fuel lobby, the South Australian Opposition, and even ABC commentator Chris Uhlmann, who agreed with Joyce that the wind farms were not working because the wind was blowing too hard…..https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/coalition-launches-rubbish-attack-on-wind-and-solar-after-sa-blackout,9532
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics |
Leave a comment
What happens if India and Pakistan both fire nuclear warheads at each other? http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/what-happens-if-india-and-pakistan-both-fire-nuclear-warheads-each-other-50604
If India and Pakistan detonated 100 nuclear warheads, over 21 million people will die immediately, and half the world’s ozone layer would be destroyed, September 29, 2016 – By Abheet Singh Sethi, 30 Sept 16
If India and Pakistan fought a war detonating 100 nuclear warheads (around half of their combined arsenal), each equivalent to a 15-kiloton Hiroshima bomb, more than 21 million people will be directly killed, about half the world’s protective ozone layer would be destroyed, and a “nuclear winter” would cripple monsoons and agriculture worldwide.
As the Indian Army considers armed options, and a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP urges a nuclear attack, even as the Pakistan Defence Minister threatens to “annihilate” India in return, the following projections, made by researchers from three US universities in 2007, are a reminder of the costs of nuclear war.
According to the study by researchers from Rutgers University, University of Colorado-Boulder and University of California, Los Angeles, about 21 million people – half the death toll of World War II – would perish within the first week from blast effects, burns and acute radiation in India and Pakistan.
This death toll would be 2,221 times the number of civilians and security forces killed by terrorists in India over nine years to 2015, according to an IndiaSpend analysis of South Asia Terrorism Portal data.
Another two billion people worldwide would face risks of severe starvation due to the climatic effects of the nuclear-weapon use in the subcontinent, according to a 2013 assessment by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, a global federation of physicians. Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
New submarines could ultimately be nuclear, say experts AFR, by Mark Abernethy, 30 Sep 16 As far as government spending goes, it could be the largest capital project ever undertaken in Australia. The Future Submarines Program (FSP) aims to build 12 submarines at a cost of what could be more than $36 billion, taking the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s estimate of each sub costing up to $3.04 billion (some public estimates have been higher).
The prime contractor for the 12 submarines – intended to replace the Collins-class subs after 2025 – is French shipbuilder, DCNS, whose winning design is a diesel-electric variant on its Barracuda nuclear sub, now labelled the Shortfin Barracuda for the Australian project.
The requirement of the process was to deliver a regionally superior submarine, meaning the subs should be state-of-the-art, with a modern hull and a combat system from the United States.
However concerns about the new sub’s ability to convert from nuclear to diesel-electric may be ill-founded. In fact, the nuclear-centric design of the Barracuda class may be the point of the exercise, not the problem. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the later builds are nuclear,” says Peter Jennings, executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
Jennings says the Defence Force’s requirements for the subs, the softening attitudes to nuclear power and the fact that the Barracuda is a nuclear-powered design, point to the opportunity to switch to nuclear power in the Australian subs in the future………
He says the broadening range of Australia’s defence outlook could also be a driver of a switch to the ultra-long range of nuclear submarines. The acceptance of the “Indo-Pacific” as Australia’s strategic theatre increasingly means simultaneous long-range deployments, in different oceans, with different intensities.
“It’s probably a good bet to say that the reason we’ve gone with the Barracuda is that some of the 12 builds can be nuclear, giving the ADF more options in how these submarines are used, ” says Jennings……..
Dr Euan Graham, director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, says the Japanese submarine in the tender was smaller than the Barracuda, and the Japanese contractor didn’t commit to building in Australia. However, the Japanese bid had the crucial advantage that its submarine is proven operationally…….http://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/defence-and-national-security/new-submarines-could-ultimately-be-nuclear-say-experts-20160926-grohze.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Most people alive today set to witness dangerous global warming in their lifetime, scientists warn
Average temperature could rise to two degrees Celsius above the norm by 2050 or ‘even sooner’, Independent, UK, Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent 30 September 2016 The world could hit two degrees Celsius of warming – the point at which many scientists believe climate change will become dangerous – as early as 2050, a group of leading experts has warned.
In a report called The Truth About Climate Change, they said many people seemed to think of global warming as “abstract, distant and even controversial”.
But the planet is now heating up “much faster” than anticipated, said Professor Sir Robert Watson, a former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and one of the authors of the report.
If their analysis is correct, it means the majority of people alive today will experience what it is like to live on a dangerously overheated planet. At the Paris Climate Summit last year, world leaders agreed to try to limit global warming to as close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels as possible – amid concerns the 2C target may not be safe enough.
But in the same year the level of warming reached 1C after an astonishing 0.15C rise in just three years.
Droughts, floods, wildfires and storms are all set to increase as the world warms, threatening crops and causing the extinction of species. The new report warned the 1.5C target had “almost certainly already been missed”.
Even if all the pledges to cut emissions made by countries at Paris are fulfilled, the average temperature is set to reach that level in the early 2030s and then 2C by 2050, they said. Professor Watson, a chemist who has worked for Nasa, the World Bank, the US president and now at the renowned Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, said: “Climate change is happening now and much faster than anticipated.
“While the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is an important step in the right direction, what is needed is a doubling or tripling of efforts. “Without additional efforts by all major emitters, the 2C target could be reached even sooner.”
The report said an extra 0.4 to 0.5C of warming was expected to take place because of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted due to the slow response of the ocean and atmosphere.
The report said that full implementation of the pledges made at Paris would require wealthy countries to give a total of $100bn a year – as promised at the summit – to poor countries to help them transition to a zero-carbon economy.
“About 80 per cent of the pledges are subject to the condition that financial and technological support is available from developed countries,” Professor Watson said.
“These conditions may not be met, which means that these pledges may not be realized.”……….http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-truth-about-climate-change-dangerous-2c-a7337871.html?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=be1cc22710-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-be1cc22710-303473869
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
We have laws, good laws, that are being subverted.
These laws are the embodiment of the will of the people.
I have asked many times why this propaganda exercise is omitting the facts about South Australian law and the prohibition of nuclear waste importation into South Australia.
I have pointed out the deception involved in pretending to be objective while omitting the facts about current law and the penalties per offence of ten years jail and huge fines.
I ask again for an end to this waste of time and money.
I call again for investigation and prosecution of the perpetrators.
(copy of my comment at Your Say Nuclear facebook page run by Dept Premier and Cabinet)
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
legal, South Australia |
Leave a comment
Betting the Farm: Farmers confront climate change http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-30/farmers-confront-extreme-reality-of-climate-change/7887720 Climate change is here, and Australian agriculture is acutely feeling the effects. Three farmers explain how it’s impacting their lives and livelihoods.
By Jo Chandler for Background Briefing Real-world observations of temperature spikes, pasture growth and grape harvests across southern Australia reveal that the landscape is heating up at rates experts did not expect to see until 2030.
In some instances the rates of warming are tracking at 2050 scenarios.
Scientists concerned that climate change is biting harder and faster than models anticipated are campaigning for more research investment to protect Australia’s $58 billion agriculture industry from extreme weather.
Background Briefing has learned that their concerns about the capability of Australian research to address climate change will be validated in an independent review by the prestigious Australian Academy of Science.
The review, due for release in the next few weeks, has identified a substantial shortfall in the nation’s climate research firepower.
It’s understood that the review will recommend that the number of scientists working for CSIRO and its partners on climate science needs to increase by about 90. That is almost double the current number of full time positions.
Meanwhile, the reality is already confronting farmers on the front line, many of them battered by this last year of wild conditions.
Climate change makes farming more of a gamble than it ever was. It should be a complete concern to everyone who eats on this planet, because the whole world is going to be gambling on food production.
George Mills, Tasmania
We are seeing grapes ripening faster and ripening within a much shorter timeframe than they once did.
Brett McClen, Victoria
Climate change is here, there is no doubt about it … The hip pocket is when it makes you decide it is here or not, and it hurt our hip pockets, so we know.
Mark McDougall, Tasmania
Hear Jo Chandler’s full investigation into the impact of climate change on Australian agriculture on ABC RN’s Background Briefing at 8:05am on Sunday, or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, ABC Radio or your favourite podcasting app.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Audiovisual, AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, climate change - global warming |
Leave a comment
Politicians blame wind power for taking out electrical grid in South Australia, Mashable, BY ANDREW FREEDMAN , 30 Sep 16 In the wake of an unprecedented blackout that cut off an entire Australian state from electricity on Wednesday into Thursday, some politicians are vilifying renewable power sources, particularly wind turbines.
Had the state of South Australia, which includes Adelaide, a city of 1.2 million, not put so much emphasis on cutting greenhouse gas emissions by adding renewable energy facilities, these leaders say, the blackout during a rare, extreme storm would not have occurred.
Considering the rapid rise in renewables around the world, including the U.S., the political fight that has broken out in Australia is not an issue limited to one nation. In fact, it could foreshadow future fights if blackouts occur in the U.S. or Europe, two areas where renewable energy use has increased recently……..
However, ElectraNet, which owns transmission lines in South Australia, said the severe storm — which included powerful winds and tens of thousands of cloud-to-ground lightning strikes, damaged three out of the four transmission lines that connect Adelaide with northern parts of South Australia.
None of the politicians have proposed an explaination for how wind turbines could’ve caused such a widespread outage, a first in Australia’s history, whereas ElectraNet has done so.…….
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told reporters that the state’s aggressive push into renewables may have contributed to the unprecedented statewide blackout.
“The failure of the network was a weather event, pure and simple. Extreme weather knocked out 23 transmission pylons. Storms of this magnitude will knock out the power network no matter what the source of power is,” Bray told the newspaper.
A federal inquiry is likely to be launched into the cause of the more than 24-hour blackout, which may settle some of the debate going on now. Officials in states with a high reliance on wind power, such as Texas, will be closely watching the developments Down Under. http://mashable.com/2016/09/29/south-australia-blackout-wind-power/#KFHs2CKfmiqG
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, energy, politics, South Australia |
Leave a comment
The Music to Stop Nuclear Waste music festival will be held at the Published Arthouse, 11 Cannon Street, from 5.30pm on October 7. More details here.
Musicians unite to fight nuclear waste dump, Amber Settre http://indaily.com.au/arts-and-culture/music/2016/09/30/musicians-unite-to-fight-nuclear-waste-dump/
Eight Adelaide bands will take to the stage next week at a pop-up music event supporting the campaign against a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump in South Australia. The Music to Stop Nuclear Waste benefit will take place at the Published Arthouse on October 7, with a mixture of acoustic and electric acts including reggae-roots group Local Revolution, Cal Williams Jr, Ben Searcy Trio, Chica Chica Electrica, One-Way Ticket and Mobius X.
Event organiser and musician Charles Maddison says all funds raised will be donated to the Conservation Council SA’s fight against a proposed nuclear waste dump. Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
ACTION |
Leave a comment
Climate change is increasing the risk of war in Africa , Quartz, 30 Sept 16 United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon once described the war in Darfur, Sudan as the world’s
first climate change conflict, caused in part by the fighting over scarce water resources. Now, researchers believe climate change may be raising the risk of war across the continent.
In
a study published in
Science this week, researchers Tamma Carleton and Solomon Hsiang, both from the University of Berkeley, say that rising temperatures in sub-Saharan Africa since 1980 have raised the risk of conflict by 11%.
“Although climate is clearly not the only factor that affects social and economic outcomes, new quantitative measurements reveal that it is a major factor, often with first order consequences,”
they wrote in their study, which reviewed more than 100 other studies on the social and economic impacts of climate change.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
It is against this backdrop that the ACT government goes to an election in less than three weeks with a policy of 100 per cent reliance for the territory on renewable energy by 2020.
With its funding for three solar farms, two wind farms potentially in the works and contracts to buy wind-generated energy from South Australia, Victoria and NSW the ACT looks to be one of the jurisdictions in the sights of the Prime Minister.
ACT’s renewables push faces climate of fear http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/acts-renewables-push-faces-climate-of-fear-20160930-grs5zd.html 1 Oct 16
It was perhaps inevitable that enemies of renewable energy would seek to capitalise on the unfortunate mass-blackout that hit South Australia this week as the state was buffeted by a once-in-50-year storm.
Critics of renewables and boosters of fossil fuel electricity generation, all the way up to the Prime Minister, were quick to seize on the power failure as evidence of SA’s “over-reliance” on renewable energy. But as the pieces were picked up, it became clear that it was storm damage to the state’s electricity infrastructure, and not its 40 per cent renewable energy mix, that knocked South Australia’s lights out.
But by the time the misinformation had been unpicked, it was too late.
Much of the media, having given considerable coverage to the initial “blame renewables” claims had moved on, leaving the casual observer with the unfortunate impression that clean generation technology cannot provide a reliable electricity supply.
But despite the damage done in the court of public opinion, the week’s events raise hopes for a facts-led debate about Australia’s energy future. Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
General News |
Leave a comment
Hillary Clinton Is More ‘Dovish’ Than Obama on Nukes, Hacked Audio Suggests, NY Mag, By Eric Levitz ” ……………his (Obama’s) administration is pursuing a $1 trillion nuclear “modernization” program, which many experts think will only heighten the risk of atomic war.
The president’s plan involves breaking up America’s existing nuclear stockpile into smaller, more reliable weapons, including cruise missiles with nuclear tips. This allows Obama to maintain his pledge to create no “new nuclear weapons,” while developing a sleek, modern arsenal that will, somehow, further deter enemy nations from attacking the United States.
There are a few problems with this plan. For one thing, building more precise nuclear cruise missiles only makes their use “more thinkable,” in the words of former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James E. Cartwright. What’s more, the move threatens to kick off a new round of nuclear proliferation, as Stephen Kinzer, a scholar of international relations at Brown University,
recently observed:…….
Finally, there’s the program’s exorbitant cost. At a time when deficit politics are constraining our government’s ability to invest in basic social services and infrastructure improvements, do we really need to spend $1 trillion on renovating weapons we don’t ever want to use?
Hillary Clinton, for one, thinks not.
Earlier this week, the Washington Free Beacon published an audio recording of a fundraiser Clinton held back in February, which was gleaned from the hack of a campaign staffer — reportedly, as part of the same hack that exposed DNC emails.
In that audio, Andrew C. Weber, a former Defense Department official, asks Clinton if she would cancel the nuclear-cruise-missile project, were she elected president.
“I certainly would be inclined to do that,” she replied. “The last thing we need are sophisticated cruise missiles that are nuclear-armed.”
Clinton went on to suggest that such weapons would likely encourage a nuclear arms race, and praised former Defense secretary William J. Perry for his public opposition to the modernization program.
“This is going to be a big issue,” Clinton added. “It’s not just the nuclear-tipped cruise missile. There’s a lot of other money we’re taking about to go into refurbishing and modernization … Do we have to do any of it? If we have to do some of it, how much do we have to do? That’s going to be a tough question, so I will look to people like you and Bill Perry to help me answer that question.”
Elsewhere in the recording, Clinton took a more “hawkish” stance on cybersecurity, suggesting the United States must deter attacks from China and Russia through retaliatory measures. ……http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/clinton-to-the-left-of-obama-on-nukes-hacked-audio-suggests.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
October 1, 2016 RENEWABLE energy sources are rapidly becoming cheaper than new coal and gas-fired electricity, the main difference between different forecasts is the timing.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance says renewables are already cheaper than new fossil fuel plants in Australia. The conservative predictions of the Australian Government’s Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics say they will be within a decade.
Of particular interest for Tasmania is the relative costs of electricity from wind and solar. Solar is getting cheaper faster than wind. Again, opinions vary on when the crossover will be. Recent statements by major Australian players suggest it will not be long……
Tasmania rightly prides itself on its potential for renewable energy development, but the unfortunate reality is that no large projects have commenced since the opening of the Musselroe Wind Farm in 2014.
Tasmania may only have a limited time to garner its rightful share of the $280 billion being invested globally in renewable energy each year.
Right now windy Tasmania has an advantage, but as the cost of solar drops, investors will look to sunnier locations. Continue reading →
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
energy, Tasmania |
Leave a comment
Signs of a great rift over Zuma’s nuclear programme, Rand Daily Mail, RAY HARTLEY 30 SEPTEMBER 2016 In another indication of President Jacob Zuma’s dimishing influence, his headlong rush to build a ‘fleet’ of nuclear reactors has been halted. And there are signs that it is going to be cut down to size, if it goes ahead at all.
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
South Africa: Nuclear Plan On Ice As Eskom May Take Ownership AllAfrica.com 30 Sept 16 Early indications are that Eskom may ultimately be responsible for the management and implementation of South Africa’s nuclear plan and not the Department of Energy as had originally been planned.
At the same time the much anticipated request for proposal for the nuclear plan won’t be issued on Friday as mooted by Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson earlier this month.
Jeff Radebe, Minister in the Presidency responsible for Planning and Monitoring, reiterated at a cabinet briefing on Thursday that more consultations need to take place before a request for proposal (RFP) can be issued on 30 September 2016.
Joemat-Pettersson issued a statement a few hours after Radebe’s briefing, confirming this………..
At the time of the previous cabinet meeting on the issue of nuclear in December 2015, nuclear was going to be led by Energy,” Radebe said during question time on Thursday.
“But recently there are references made to Eskom. That’s why I’m talking about issues of consultation. Those types of consultations must unfold before the RFP is issued. The instituting authority must be clearly defined.”
State-owned nuclear firm Necsa could also play a bigger role in the process. “Necsa has had discussions with government officials and Eskom – and there are clear indications that Necsa will play a major role as the primary nuclear centre of the country,” Necsa chair Kelvin Kemm told Fin24 on Thursday.
Asked during question time if he meant that Eskom instead of the DoE would be driving South Africa’s nuclear build programme, Radebe responded, saying when cabinet previously deliberated on the nuclear process in December 2015, the decision was that the Department of Energy would be driving the process. “If there is a change it will have to come back to cabinet for deliberation,” he said.
Radebe also repeated that the RFP would not be issued on Friday, despite previous assertions by Joemat-
Pettersson that the RFP was due for Friday. “There was no contradiction,” Radebe said with reference to Pandor’s statement on Tuesday.
“My understanding is that what minister Pandor was saying, due to the processes of consultation [and the fact that] processes had not completed, the RFP will only be issued after all those issues of consultation have been concluded and being brought back to cabinet. So I do not envisage that tomorrow on the 30 of September the RFP will be issued by the Department of Energy,” Radebe said.Source: Fin24 http://allafrica.com/stories/201609300935.html
October 1, 2016
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Uncategorized |
Leave a comment
JACK GILDING, Mercury
Antinuclear 