The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon




By: Roger Landry (TLB)

We live in a country that used to boast of having the most freedom, the highest average standard of living, the highest level of productivity, the highest level of scholastic achievement and one of the (if not the) healthiest societies on this planet… My how the might have fallen.

In The Liberty Beacon project we often discuss the dumbing down of America and point the proverbial finger at the failings of our system of education or the massive onslaught of propagandized (so called) entertainment and news shoveled down our throats by the mainstream media.

But is this the true mechanism of dumbing down a society or are there other more physical mechanisms in play. Are these mechanisms intentional and malicious, the result of corruption and complicity, or the result of an incompetent government and regulatory system?

We discuss often the dangers of such known mechanisms as vaccines, GMO’s and Geo-engineering, all proven to cause physical harm to the human physiology, but rarely do we hear much, or enough about a huge and continuing blight on a vast portion of this population … Fluoride! This substance truly has the capability to dumb down America in a most efficient fashion as you will see in the following video series.

Sodium Fluoride is a known toxin, a deadly poison and a byproduct of the manufacture of aluminum and fertilizers (among other things). It is considered by our health agencies to be a hazardous waste far too deadly to just be dumped into landfills where it may eventually poison the local population … So instead lets put it in their drinking water and toothpaste and tell them it is good for them … Now this sounds absolutely asinine … right, and it is … but it is also the scenario a vast majority of us live with every day.

What follows is a very thorough lesson in fluoride, its introduction to American society, the lies and disinformation perpetuated about it, and its deadly effect on a once intelligent, healthy and thriving society. The burning question here is … Have we been too dumbed down to absorb this information and push back on the absolute evil being perpetrated against us ???

Lets start this video series off with a classic representation of the true power of Fluoride to DUMB DOWN AMERICA …


ABSOLUTE PROOF FLUORIDE KILLS ! – Footage of fluoride damaging cells and stopping reproduction

Please share! Very rare video footage of cells being damaged by sodium fluoride.

The fluoride added to drinking water is industrial waste fluoride and most is imported from China.


The Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception – Dr. Stanley Monteith

Stanley Monteith explains the history of fluoride, its use, its dangers and its promotion in the United States of America.


Bizarre USA Fluoride History – Full Documentary

A very informative documentary explaining the pros and cons of lying to the public about their forced fluoridation. I wonder how/why we have gotten to this point, the beautiful thing is people are waking up!

Things that should be avoided ALWAYS:

1) Fluoride
2) Aspartame
3) MSG
4) High Fructose Corn Syrup
5) GMO’s
6) Vaccines

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.

Fukushima Radiation

Compiled by: Leslie Katzenmeier & Roger Landry (TLB)

What do we hear from the Trusted (satire) mainstream media or our government about any of what you will find in this article … Very little to nothing!

What we HAVE heard is absolute insanity such as, radiation is really not all that bad for you, or this radiation spewing from Fukushima is not dangerous and poses no threat to us or the biosphere … Freaking REALLY ???

Meanwhile the government silently raises the allowable radioactivity in the food (seafood such as tuna) that we consume regularly.

The silence or propaganda continues to flow … as the pacific ocean and land based life along the US and Canadian coast continues to die … with NO reasonable explanation from said sources.

Do they truly think us stupid, or blind?

What follows is information these governments don’t make available to you. It is presented in the form of an audio show, several videos and an abundance of links to aid you in further educating yourself on REALITY.


RENSE Special Show on Fukushima and radiation (audio click on this text to listen)


200 kilometers of Canadian Pacific Coast Line Devoid of All Life

Follow this video to Youtube for more active links:


“HORROR ” Pacific Ocean Now Dead From Fukushima Radiation

Follow this video to Youtube for more active links. links:


Video Response to Dana Dernford

Follow this video to Youtube for more active links:

Low tide zone info……

B,C, parks Over 5000 species PDF file download……
TV: “Mysterious die off of young salmon” in Pacific Northwest — “Healthy… and then they die” heading out to sea — “Far less plankton than normal… There are too many questions” — Researchers now testing for plankton and Fukushima contamination off West Coast (VIDEO)

Alaska: “Scientists alarmed by new mystery disease” — Pacific Northwest: “Alarming changes” — “Couldn’t believe my eyes” — “Scientists really stumped… It’s kind of an alien thing” — “Gotten much, much worse… a horror show… could wreak havoc on entire ecosystems from Mexico to Alaska” (VIDEO)

Experts: Fukushima ‘globally enhanced’ cesium-137 levels in air by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude — Radioactive plume that reached Europe “contaminated the land, and as a consequence the whole food chain” — Concentrations greatly underestimated

TV: Huge increase in dead and sick sea mammals on California coast — Unprecedented numbers, annual record broken in 7 months — Starving, drooling, brain damaged, suffering seizures — Sea lions ‘mysteriously’ vanishing on other side of Pacific — Experts: We don’t know what’s happening (VIDEO)

TV: Millions of fish dead at Oregon coast — “Craziest thing I’ve ever seen” — “You can’t blame people for being alarmed” — Aquarium: “It kind of looks like the apocalypse… especially big numbers… but this is a sign that anchovies are doing good” (VIDEO)

Millions of fish found dead on California coast — 3 major fish kills in 2 weeks — Unidentified ‘goo’ floating nearby; Police clear out beach, call health officials to investigate (VIDEO)

Report: “Worst he’s ever seen” says Alaska boat captain — Fishermen “talking about Fukushima… convinced it has something to do with it” — Salmon “not showing up… many have lesions or worms and parasites” — Crabs “more easily damaged… a lot of dead catch” — Herring, cod, halibut, pollock catches “dropping off cliff”

Video: Fukushima debris “waist high” on Canadian island; “Catastrophic death” trapped in nets, it’s horrifying; 15-mile long lines of floating trash — Journalist: Radioactive tsunami debris found far from Fukushima plant — Global concern over spread of contamination

TV: Mounds of millions of jellyfish-like creatures wash up on Pacific beaches across multiple states — “They lined entire Oregon Coast” — Seen for first time in a great many years — Official: “They just covered the sea surface… as far as we could see” — Thought to mix with ones from Japan (VIDEO & PICS)

CBS: This is really disturbing, sea stars dying by the millions on West Coast — Like the Black Death, only faster and deadlier — ‘Mystery plague’ affecting 20+ species — TV: Disappears from Orange County coast over 2 week period — Expert: “Largest epidemic ever in ocean… Something has changed in marine environment to lead to this” (VIDEO)

Researchers: Radioactive materials detected off California, levels spike to 400% normal — Crew then discovers ‘island’ of tsunami debris — Never seen so much garbage in ocean before — TV: “Disturbing new images from Pacific… looks like islands of plastic” 1,000 miles from coast — 7 tons and 80 ft. long, can walk on it as if land (VIDEO & PHOTOS)

AP: Marine birds disappearing in Pacific Northwest — Significant ecological shift, crashes in many species — “Something’s happening on a big level, but what is it” — Herring problem may be far worse than revealed… result of contamination? Mexico suddenly bans bluefin tuna fishing, US may be next

Gov’t reports “big, big decline” in Alaska caribou — “Mortality very high” after Fukushima releases began — “Low survival rate” for calves also in 2011 and 2012 — Official: “Worrisome” how quickly this happened… In truth, we don’t have an answer why (AUDIO)


TLB: It is time to wake up and push back if we wish to leave a viable habitable world for our children and their children …


Dane 1

Dane Wiginton – GeoEngineering Watch

By TLB Contributor: Dane Wiginton

The western US is under an all out climate engineering assault, California most of all. The Weather Makers can shut the hydrological cycle off from the once “golden state” for as long as they wish. Satellite images and NOAA maps shown in this presentation are shocking and revealing to say the least. Whatever one wishes to consider as the agenda of those in power, one conclusion is certain, the drought in California is a direct result of the ongoing climate engineering insanity. Weather warfare is now being waged on the American population.




Click on image to enlarge


Click on image to enlarge

Images from: GeoEngineering Watch

See featured article and read comments here:

TLB recommends you visit Dane at GeoEngineering Watch for more great/pertinent articles, videos and information.

Guide Stones

By TLB Contributor: Dave Hodges.

“War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. “We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. “You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine”.

Award winning scientist, Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, showed solutions for reducing the world’s population to an audience on population control.

Just because you don’t know you have cancer does not mean you do not have it. Simply because one is unaware of the depopulation quotes and intentions of the world’s most important leaders and institutions, does not mean that the plans are not being implemented to do such a thing. When so many influential leaders speak about the need to depopulate the world, we need to be paying attention to their actions for clues that the agenda is underway in order that we can best protect ourselves.

The depopulation agenda is being legitimized in print by various global think tank groups as a means to deindustrialize the planet in order to save the planet from the overuse of fossil fuels. Further, the depopulation agenda is being used as an excuse to protect planet’s inhabitants from a dwindling food source. This is one of the biggest lies being perpetrated upon the people. A growing population base is not causing the planet to run out of food. Here is a shortvideo which exposes this deceptive agenda.


The Club of Rome, the Bilderberg and even the New York Times are all  advocating for extreme depopulation. The only remaining question is how far are the global elite willing to go to carry out their depopulation goals?


Examples of Post Modern Era Agenda 21 Depopulation Efforts

In the 1970s, the Indian government forcibly sterilized millions of women against their will. Families in Bangladesh, Indonesia and elsewhere were forced to have fewer children. In 1974, the United Nations organized its first World Population Conference to debate population control. China rolled out its infamous one-child policy in 1980 and this policy was reflective of the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger when she said The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”.

In the 1980′s, the population crisis seemed to be over. The replacement population rateneeded to maintain a population is 2.1 children per woman and across the planet and that standard was basically maintained. However, there was one major exception and that was in the sub-Saharan Africa.

United Nations population experts and the world’s politicians convened what is now described as the first Agenda 21 conference, in 1994, in which an overt depopulation strategy was replaced by an agenda centered on empowering women through equalemployment opportunities thus delaying childbirth and lessening the birth rate. Also, the UN and world leaders espoused increasing access to birth control and abortion, thus, killing unborn babies in fulfillment of Margaret Sanger’s expressed desire.

These early depopulation strategies are benign, even the scourge of abortion, when compared to more black project agendas that were conducted at the same time. The problem with using various birth control methods is that they are slow multi-generational process and this lack of quick progress does not give the elite what they need and want which is to depopulate the world quickly.

For dramatic changes in population, a more radical agenda is needed. More deadly methods involving war and disease are preferable to members of the ruling elite who desire quick results, which are needed to save the planet from man-made climate change. This is what I submit is exactly what we are beginning to see.

Allegations of Weaponized Viruses

During the same time frame, but buried behind the scenes, HIV and Ebola appeared in the same region of Africa for the first time nd at the same time.  HIV swept across much of Africa decimating a large swath of the population. Some African communities had as many as 90% of the adults die from the disease in some villages and towns. Was this merely a coincidence with regard to the UN Agenda 21 population reduction policies being put into place at the same time? The answer to that question is debatable. However, we are looking at a significant number of depopulation coincidences to swallow at one time. There are still other coincidences which need to be brought out into the open.

Is it a coincidence that the first two Americans healthcare workers who have contracted Ebola are now inside the United States? Is it coincidence that the most deadly outbreak of the disease in history have admittedly now killed nearly 900 West Africans already this year and the number is beginning to climb exponentially? Is it just a mere coincidence that President Obama has just signed an executive order to have the power to begin rounding up American citizens with respiratory diseases against their will? Is it just a coincidence that the FEMA camp incarceration style roundups of the homeless are beginning in Los Angeles County as this could be easily be converted to Ebola quarantine centers? By the way, the homeless people are not allowed to leave these facilities once they are removed from the streets and “checked in”.

Perhaps the biggest coincidence has to do with the probability that Ebola is coming into America through the unprotected southern border. The prime suspects are an untold number of West Africans, estimated at 100,000 in Central America, streaming into the country as drug couriers. These West Africans are from the seven nation region in West Africa in which the live, uncontained Ebola outbreak is presently taking place. This fact , combined with the DHS/ICE policy of shipping the recent illegal immigrants to every corner of the country makes for a deadly cocktail which could culminate in a health crisis by Labor Day, given the fact that Ebola can incubate up to 21 days. Is this just another coincidence? If an Ebola outbreak does take hold in the United States, some like Dr. Pianka and Henry Kissinger will applaud the development as will the Club of Rome, the Bilderberg and event the New York Times.

Overpopulation is a Myth

Here are three very short videos which clearly demonstrate how propaganized the people of the planet are becoming propagandized as to the dangers of overpopulation.





The globalist notion that they must reduce population in order to save humanity, is a lie based upon unproven facts and should be considered to be nothing but a deception.

History clearly shows that if one would want to reduce population the best way to do so is through massive industrialization. Presently, the Italian birthrate is 1.4 and the in the United States, the indigenous birthrate is 1.8, which is far below the 2.1 standard needed to maintain a population. Both countries are symbolic of the fact that in industrialized societies, the birthrate declines dramatically because high numbers of children are not needed to work on farms. Any sociologist will tell you that birth control and industrialization go hand in hand. Therefore, the globalists should be trying to industrialize the third world instead of preventing progress and deindustrializing everyone else. Instead, their false paradigm of depopulation is based upon climate change caused by fossil fuels and overpopulation is a complete myth.


The globalists cannot industrialize the rest of the world because their main method for maintaining control over the planet’s resources would be in jeopardy. If most of the people on the planet were industrialized, they would not only experience a higher standard of living, but an increased desire for freedom of expression as the energy formerly spent on survival, would be focused on higher level needs. The globalists cannot allow humanity the opportunity to collectively reach a high level of enlightenment and awareness because there would be nowhere the elite could hide for their crimes against humanity.

It is my fear and reticent belief that we are living in the age in which the accelerated agenda of elite will culminate with a radical depopulation agenda consisting of Ebola attacks and World War III.  World War III? Yes, forces are mobilizing with regard to Ukraine. The world is in a very similar place as it was in Pre-World War I Europe.

Awareness and being outspoken are our best weapons needed to delay this agenda. Therefore, if would ask that you forward this article, to as many people as possible. Or, at least write your own version of this content and distribute it widely.

It strongly appears that phase one, depopulation through disease, as Dr. Pianka has advocated for, is underway. And World War III is one small trigger event from occurring. The latter will be the topic of a future article.


TLB recommends you visit Dave here:


Click on image to visit site


See featured article and read comments here:



By: Valerie Burke, MSN, EFT-INT

The claims about genetically engineered foods have been quite lofty. Monsanto and other proponents of biotechnology are fond of saying that genetic engineering is necessary if the world’s food supply is to keep up with seven billion people and counting. They claim GE crops produce higher yields, solve pest and weed problems, are safe for humans and the environment, and are the cure for world hunger.

As John Robbins writes, if Monsanto’s true goal is addressing hunger, then their seeds would be designed to fix the core problems that underlie the hunger issue, such as:[1]

  • Able to grow on substandard or marginal soils
  • Able to produce more high-quality protein with increased per-acre yield, without the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers or water
  • Engineered to favor small farms over larger farms
  • Cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing
  • Designed for crops that feed people, not livestock

If GE foods were really a viable way to eliminate world hunger, then meeting these challenges would be a powerful argument in their favor, would it not? So, what does the science say?

Monsanto gets a failing grade across the board.

With nearly 100 million acres of GE food now planted worldwide, Monsanto’s crops have yet to do one thing to alleviate hunger, particularly for the world’s less fortunate. In fact, most of that acreage is devoted to growing corn and transgenic soybeans for livestock feed.

GE Crops Produce a Higher Yield … Right?

No—their yield is actually lower. Overall, research has shown a 5 to 10 percent reduction in yield for GE soybeans versus the conventional variety. Other GE crops are performing equally poorly.[2] These plants are weak, malnourished and fail with the slightest environmental stress or drought. Agronomists and plant scientists have made far greater advances in yields with conventional breeding methods than with GE crops.

The yields of GE cotton have been particularly abysmal. Scientists have determined that growing GE cotton in the US can result in a 40 percent drop in income. In India, the situation is much worse with up to 100 percent failure rates for Bt cotton, leaving farmers in total financial ruin. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, more than 182,900 Indian farmers took their own lives between 1997 and 2007 as a result of GE crop failures—a staggering 46 farmer suicides each and every day.[3]

GE Crops Require Fewer Chemicals … Don’t They?

It turns out that GE crops fail miserably in this respect too. GE crops actually need more toxic chemicals, not less. Eighty-five percent of all GE seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance—specifically, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. As a result, pesticide use has increased dramatically. Since the introduction of GE crops, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides have been used in the US.[4]

Sixty percent of GE crops are resistant to weed killers, fueling a dramatic rise in herbicide use—especially Monsanto’s Roundup, which contains the extremely toxic chemical glyphosate. Roundup is now used in more than 80 percent of all GE crops worldwide, and the only one who benefits from THIS is Monsanto. They produce the seeds that require a massive application of an herbicide that they just happen to produce. How convenient for them!

Not only are these toxic chemicals being used far too heavily, but they are killing our bees and butterflies, polluting our waterways, destroying our soil, and creating resistant superweeds and mutant pesticide-resistant insects that we have no way to control.[5]

Mother Nature Hates Monocultures

Studies comparing large mechanized farms to small farms have shown that small farms doing multiple and succession plantings are significantly more productive than the monoculture plantings used in large mechanized farms. A report compiled by about 400 of the world’s top scientists concluded our current agricultural system is unsustainable. We need farming methods that rebuild our ecological systems rather than demolish them. Organic farms consistently produce 80 to 90 percent higher yields than monoculture operations.[6] Genetic “bio-invasion” is the biggest risk organic farmers face today.[7]

Biodiversity is key to a healthy ecosystem—and therefore a healthy food supply. In a diverse population, some plants will have natural resistance and will fare better than others, saving the group as a whole from catastrophe. Poor soil quality is a serious problem for farmers across the globe. Our soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also resulted in the extinction of 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century.[8]

It can be safely said, then, that GE crops were not developed for the purpose of solving world hunger, but to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. Their goal is maximum profit.

History has proven that artificially inserted genes can have unintended and disastrous consequences. The reality is that GE farming practices are not the solution to world hunger, but rather the very heart of the problem, virtually guaranteeing future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Sustainable, biodynamic agriculture is the real solution!

To learn more about GMOs visit the GMO research guide.

[1] Earth Island Journal, Book Excerpt: The Food Revolution by John Robbins

[2] Union of Concerned Scientists: Failure to Yield April 2009

[3] Infochange India 2008

[4] 2009

[5] 2011

[6] Agriculture at a Crossroads: Synthesis Report 2009

[7] Organic Consumers Association

[8] Growing Change (documentary, Simon Cunich) 2012


Valerie BurkeValerie Burke, MSN of Panther Tap is a certified EFT practitioner in Union, Washington. She has a website dedicated to helping fellow EFT practitioners and lay people alike understand EFT and its uses, as well as the growing body of science behind it. To learn more, simply visit her website here:

TLB recommends you visit Green Med Info for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


Margaret Harrington, Nuclear Free Future

Margaret Harrington, host of Nuclear Free Future on Channel 17 BCAT, speaks with Arnie Gundersen about fuel pools, emergency planning and nuclear power subsidies. Hat tips to US Senators Sanders and Markey for introducing a bill requiring emergency planning continue after closure. Entergy and the other nuclear power operators are proposing they be exempt from any emergency plans after a reactor is closed, because they say there is no risk. But the taxpayer is still paying for Price-Anderson insurance, because there is risk. The industry can’t have it both ways. If they want to eliminate emergency planning, then it’s time they pay for their own insurance.


MH:    This is Burlington and here we are in the Channel 17 newsroom for our ongoing Nuclear Free Future conversation. I’m Margaret Harrington, your host. And viewers welcome with me Arnie Gundersen, the Chief Engineer of Fairewinds Energy Education, who has been on our show before. Welcome back, Arnie.

AG:     Hi, Margaret. I’m glad I’m here.

MH:    Thank you. And I’m so happy that we have chosen for the title of this show “Nuclear Industry – Profit before Public Safety.” And we can cut to the chase on this and look at the press release in the Vermont Digger on-line newspaper, the independent newspaper. There was a press release put out 5 days ago that says “Senators to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission” – and this includes Senator Leahy and Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, and four other senators – and it says senators to NRC do not exempt decommissioning nuclear reactors from emergency response and security measures. So what does that mean, Arnie? What is going on? Is it in reference to Vermont Yankee and other decommissioning reactors?

AG:     This is a real big deal, because 5 nuclear plants – 4 shut down last year, and at least Vermont Yankee and perhaps others will shut down this year. And it’s something that no one ever faced before. So what’s happening is nuclear plants are shutting down, and the utilities don’t want to spend the money on emergency planning after the nuclear plants are shut down. So they’ve convinced the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they don’t need any emergency plans when the nuclear plant has reached the end of its life and it’s being mothballed.

MH:    This is amazing that they should try to do this, because emergency plans include evacuation plans and all kinds of things. Could you run us through some of the emergency plans?

AG:     Yeah, let’s talk about Vermont Yankee, which is the identical reactor to Fukushima. The fuel pool will have 37 years worth of nuclear fuel in it, and that’s the equivalent of 700 Hiroshima bombs worth of radioactive material. One would think that you’d want an emergency plan to make sure that there’s no problem with the fuel pool. When a nuclear plant shuts down, all of the safety systems are deactivated and the fuel pool has no safety systems. It’s considered non-safety related. So what that means is that in the event you lose off-site power – and that happens – we all experience the lights going out for longer periods of time – the fuel pool would begin to boil and left long enough, could burn. And that’s what happened at Fukushima Daiichi unit 4 that caused the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evacuate out for 50 miles. So just because a nuclear plant has shut down doesn’t mean it’s safe. There’s 700 bombs worth of nuclear material sitting in the fuel pool. But here in Vermont – and a hat tip to Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy – both our senators – for trying to convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that this is not a good idea. (3:38) We have the most hazardous material known to mankind and you’re saying there’s no need for an emergency plan. So they’re trying to push the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to maintain an emergency plan at Vermont Yankee.

MH:    So presently Vermont Yankee has an emergency plan which they can activate in case of an emergency.

AG:     Right. Any operating plant has to have – out to 10 miles, they have to be able to evacuate people on the order of 2 or 3 hours. They’ve got to get everybody out of a 10-mile zone. But what Entergy is saying is that they don’t need to worry about the people outside of the plant boundary after the plan has permanently shut down. Now there’s an interesting dichotomy there because they want to keep the taxpayer-funded nuclear insurance. So they want us to pay their insurance in the event there is an accident, but they are claiming there can’t be an accident because the plant’s already shut down. So my opinion is, if you’re going to allow them to eliminate their emergency plan, then it stands to reason that they don’t need taxpayers to pay their insurance, either. And they don’t want that. There’s a fundamental problem. If you’re running a nuclear plant, you want that Price Andersen insurance because no insurance company in the world is going to accept the risk.

MH:    So presently the taxpayer is paying this Price Andersen insurance.

AG:     Yup. You and I and everybody in the country are on the hook for – if there’s a nuclear accident, the first 10 billion dollars are paid for by the nuclear industry. That sounds like a lot of money, except that Fukushima Daiichi cost 500 billion dollars. So the taxpayers would be on the hook for 490 billion dollars in nuclear costs. And that’s money that insurance companies will not insure. That’s a risk they will not take. So through well-funded lobbyists, the nuclear industry has convinced Congress that we should pay – you and I and everybody in Vermont and everybody in Wisconsin and everybody in Texas.

MH:    Okay. I didn’t understand about what the Price Andersen insurance is. It’s particularly for nuclear.

AG:     It’s the only reason nuclear plants continue to operate. What happened in the 50’s – two Senators – Price and Andersen – realized that to get the industry going, there was no actuarial basis about accidents. So they had five years worth of insurance. And that was called Price Andersen Insurance. Well, every five years – and that was paid for by citizens – every five years, Congress has renewed that again and again and again. And there’s a bill working its way up to the floor by Bernie Sanders that is going to try to force the industry to pay for its own insurance. They’ve been at this now for 70 years. You would think that they’d have a good basis to go to an insurance company and say it’s time that we pay the insurance. But that’s one of these hidden subsidies in nuclear power. (7:10) The owners want all the profit and they want to minimize the cost. Well, if you and I are paying for their insurance, that’s effectively minimizing their cost.

MH:    And the decommissioning process for Vermont Yankee and for the other nuclear reactors, they are pulling out, then, on all of these things, if they can under the good wishes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

AG:     Yeah, the lax guidance of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is allowing these companies to eliminate their emergency planning staff despite the fact that the most toxic material known to mankind sits in the fuel pool. And that’s really what Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy were saying – and others – Ed Markey from Massachusetts and a few others as well – are saying this is wrong; if you’re going to have the most toxic material known to mankind, you need an emergency plan until it’s no longer on the site.

MH:    But they are – Entergy is just forging ahead with their decommissioning plan. Do they have a decommissioning plan?

AG:     They haven’t published their final plan. And they have until the end of 2015. They have a year after shutdown to publish the final plan. But they have said that within a year after shutdown, they’re going to eliminate all of the emergency planning staff. And to me, that’s frightening. And I’m glad to Vermont Senators that’s frightening. And it’s not just Vermont. There’s a plant that shut down in Wisconsin, the same thing. There’s two plants that are shut down in California – the same thing. So the industry is putting enormous pressure on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to eliminate emergency planning. But to me, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

MH:    And again, going back to the title of our program, “Nuclear Industry: Profit Before Public Safety,” – this is – the common denominator is the money that’s involved with this sort of safety measure.

AG:     Well, both those things are money – the emergency planning, they want to reduce their cost, and Price Andersen Insurance, they’re not paying anything now. So yeah – and the complicit regulator at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows that to happen. Effectively, we’re subsidizing nuclear power by eliminating emergency planning and by paying for their insurance even though one would think with 70 years of actuarial basis, they could get an insurance company to step up.

MH:    And this is unprecedented, as you say, with 10 nuclear power plants that will be decommissioned, that they will be on their own then.

AG:     There’s five. Five plants have shut down in the last year – two at San Onofre, one at Kewanee in Wisconsin, one down in Florida, Crystal River; and of course, Vermont Yankee is within a couple months of shutting down permanently. And the industry never had to face that before. (10:33) A lot of times a plant is shut down, like Millstone 1 in Connecticut or Dresden 1 in Illinois. But there are still two other operating reactors on those sites. What’s happened in the last year, though, is each one of these entire sites has shut down. So they can’t rely on the emergency plan for the other reactor and the NRC is just rolling over and allowing it to happen.

MH:    Arnie, could you tell us what the prospect is if the decommissioning goes ahead without the emergency response and security measures? What can we see happening down there at Vermont Yankee? That they will have 60 years of a fuel pool that is going to be kept there? Take us from there.

AG:     Well, when the reactor shuts down, there’ll be 35 years of nuclear fuel in the nuclear fuel pool – 35, 37 years. Within 5 years, they have to empty the nuclear fuel pool. So the most dangerous time in a nuclear decommissioning is the first 5 or 7 years. Vermont Yankee actually made it worse, and so did San Onofre out in California, because they went to high burn-up fuel. They ran the fuel in the nuclear reactor longer. And that makes it hotter after it shuts down, which means it has to stay in the pool longer. So they got the benefit of the burning the fuel longer, but we got the risk of sitting with that nuclear fuel in the pool. Well, after about 5 or 7 years, the pool is empty and in dry casks. And those of us in the nuclear industry think that’s the best thing to do is to get the fuel into dry casks. Fukushima had dry casks and they survived the tsunami and the earthquake just fine. A dry cask is passive. It doesn’t have pumps and water to cool with. And it’s perfectly – it is a perfectly doable thing. There’s no technological reasons why it can’t be done. So the risk years are the first 5 or 7 years when there’s fuel in the fuel pool.

MH:    And that is what Entergy and the other nuclear power plants are proposing to have without insurance or the taxpayer paying the insurance and without the safety measures, during those crucial years.

AG:     They want us to continue to insure them because there is a risk, and yet they want us to not have an emergency plan because there is no risk. And you can’t have it both ways. If you want to eliminate the emergency plan, then it’s time to pay for your own insurance.

MH:    It’s mind boggling that this should be going forward, and as you say, it is good that the senators have stepped forward. And the other Senator was Senator Gillibrand from New York who signed this letter to the head of the NRC. But besides the crucial 5 to 7 years, what other emergency plans are going to go by the wayside?

AG:     After the fuel is out of the fuel pool, there will still be radioactivity in the plant. And an example would be like the Hanford Reservation out in Washington has highly radioactive buildings but the fuel is no longer there. And at that point, the issues are rodent related and infestation related. At Hanford, rabbits are getting into these old buildings and eating the wires and then becoming radioactive themselves. And then the rabbits leave and you’ve got radioactive rabbit droppings all through the woods that they pick up on helicopters and they pay people to go out and kill the rabbits. They pay them $75 an hour – it’s good money. They call it bunny money. They go out and they shoot these radioactive rabbits. The other issue is radioactive wasps. Wasps fly into the building, use the moisture to build nests in the forests nearby. So now you’re getting radioactive transportation from inside the reactor buildings out into the forest. Same with birds. Radioactive birds nests and things like that. So the sooner you can knock a plant down after you moved the fuel, the better off you are. You can do this in 10 years. The carcass only has to sit for about 10 years before it could be completely dismantled, decommissioned and turned back into a farmer’s field.

MH:    Into green fields.

AG:     Yeah. We call it green fields. The site at Vermont Yankee was a farmer’s field, and it could be, within 10 years, reused for that application. There’s a site in Illinois at the Zion Reactor that is a beautiful site and they want to build high rise apartments on it. So the land has value after the plant has decommissioned. So there’s no scientific reason why we should need to wait 60 years to decommission a power plant. Nothing in science says 60 years is a magic number. But again, it’s one of these hidden subsidies. If the owner of the plant doesn’t have to put much money up to decommission it, and he’s allowed to wait 60 years while the stock market grows that money, it artificially lowers the cost of nuclear power. Now here in Vermont, we’ve got the windmills on the ridge lines. To build a windmill, you have to have a completely paid for decommissioning fund before you ever start the windmill turning. Yet if you’re Vermont Yankee, you don’t have to have a fully paid for decommissioning fund for 60 years after it’s shut down. So this plant was built 40 years ago; so essentially, for 100 years, you don’t have to have all the money to dismantle a plant for nuclear, but for a windmill, you have to have it before it begins to generate a single kilowatt.

MH:    Well, with Entergy and the 60 years, their plan is to – I’m referring to a letter here from Andrew Larkin and Anneke Corbett in the And they criticize SafStor – S-a-f-s-t-o-r – and they say that “SafStor puts dealing with the reactor into the future for up to 60 years. Now there are workers who are familiar with the functioning of the reactors. Sixty years from now, the experienced workforce will be dead. Entergy’s plan to invest the current $620 million decommissioning fund into an unspecified financial project so that at some far time in the future there is enough money in the future for decommissioning.”

AG:     What the NRC allows you to do – and I’ll try to do this backward for the audience to see it correctly – there is right now about $600 million in the decommissioning fund. And you hope that it grows in the stock market. The NRC says it’s going to grow at 5 percent a year. So the growth in the decommissioning fund is like that. (17:55) The cost to dismantle Vermont Yankee is a billion dollars. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners say costs are going to grow at 3 percent. In fact, they’ve grown past that, but the NRC says 3 percent. So 600 billion growing at 5 percent and a billion growing at 3 percent, sooner or later, those lines cross. And as long as they cross in a shorter period of time than 60 years, the NRC is happy. I’m not happy about that. That’s a hidden subsidy to nuclear power that windmills don’t have.

MH:    So in effect, we’re waiting for their 60-year profit.

AG:     Right. We’re waiting for the stock market to have perpetual 5 percent gains in growth. And of course, what happened in 2008, 2009 shows that that didn’t happen. The other example is the crash of 1929. It was 1954 – 30 years later, before the stock market ever got back to where it was. So this belief – this unfounded belief that the stock market’s going to grow 5 percent every year and costs are going to grow at 3 percent every year, is a myth. But it’s a myth that subsidizes nuclear power and makes it appear cheaper than it really is.

MH:    And in the meantime during that 60 years, who is maintaining the dry casks that are remaining there?

AG:     Yeah, there has to be a guard force. There has to be lights, there has to be fences with razor wire, and there have to be people measuring the radiation. We call those people health physics people. So they’re spending about 5 million dollars a year on the guards and the measuring people and the lights to guard that nuclear fuel once it’s in the dry casks. And that comes out of the decommissioning fund as Entergy is proposing it. I don’t think that’s fair, either. But Entergy is stripping the decommissioning fund to pay for dry cask storage.

MH:    And Arnie, remind us where the decommissioning fund money comes from.

AG:     Well, here in Vermont, the people of Vermont gave about $10 million a year from 1970 until 2000. So we contributed $300 million into our electric rates so that when the plant shut down, there’d be enough money to dismantle it. So we were contributing $10 million a year. When Entergy took over the plant, they took that $300 million and didn’t add another penny to it. And they said well, we’re going to invest it in the stock market and 60 years from now, there’ll be enough money. Trust us; don’t worry. Then they also formed something they called a limited liability corporation, which I also think Larkin and Corbett talk about. These plants have no assets. It’s not like Entergy is ensuring that this plant will be decommissioned. Vermont Yankee is its own limited liability corporation. So is Indian Point 2, a limited liability corporation – Pilgrim. Each one is their own stand-alone limited liability corporation. And what that allows them to do is to walk away from the debt rather than pay it.

MH:    (21:32) If they walked away from the debt, what would happen?

AG:     You know, if a gas station goes belly up, it ultimately falls on the state to clean it up – a superfund site. If there’s an asbestos problem. Here’s an example. In Moab, Utah, there was a uranium tailings mine. Uranium tailings are the stuff that comes out of the ground and they strip out a lot of uranium – don’t get it all – and the remaining dirt is radioactive. So that’s a tailings mine. And the NRC told the owner, you need $6 million in decommissioning fund. And the owner got $6 million. Well, the cleanup is going to be a billion dollars. So there’s $994 million worth of unfunded money there. You and I are paying for it. So there’s another billion dollar subsidy to nuclear power, just at Moab, Utah site. And it’s happened around the country. In Pennsylvania, there’s a site that went bankrupt and there wasn’t enough money in the decommissioning fund. So bankruptcy gets you out of that debt and then you and I have to pay to have it cleaned up – taxpayers.

MH:    And what is the prospect of ever cleaning up Vermont Yankee so as you said, it could return to green fields? That is the dream and the hope of people.

AG:     I ran a group that dismantled, decommissioned nuclear facilities. And it can be done. It’s not a high tech proposition. The radioactive material gets shipped to Texas where it’s stored in West Texas, which is a very arid area with very low income people that wanted the jobs and weren’t concerned about the radioactive dangers. But the radioactivity leaves Vermont, which is good for Vermont, and we get a green field back. That process could take 10 years but in fact, it looks like Entergy will drag that out to 50 or 60 years. Ultimately, all the radioactive material from the power plant itself – the radioactive pipes, the nuclear reactor, the building – all that will get shipped to Texas. And the nuclear fuel may sit in Vernon on a pad near the Connecticut River for as long as a hundred or 200 years until we have a place to store it underground.

MH:    And if Entergy has their way, there will be no emergency and security measures in place.

AG:     There will be no emergency measures. There will be a guard force around the nuclear fuel. But there won’t be – if the nuclear fuel were to leak or there was a terrorist attack on the nuclear fuel, there would be no emergency response people to evacuate large portions of southern Vermont. Yeah, it’s a mess.

MH:    It is a mess. And again, it seems that we’ve been at this for 70 years and these particular nuclear reactors that are being decommissioned are 40 years old. And so even with all of that time, we still don’t know the right way forward.

AG:     When I was in Japan – it’s very hard to engage the Japanese audience because they’re very placid. You don’t get any facial recognition that you’re making a point. And on top of that, I had a translator. But they understood one thing. I said that nuclear has been subsidized for 70 years. We started subsidizing nuclear power in the 40’s. And every time a new design comes along, the power companies don’t pay for that. The Department of Energy pays to have that new design developed. So again and again and again, taxpayers have subsidized nuclear power. (25:40) So I said to the Japanese audience, when your kids are 20 years old and they come home, it’s okay if you subsidize them and give them their room back. And if your kids are 30 and they run into bad times, it’s okay if they come back to mom and dad and you give them their room back. And if it was really hard times, maybe when they hit 40 you’d say okay, mom and dad are here, we’ll subsidize you. But when your kid hits 70 years old, it’s time to say no. There’s no more subsidies. You are on your own. Fish or cut bait. And that never happens with nuclear power. The Japanese audience, which is very much into taking care of their ancestors, appreciated that we’re in a situation here where the ancestors are taking care of the children, which is the wrong way that this should be done.

MH:    And what about the small modular reactors? Are they being built now? Is this a plan on the horizon?

AG:     Well, there’s always a new thing in nuclear power. At the beginning of the nuclear renaissance, there were going to be large reactors. And nobody bought any large reactors. So the nuclear industry said, well, we’ll build small reactors called small modular reactors – SMR. And they claimed that they would build an assembly line here in the United States. That’s not going to happen. It will be made in China or something like that. But the theory was, we could build these ourselves, just like building cars or something like that. But the small modular reactor assembly line is going to cost $100 billion. And there’s no company in its right mind that is going to spend $100 billion on an assembly line to build small nuclear reactors. So again, that’s another potential subsidy coming down the road. No one is buying small modular reactors and there’s no investor interested in small modular reactors. But the Department of Energy continues to spend money on the design. It’s the next buzzword in nuclear technology. It’s the next subsidized gimmick.

MH:    And that’s called research and development and it is paid for by taxpayers’ money.

AG:     Yes. You know, years ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a charter of regulating and promoting. At that time it was called the AEC – Atomic Energy Commission. And they broke it up and they created the NRC, which was supposed to regulate. It really doesn’t; it promotes. But then they gave the promotional part to the Department of Energy. And the Department of Energy is the biggest cheerleader for nuclear power in the world. The Department of Energy is actually funding breeder reactors in Japan. The Japanese don’t want them. The Japanese can’t afford them. But American taxpayer money is being spent on breeder reactors in Japan through the Department of Energy as part of this overall strategy of subsidizing nuclear power.

MH:    It’s an endless story.

AG:     Yes.

MH:    And do you see any kind of glimmer of hope besides the efforts of our legislators here? This is a good step forward to wake people up.

AG:     Well, hats off to Bernie Sanders, who has always been on this bandwagon, and to Patrick Leahy, for his efforts to make sure we have emergency planning. Ed Markey is another one, in Massachusetts, who’s always seen how heavily subsidized nuclear power is. But the nuclear lobby is extensive in Washington. And almost every senator and congressman is influenced by the lobbyists. So if we take the lobbyists out of this, nuclear power will have to fend for itself. But that’s not the Washington way. Peter Bradford, Vermont’s own resident former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, said in Washington, there are no democrats and republicans on nuclear power. They are all pro nuclear. There’s no political divide on nuclear power in Washington. Every single congressman lines up to support nuclear power. And that has a direct effect on who’s appointed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Every single commissioner has been approved by the Congress. And Congress doesn’t approve them until the nuclear industry signs off. So we essentially have five commissioners who are approved by industry who are now changing hats and overseeing industry. And we all know that doesn’t happen.

MH:    Thank you, Arnie, for again enlightening us on what’s going on and keeping us aware and – raising our awareness very much. So I hope that you can come back again to continue this conversation and I hope that the legislators’ letter to the NRC Commissioner gets some attention.

AG:     Well, I hope so, too. Thank you for having me.

MH:    Thank you, Arnie. And thank you, viewers. Goodbye until next time.


TLB recommends you visit FAIREWINDS for more pertinent articles, videos and information.

See featured article here:

GMO petition

By: Elizabeth Lane

We, the free-born people of the world, demand to live in a world free of poisonous food. We refuse to be part of Monsanto’s crimes against humanity and do whole-heatedly object to Monsanto’s activities!

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights put forth by the United Nations states that EVERYONE has the right to adequate food and to be free from hunger. Article 12 recognizes the right of EVERYONE to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Monsanto’s activities are direct violation of these Articles and furthermore exploits Article 11: 2a and 2b for financial profit cloaking their company as utilizing progressive technologies to end hunger despite the lack of scientific consensus on GE safety and widespread global rejection of their products. Additional and acute concerns include pesticide related environmental poisoning, directly contributing to the decline of bee populations, which promotes crop failure through lack of cross-pollination, loss of biodiversity and potentially eventual increased food shortages.

Not only are Monsanto’s activities violations of these articles but they violate EVERYONE’S RIGHTS as put forth under Article 3 under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” Article 25 (1) states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Fact Sheet #34 The Right to Adequate Food states that the right to food must be available, accessible and adequate. “Availability requires on the one hand that food should be available from natural resources either through the production of food, by cultivating land or animal husbandry.” (Page 2) Monsanto patents their seeds and sues farmers for cross-contamination of crops with Monsanto’s patented foods. Monsanto has a mission to make only their foods accessible. Monsanto further compromises adequacy, defined on Page 3 as: “Adequacy means that the food must satisfy dietary needs, taking into account the individual’s age, living, conditions, health, occupation, sex, etc. For example, if children’s food does not contain the nutrients necessary for their physical and mental development, it is not adequate. Food that is energy-dense and low-nutrient, which can contribute to obesity and other illnesses, could be another example of inadequate food. Food should be safe for human consumption and free from adverse substances, such as contaminants from industrial or agricultural processes, including residues from pesticides, hormones or veterinary drugs.” Monsanto’s products have been linked to cancer, obesity, diabetes, autism and ADHD.

Furthermore Fact Sheet #34 The Right to Adequate Food explains the duty of the State is to respect, protect and fulfill the right to food. Page 18 clearly outlines the obligations of the States here: “States have to protect individuals’ enjoyment of the right to food against violations by third parties (e.g., other individuals, groups, private enterprises and other entities). For example, States should prevent third parties from destroying sources of food by, for instance polluting land, water and air with hazardous industrial or agricultural products or destroying the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples to clear the way for mines, dams, highways or industrial agriculture. The obligation to protect also includes ensuring that food put on the market is safe and nutritious. States must therefore establish and enforce food quality and safety standards, and ensure fair and equal market practices.” President Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act to make illegal to sue Monsanto. He appointed Michael Taylor, former employee of Monsanto to the FDA. Another former Monsanto employee, Clarence Thomas, sits on the Supreme Court of the United States. States in America are demanding labeling of GMO foods and getting sued. So now there is a bill in Congress that would make it illegal for all states to label GMO foods. Monsanto’s profits are being protected but the people are not. Furthermore, passage of the TPP/TTIP would allow Monsanto into sovereign countries where their products have been previously banned and would eliminate labeling requirements in such countries that require it due to labeling being a prejudicial device towards the consumers, again to protect profits.

Article II and Article III under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide are also applicable to this action. Article II defines genocide as:(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Article III defines punishable genocide as (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Illnesses and health complications that result from consumption of genetically engineered foods certainly can meet these requirements. Furthermore, Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange which was used against the Vietnamese people in warfare, which violates the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare ratified in Geneva in 1929. This proves their complicity in genocide.  For all these citations, we the undersigned ask for an independent investigation and immediate moratorium on genetically engineered foods.


Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days. — World Nuclear Association 

Report by Dr. Bill Deagle reminds us that extinction-level amounts of lethal radiation continues to contaminate the planet.

It has to be considered that the consequences of global panic in response to full public knowledge the horrific Fukushima event are so dire that corporate media outlets have been instructed not to cover it.  Instead, we get bizarre reports on MH-370, MH-17, the Ebola virus, Israeli war on Gaza, Impeaching Obama,…on and on.

By not reporting on Fukushima, “authorities” hope to hide the dire consequences of continued radiation leak(s) from the American people and global populations for as long a possible.

By monitoring social media conversations, it’s an easy task for “rulers” to know when the “flash-point” of public awareness will prompt need to apply further media distractions or increase certain elements of the police state without actually declaring outright, “martial law”….as a last resort.

Bio-accumulation of radiation from Fukushima can damage nearly all life on earth.

All along the west coast of North America, sea stars are dying at an alarming rate. There was an “outbreak” of some unknown wasting disease last year and it appears to have come back even worse this summer.  — Radiation Rain

Clip from July 28, 2014 – guest Yoichi Shimatsu on the Jeff Rense Program. *** More


One aspect of this out-of-control contamination is in the Pacific’s 30 foot deep layer of surface ocean water where much of the global oxygen supply is generated by plankton. Bio-accumulation in this layer is unknown and no questions are being asked by corporate media “experts”.  Dalton’s Law of partial pressures of gases tells us that measured CO2 levels will respond by going up if global oxygen levels go down.

Reports of a massive case of dead star-fish, absence of certain species of fish and dwindling herds of animals up and down the Pacific region of the northern hemisphere are never connected to the consequences of bio-accumulation of radiation sprays from the ongoing Fukushima disaster.


Follow the money.  Media will avoid reporting any news that could be bad for business as usual.

Spraying aerosols over the Pacific to interrupt rainfall is a desperate attempt to mitigate radiation from being washed onto crops in the central valley that provides much of our food commodities . The obvious downside is the failure of normal rainfall and forcing of drought that increases the number of wildfires in the Northwest and the opportunistic privatization of water resources.

TLB recommends you visit Chemtrail Planet for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:

Men in Black Neuralyzer Chemtrails SRM sm

It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in Climate Warming Weapons Technologies for more than 20 years.


TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification”

This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration with each other and the military to Modify the Global climate. Created by the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by a matrix of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.

TITLE: “The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System”. A 1986 Critique of the 1966 initiative.

This document appears as an anonymous draft intended as a critique of the US Weather Modification Program that the author characterizes as hijacked into a military weapons system.



Jules Verne wrote about geoengineering the earth’s climate in 1889 in a sequel to “From the Earth to the Moon” called “The Purchase Of The North Pole”. Verne writes that the Baltimore Gun Club purchased large tracts of the Arctic then used the famous canon from the earth-to-the-moon to tilt the Earth’s axis. The goal was to establish a tropical paradise as a profitable tourist attraction at the North Pole while “improving” the entire global climate.

If Verne correctly predicted that man would travel from the earth to the moon, it should be no surprise that he also predicted that a small group of influential men would consider warming the climate for profit.

Verne could have been inspired by Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler who proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic back in 1877 – a dozen years before Verne’s “fantastic”story was published.


Warming the Arctic with large-scale Geoengineering projects has been the vision of industrialists for 100 years – and still is

Arctic detonation of 88 atmospheric, 29 underground, and 3 underwater nuclear devices from 1955 to 1990

Uploaded on Friday 17 Feb 2012 by GRID-Arendal – Nuclear activities in the Arctic over the last 50 years

From collection: Vital Arctic Graphics (2004 edition)
Author: Philippe Rekacewicz, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Numerous nuclear explosions have taken place in the Arctic. One of the largest military nuclear testing facilities is on the island of Novaya Zemlya, where from 1955 through to 1990 the Soviet Union detonated 88 atmospheric, 29 underground, and 3 underwater nuclear devices. Dozens of civilian ‘peaceful nuclear explosions’ have also occured in the Russian Arctic, where nuclear bombs were used into the late 1980’s for seismic studies, mining, and in attempts to extinguish oil-field fires. (Source)



In 2008 – a year before low solar activity began to threaten 40 to 60 years of global cooling, the chemtrail warmists were confident they could achieve a big arctic thaw for BIG OIL, a carbon tax and the politics of a United Nations led New World Order

World Watch Institute: March, 2008:  Arctic Melting May Lead To Expanded Oil Drilling

More than half of the Arctic Ocean was covered in year-round ice in the mid-1980s. Today, the ice cap is much smaller. Alarming evidence of this warming trend was released last week when the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) released satellite evidence that perennial Arctic ice cover, as of February, rests on less than 30 percent of the ocean.

“The rate of sea-ice loss we’re observing is much worse than even the most pessimistic projections led us to believe,” says Carroll Muffett, deputy campaigns director with Greenpeace USA. For the first time in recorded history, this past summer the entire Northwest Passage between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans was ice-free, according to scientists. (Source)

Remember when People Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

VILLAGE VOICE: “ Hey, remember when climate change was a swell idea? Coconuts were in the offing.”

“Imaginations ran wild, and The Washington Post envisioned Manhattan becoming a tropical paradise” … “People would be gathering oranges off the trees in Central Park, or picking cocoanuts from palms along the Battery, [and] hunting crocodiles off the Statue of Liberty.”

The prospect sounded so splendid to New Yorkers that Senator William Calder (1917-1923) tried to get $100,000 appropriated for a study of the idea. Village Voice

Remember when Scientists Thought Arctic Warming was a Good Idea?

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)

Wexler’s was last in a long line of ambitious proposals to warm the Arctic. Coincidently, his proposals were made at the same time the National Academy of Sciences was working to create a national weather modification program – a direction in which the military had already embarked in 1958.

“Global Warming” initiatives proposed by Wexler:

  • To increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C, “by injecting a cloud of ice crystals into the polar atmosphere by detonating 10 H-bombs in the Arctic Ocean – the subject of his 1958 article in Science magazine” (Wexler H., 1958, “Modifying Weather on a Large Scale,” Science, n.s. 128 (Oct. 31, 1958): 1059-1063).
  • To diminish the global temperature by 1.2°C could be doable, “by launching a ring of dust particles into equatorial orbit, a modification of an earlier Russian proposal to warm the Arctic”.
  • To destroy the ozone layer and hence increase abruptly the surface temperature of the Earth, by spraying “several hundred thousand tons of chlorine or bromine” with a stratospheric airplane. Fleming, 2007(a), pp. 56-57; Fleming, 2007(b), “note n° viii” p. 9 & p. 5 (source)

The decision to reverse direction from warming the arctic to cooling the arctic was announced in 1963 - the year following Wexler’s death when the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Atmospheric Sciences recommended appointment of a Panel on Weather & Climate Modification. pg 2

Prevailing Circumstances following WWII:

  • Operation Paperclip (Also called Operation Overcast) succeeded in recruiting scientists from Nazi Germany for employment in the US after WW II and led to the formation of NASA and the ICBM program.
  • The National Security Act passed in 1947 made possible the rise of the military industrial complex and creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA ) to increase opportunities for scientific experiments to be conducted without public knowledge or Congressional oversight.
  • Post-war advances in science and advanced physics opened up opportunities to develop concepts of advanced thinkers like Nikola Tesla that had been waiting on the shelf for over 50 years.
  • In 1958, military application of Tesla’s little known methods of electromagnetic manipulation of earth’s atmosphere was already underway. White House advisor on weather modification to President Eisenhower reported the DoD was studying ways to manipulate electrical charges of the earth and sky in order to manipulate the weather for purposes of national defense.
  • The rise of an informed and educated middle class looked down on proposals that employed nuclear detonations that became regarded as dangerous and arrogant. This is not to say that proposals to mediate the arctic climate were totally abandoned.


If warming the arctic was regarded as good for commerce for 100 years why would a discovery that found carbon dioxide was already performing the task for free, suddenly be regarded as a catastrophe to prevent?


The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates how Big Oil exists in a world of opportunistic pragmatism, no matter the risk to the environment. With an established record of corporate sociopathy, Big Oil would have little interest in what event would cause arctic ice to retreat as long as their long-held dream of new arctic navigation routes and access to previously ice-locked oil and gas reserves was realized. It could make marginal difference if the arctic temperatures rise due to (1) rising CO2 levels or (2) covert arctic climate manipulation.

This timeline of determined Geoengineering projects suggests the goal of mediating arctic climate remains a favorite goal of the fossil fuel industry.

1877 Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed channeling more of the warm Kuroshio Current through the Bering Strait to raise temperatures in the Polar region by 30 degrees.

1912, New York Engineer and Industrialist, Carroll Livingston Riker proposed building a 200 mile jetty off Newfoundland to increase the Gulf Stream’s flow into to the Arctic Basin with the added benefit that it would “shift” the axis of planet earth. The New York Times characterized the proposal as “amazing”… but not insane.

1929: Hermann Oberth, German-Hungarian physicist and engineer; Proposed building giant mirrors on a space station to focus the Sun’s radiation on Earth’s surface, making the far North habitable and freeing sea lanes to Siberian harbors.

1945; Julian Huxley, biologist and Secretary-General of UNESCO 1946-48; Proposed exploding atomic bombs at an appropriate height above the polar regions to raise the temperature of the Arctic Ocean and warm the entire climate of the northern temperate zone.

1946 Village Voice article from 2005 reporting on theMay, 1946 issue of Mechanix Illustrated that featured several arctic-warming geoengineering proposals. One “brave new idea” was proposed by Julian Huxley, then the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and brother of Aldous Huxley, that would detonate atomic bombs to warm the Arctic.

1958; M. Gorodsky, Soviet engineer and mathematician, and Valentin Cherenkov, Soviet meteorologist; Proposed placing a ring of metallic potassium particles into Earth’s polar orbit to diffuse light reaching Earth and increase solar radiation to thaw the permanently frozen soil of Russia, Canada, and Alaska and melt polar ice.

1958; Arkady Markin, Soviet engineer; Proposed that the United States and Soviet Union build a gigantic dam across the Bering Strait and use nuclear power–driven propeller pumps to push the warm Pacific current into the Atlantic by way of the Arctic Sea. Arctic ice would melt, and the Siberian and North American frozen areas would become temperate and productive.

1958 Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s proposed melting the Arctic and Greenland icecaps by spreading black coal dust on the ice, creating cloud-cover across the poles to trap heat and to divert warm Atlantic waters into the polar regions. This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959.

1958 Atlantic Richfield geologist L.M. Natland, proposed exploding up to 100 underground nuclear bombs to mine the Alberta Oil Sands. Heat from the detonations was expected to boil the bitumen deposits, reducing their viscosity to the point that standard drilling operations could be used. The plan was encouraged by US efforts to find “peaceful uses” for atomic energy. The project was approved in 1959 but the Canadian government reversed their decision in 1962 and declared that Canada was opposed to all forms of nuclear testing. In 2012 the Canadian Tar Sands are, again an issue of international concern.

1962 Harry Wexler (March 15, 1911- 1962) was an MIT graduate and PhD in meteorology. Wexler had been researching the link connecting chlorine and bromine compounds to the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layers, but died of a heart attack while on vacation in Woods Hole, Mass. Wexler had already accepted an invitation to deliver a lecture entitled “The Climate of Earth and Its Modifications” at the University of Maryland Space Research and Technology Institute. (Source)


It remains largely unexplained why decades of optimism for warming the arctic was suddenly replaced with a campaign of fear and doom for the consequences of warming the arctic under the name of “Global Warming”


In the 1960’s Geoengineering proposals to warm the Arctic took a largely unexplained U-turn when oceanographer, Roger Revelle’s research concluded that carbon dioxide was already warming the climate for free and without the need for expensive and risky geoengineering projects.

This U-Turn of direction appeared to be a setback with the exception of those stakeholders in the energy sector who had been invested in arctic warming projects for decades. Did the CO2 story finally promise to give Exxon, BP and Shell what they wanted?

If the science of Roger Revelle’s forecast for global warming turned out to be wrong or too slow, the DoD could step in – for reasons of national security – to assist arctic warming as secret component of the military’s classified weather modification and weapons program.

The 1996 Air Force document that forecasts “Owning the Weather in 2025” would not rule out using Tesla and plasma technologies to increase arctic temperatures in order to disadvantage a perceived enemy. A decision not to intervene might betray the military’s primary objective of “Full Spectrum Dominance”. After all, access to Oil and Gas has been a national security priority for decades.

In 1966, Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald was Chairman of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification and wrote:

“Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.” Gordon MacDonald “Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment. Source

MacDonald was referring to Roger Revelle and Hans Suess paper that reversed the debate from how to warm the arctic to how to avoid warming the arctic. Revelle’s ocean research reported a rise in carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere was allegedly a result of industrial age manufacturing and coal-burning.Source

Revelle had worked with the Navy in the late 1940’s to determine which projects gained funding and successfully promoted the idea that the Navy should invest more in “basic research”. Revelle was deeply involved in the global growth of oceanography. He was also one of the committee chairmen in the influential National Academy of Sciences studies of the “Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation” (BEAR), 1954-1964. Revelle’s world influence was significant as president of the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research, an international group of scientists devoted to advising on international projects. Revelle and other scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography helped the U.S. government to plan nuclear weapons tests so that oceanographers might make use of the data. Source

The conclusions of the BEAR report were understandably significant for demonstrating the harmful biological and environmental damage of atomic radiation and could easily suffice to thwart geoengineering projects that recommended detonating H-bombs. But the evidence is weak that all intentions to mediate arctic climate was totally abandoned.

If the fundamental goal to warm the arctic remains an unspoken priority of national security in the energy sector, the project could be taken out of public view and committee oversight to become a classified operation in the development of the military’s weather warfare program – an initiative that was acknowledged by civilian weather modification programs formalized by the 1966 NASA and ICAS charter.


Since 1958 Congress and the military had already been working on exotic weather warfare systems that involved electromagnetic manipulation of the ionosphere.


US Congress, Senate, Committee on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce, Weather Modification Research, Hearing, Washington D.C. US Govt. Printing Offlce, March 18-19, 1958; Lowell Ponte quotes Capt. Orville as reporting “that the Dept. of Defense was studying ways to manipulate the charges of earth and sky and so affect the weather by means of an electronic beams to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area” …. Capt. Orville also discussed ongoing US Air Force experiments with ‘sodium vapor, ejected from jet planes to intercept solar radiation ‘ over enemy countries and rain their weather. (The Cooling, op. cit. pp. 168-169 Source P. 42

The flip-flop from finding ways to warm the arctic to suddenly finding ways to keep the arctic from warming was announced in 1963 – the year following the sudden death of Meteorologist, Harry Wexler. Having total awareness of the military’s 1958 weather weapons program, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended the appointment of a “Panel on Weather and Climate Modification”. source This event could serve to consolidate military and civilian weather modification programs for peaceful purposes or – if necessary – as covert weather modification and even climate warming operations secretly carried out by the military under the catch-all justification of “national security”.

FOLLOW THE MONEY: Lobbyists for Big Oil publicly claim Global Warming is a hoax while quietly investing billions in new drilling opportunities due to the reality of receding arctic ice. The energy sector has made huge investments in ice-breakers and drilling equipment to profit from the very global warming they are reluctant to acknowledge. The position of having your cake while eating it is essential. When arctic climate warming is revealed as a military climate modification operation, big oil can fall back on “we told you so”. Since governments may come and go over the next 100 years, they calculate the demand for oil – and the companies who drill for it – will remain intact.

  • “As the polar ice cap retreats, energy companies are looking north for a potentially huge new source of crude” Source
  • “Shell is one of six companies planning to extract oil, gas and minerals in the Arctic as global warming melts ice and opens new sea lanes to commerce.” Source
  • “Remote and dangerous sources of arctic oil are becoming increasingly attractive as the global need for oil grows and the existing reserves dry up.” Source


Documents from 1966 reveal how the military and federal agencies are modifying the global climate.


TITLE: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification”

This set of documents from 1966 reveals a network of government agencies in perpetual and secret collaboration , working with the military to Geoengineer the climate. Created as an agenda of the elitist National Academy of Sciences – decades of an inter-agency culture of secrecy explains why the issue of covert aerosol Geoengineering is a taboo topic to be degraded to the status of “conspiracy theory” by every government agency in this web of complicit bureaucrats at every opportunity. This is why your local TV “meteorologist” will rarely make a helpful comment about an unusual sky filled with persistent jet trails.

  • 1966, JUN: “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification” Prepared by the ICAS select Panel on Weather Modification
  • 1966: NOV: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A Report to the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, D.C.
  • 1966: APPENDIX I – Panel on Weather and Climate Modification to Committee on Atmospheric Sciences NAS-NRC – Membership Recommendations
  • 1966: APPENDIX II – Special Commission on Weather Modification – National Science Foundation Membership Recommendations.
  • 1966: APPENDIX III Report prepared by the ICAS Select Panel on Weather Modification; “Present and Future Plans of Federal Agencies in Weather-Climate Modification,” dated June 20, 1966
  • 1966: APPENDIX IV Memorandum for Dr. Homer E. Newel1 from J. Herbert Hollomon, Chairman, ICAS, Subject: National Weather Modification Program, dated June 21, 1966
  • 1966: APPENDIX V NASA Panel to Study Weather Modification Activities; Membership, Chronology of Meetings, and a Compilation of Supporting Material used by the Panel
  • 1966: APPENDIX VI Budget Recommendations and Trends for a National Weather Modification Program

1966 – NASA: A Recommended National Program in Weather Modification – A report to the Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS) by Homer E. Newell – Associate administrator for Space Science and Applications, NASA, Washington, DC.

In 1966, a report from NASA to ICAS (Independent Committee for Atmospheric Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences, NAS) was the first step in establishing a national Weather modification program that would ultimately involve multiple federal agencies. The report focused on four initial agencies: ESSA, NSF, NASA, and the Dept. of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation.

Under Recommended Principals it was noted that (a) each agency would be independently funded while stressing inter-agency cooperation in research. Independent funding of agencies could make the program less conspicuous and more difficult for Congress to defund. Also, new agencies could be brought on board without high profile budget hearings. (b) A designated “central” agency – while having responsibility for focusing the national program – would not have any real authority to implement programs, leaving those decisions to probable unidentified civilian lobbyists and DoD “stakeholders”.

Although the theme of the ICAS report is in the context of protecting water, agriculture, forests, lands and natural resources, the knowledge gained from climate manipulation was of more immediate interest to the military and their industrial complex.

Thirty years following the creation of the Nation Program in Weather Modification, the US Air Force published a document (Owning The Weather in 2025) establishing that federal agencies involved in the National Weather Modification program are under tacit authority of the Department of Defense.

Owning the Weather in 2025 – Opening Statement: Current technologies that will mature over the next 30 years will offer anyone who has the necessary resources the ability to modify weather patterns and their corresponding effects, at least on the local scale. Current demographic, economic, and environmental trends will create global stresses that provide the impetus necessary for many countries or groups to turn this weather-modification ability into a capability.

In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. These levels could include unilateral actions, participation in a security framework such as NATO, membership in an international organization such as the UN, or participation in a coalition. Assuming that in 2025 our national security strategy includes weather-modification, its use in our national military strategy will naturally follow. Besides the significant benefits an operational capability would provide, another motivation to pursue weather-modification is to deter and counter potential adversaries.

In this paper we show that appropriate application of weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. In the future, such operations will enhance air and space superiority and provide new options for battlespace shaping and battlespace awareness.1 “The technology is there, waiting for us to pull it all together;”2 in 2025 we can “Own the Weather


Case Study 2

A 1986 Critique of the 1966 National Weather Modification Initiative

The Evolution of a Weather Modification R&D program Into a Military Weapons System


This document appears as an anonymous draft intended as a critique of the US Weather Modification Program that the author characterizes as hijacked into a military weapons system. The final draft is not yet located.

For over 100 years, experts and authors were advocating geoengineering projects warm the arctic. The public, at large, was entertained by these concepts even when suggestions to detonate hydrogen bombs over the north pole were advocated by a nationally recognized weather expert in 1962.

It’s revealing that initial proposals to solve the newly discovered CO2 “warming” problem had less to do with cutting back on carbon emissions and more to do with a rush to release toxic atmospheric aerosols without first, researching the hazards. The specter of polluting the atmosphere, blocking sunlight and causing the release of huge volumes of CO2 from the jet aircraft aerosol sorties is an obvious public health and strategic concern that requires years of research that the government was unwilling to legislate and fund. Therefore, the impatience with which these chemical aerosol schemes were promoted suggests that emergency steps to cool the planet with aerosols was never the primary mission.


In 1962, Geoenginnering efforts to warm the arctic were widely entertained but in 1966 it was top priority to prevent the arctic from warming by even one degree.


Trojan Horse?: Under the military’s vision to Own the Weather Weather in 2025 atmospheric warming with ionospheric and plasma weapons is an established capability. The numerous agencies inside the National Weather and Climate Modification program are actively guarding the military’s aerosol and energy weapons program with stiff denials to the public and media whenever the issue of “chemtrails” is a story on local radio or TV stations.

It’s unacceptable that the UN/IPCC continue to push CO2 as the cause for climate change but refuse to acknowledge the military has been actively engaged in climate modification since the mid 1990’s?

An abrupt reversal of policy from promoting arctic climate mediation to preventing Global Warming resulted in ideas that both polluted the atmosphere AND became a source of Global Warming.

Just as the ICAS/NASA National Weather Modification program is being formalized the record shows most ideas to cool the planet suddenly involve bazaar schemes to spray or disburse particles, biology and dust into the atmosphere and oceans. These are the same people who – just a few months earlier, were eagerly lining up to hear Wexler talk about ways to warm the planet with hydrogen bombs, destruction of the OZONE and orbital particles.

While most of us realize that many of these proposals from respected experts would be catastrophic to the environment, not all of these draconian ideas have been rejected, even as increasing evidence determines that deploying chemicals into the atmosphere does more harm than good.

Deployment of geoengineering aerosols as observed in practice for two decades is now regarded as a source of global warmingnot a fix.:


Geoengineering Aerosols Are Warming the Atmosphere and Are a Source of Global Warming


In 2007, investigator, Cliff Carnicom calculated the impact of the current unacknowledged aerosol deployment into the atmosphere and concludes:

“It can be seen from this model that the results of artificial aerosol introduction into the lower atmosphere can be of a magnitude quite on par with the extraordinary impacts projected by even modest and conservative global warming models upon humans in the near future. As the model presented herein is intended to be reasonably conservative, the impact of the aerosol operations could be much greater than these results show. It is advised that the citizens consider the viability and merit of this model in the examination of the global warming issue, and that they openly take aggressive action to halt the intentional aerosol operations.

This paper is late in its offering, as my availability for continued research at this level is limited. I am nevertheless hopeful that the information can be evaluated and assimilated into the many rationales and arguments that have developed over the last decade to cease the intentional alteration of the atmosphere of our planet.” – Cliff Carnicom Complete study


Geoengineering Proposals to Warm the Arctic Are Replaced by Fear of Global Warming


  • 1965; President’s Science Advisory Committee, United States; Proposal: Investigated injecting condensation or freezing nuclei into the atmosphere to counteract the effects of increasing carbon dioxide.
  • 1977; Cesare Marchetti, Italian industrial physicist; Coined the term “geoengineering” and proposed sequestering CO2 in the deep ocean.
  • 1983; Stanford Penner, A. M. Schneider, and E. M. Kennedy, American physicists; Suggested introducing small particles into the atmosphere to reflect more sunlight back into space.
  • 1988; John H. Martin, American oceanographer; Proposed dispersing a relatively small amount of iron into appropriate areas of the ocean to create large algae blooms that could take in enough atmospheric carbon to reverse the greenhouse effect and cool Earth.
  • 1989; James T. Early, American climatologist suggested deflecting sunlight by 2 percent with a $1 trillion to $10 trillion “space shade” placed in Earth orbit.
  • 1990; John Latham, British cloud physicist; Proposed seeding marine stratocumulus clouds with seawater droplets to increase their reflectivity and longevity.
  • 1992; NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy proposed adding more dust to naturally occurring stratospheric dust to increase the net reflection of sunlight.
  • 1998: International Space Station (ISS): The first modular component of the International Space Station (ISS) was launched and is the current (in 2012) habitable artificial satellite in low Earth orbit following the Salyut, Almaz, Skylab and Mir. (1998 ISS mission consistent with same year increase in jet aerosol public observations and complaints) The stated function of the SSI is to provide an international space platform for research and experimentation in the fields of biology, human biology, physics, astronomy, meteorology (weather) and other fields.
  • 2010: Geoengineer, David Keith (AAAS Meeting) proposal to use jet aircraft to spray Sulfur dioxide and aluminum nano-particles into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space.

In 1968, Gordon J. F. MacDonald authored a chapter in “Unless Peace Comes“ where he correctly predicted that future means of obtaining national objectives by force hinges on man’s ability to control and manipulate the environment of planet Earth.

“When achieved, this power over his environment will provide man with a new force capable of doing great and indiscriminate damage. Our present primitive understanding of deliberate environmental change makes it difficult to imagine a world in which geophysical warfare is practised. Such a world might be one in which nuclear weapons were effectively banned and the weapons of mass destruction were those of environmental catastrophe. As I will argue, these weapons are peculiarly suited for covert or secret wars.”

“To consider the consequences of environmental modification in struggles among nations, we need to consider the present state of the subject and how postulated developments in the field could lead, ten to fifty years from now, to weapons systems that would use nature in new and perhaps unexpected ways. “

More Than Owning the Weather in 2025

The confidence and enthusiasm expressed in the USAF 1996 document: Owning the Weather in 2025 was supported by the advent of scalar weapons technologies during the Reagan Star War years. The document promises: “weather-modification can provide battlespace dominance to a degree never before imagined. The “never before imagined” comment speaks directly to the HAARP ionospheric heater facility, the Bernard Eastlund patents and military strategies for global military dominance. This scenario of weather control harkens to the predictive warning from Gordon MacDonald in chapter in the book: Unless Peace Comes: How to Wreck the Environment. Source

Timeline for Owning the Weather: From 1987-1992 ATPI scientists build on Bernard Eastlund’s patents for development of new weapon capabilities

In 1994 ATPI is bought by E-Systems with a contract to build the biggest ionospheric heater in the world (HAARP). — In 1995, Raytheon bought E-Systems and old APTI patents. — In 1996 the Air Force publishes: Owning The Weather in 2025

In his 2011 book, Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet, scientist and author, Tim Flannery reminds us that proposals to melt the Icecaps were advanced after World War II by reputable figures including the first director-general of UNESCO (Julian Huxley-1946), by a top official at the U.S. Weather Bureau, and by a Russian oil engineer Petr Mikhailovich Borisov. Scientific conferences debated the merits, while mining and energy corporations contemplated the use of nuclear detonations in the extraction of coal and oil.

Reputable figures in the international community saw an opportunity to detonate nuclear weapons as a novel and constructive way to geoengineer the Arctic. The prevailing rationale to justify method included: (1) The arctic is nearly too cold to be habitable by humans (2) The polar ice cap blocks valuable shipping lanes. (3) The expanses of frigid water up North contributes to uncomfortably cold winters in many countries. (4) difficulty of drilling for oil through ice.

The idea was publicly floated as a “peaceful use” of atomic weapons.

Flannery offers this example as evidence of humanity’s seeming propensity for hastening its own extinction.

Here on Earth: A Natural History of the Planet - By Tim Flannery. Book Reviewby Mark Engler

Russian Oil engineer, P.M. Borisov’s Proposed Method of Melting the Arctic Icecap

Borisov’s idea: If the Arctic ice is once melted much less of the sun’s radiation will be reflected out into space and therefore the arctic ice cap will not re-form. An ice-free Arctic Ocean would be a great boon to oceanic shipping, especially between Europe and East Asia. Much land in northern Canada and Siberia would be freed of permafrost and made suitable for agriculture. Borisov believed that an ice-free Arctic Ocean would lead to increased evaporation of water and hence increased rainfall worldwide, including the region of Sahara Desert leading to grass growing there. Borisov considers all of the impacts of the melting of the Arctic ice cap to be beneficial. He asserts that the melting of the Greenland ice cap would raise sea levels at a rate of only 1.5 to 2 mm per year.

This scheme was taken seriously by Soviet climatologists. Two conferences were held in Leningrad in the early 1960′s following an initial meeting in Moscow by the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1959. Borisov’s suggestions to warm the arctic included:

  • Covering great areas of the Arctic with black powders such as coal dust (G. Veksler, 1959) (Carbon Black?)
  • Dispersing the cloud cover over the central Arctic Basin (D. Fletcher, 1958) (Geoengineering Aerosols?)
  • Deepening of the Thomson Sill (V.N. Stepanov, 1963)
  • Covering the water surface with a monomolecular film (M. Budyko, 1962)
  • Installations to direct warmer Atlantic water into the Kara Sea (V.P. P’yankov, 1965)
  • Pumping cold Arctic water into the Pacific to draw warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Basin (P.M. Borisov, c. 1968)

This concept also required construction of a dam across the Bering Strait. Source: P.M. Borisov, “Can we Control the Arctic Climate?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March, 1969, pp. 43-48.

In a related scheme, a proposal was floated to store nuclear waste in the Antarctic. The plan would allow specially designed canisters of hot radioactive waste to melt down through the ice until it reached the “ice-rock interface” where it would supposedly remain in cold storage for 250,000 years.

The following Timeline is from the book, “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP” Advances in Tesla Technology by Jeanne Manning and Dr. Nick Begich and contains disturbing facts about the little known history of our Government’s use of scalar technologies to modify the weather. Additional events and links were inserted in 2012 to update the list.

Timeline of public and covert testing and development of energy weapons

  • 1886-8: Nikola Tesla invents system of Alternating Current power source and transmission system. As 60-pulse-per-second (hertz) AC power grids spread over the land, Earth’s resonance frequency will eventually dance to a different beat than her usual 7-8 hertz .
  • 1900: Tesla applies for patent for a device to transmit Electrical Energy “Through the Natural Mediums”. U.S. Patent #787,412 issued in 1905
  • 1924: Confirmation that radio waves bounce off ionosphere (electrically-charged layer starting at altitude of 50 kilometers).
  • 1938: Scientist proposes to light up night sky by electron gyrotron heating from a powerful transmitter.
  • 1940: Tesla announces “death ray” invention.
  • 1945: Atomic bomb tests begin 40,000 electromagnetic pulses to follow.
  • 1952: W.O. Schumann identifies 7.83 hertz resonant frequency of the earth.
  • 1958: Van Allen radiation belts discovered (zones of charged particles trapped in earth’s magnetic field) 2,000+ miles up. VA Belt violently disrupted with nuclear detonations
  • 1958: Project Argus, U.S. Navy explodes 3 nuclear bombs in Van Allen belt.
  • 1958: As far back as 1958, the chief White House adviser on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the DoD was studying “ways to manipulate the charges of the Earth and sky and so affect the weather by using an electronic beam to ionise or de-ionise the atmosphere over a given area.
  • 1960: Series of weather disasters begin.
  • 1961 – Project Skywater – Bureau of Reclamation (water) cloud seeding project funded by Congress.
  • 1961: Copper needles dumped into ionosphere as “telecommunications shield”.
  • 1961: Scientists propose artificial ion cloud experiments. In 1960′s the dumping of chemicals (barium powder etc.) from satellites/rockets began.
  • 1961-62: Soviets and USA blast many EMPs in atmosphere, 300 megatons of nuclear devices deplete ozone layer estimated at 4%.
  • 1962: Launch of Canadian satellites and start of stimulating plasma resonances by antennas within the space plasma.
  • 1966, June, Report to ICAS by ICAS Select Panel – Chair, Gordon JF MacDonald. “Future plans of Federal Agencies in Weather and Climate Modification.”
  • 1966, Nov, report from NASA to ICAS (Independent Comm. for Atmospheric Sciences of the Nat. Academy of Sciences, NAS) was first step in establishing a National Weather Modification program
  • 1966: Gordon J. F. MacDonald publishes military ideas on environmental engineering. MacDonald was Chair of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification.
  • 1960′s: In Wisconsin, US Navy Project Sanguine lays ELF antennae.
  • 1968: Moscow scientists tell the West that Soviets pinpointed which pulsed magnetic field frequencies help mental and physiological functions and which do harm.
  • 1968: Gordon JF MacDonald authors chapter in book: “Unless peace Comes – a scientific forecast of new weapons” MacDonald was Chair of the ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification.
  • 1969: Hail Suppression Data from Western North Dakota, 1969–1972 South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City.
  • 1972: First reports on “ionospheric heater” experiments with high frequency radio waves, at Arecibo. 100-megawatt heater in Norway built later in decade; can change conductivity of auroral ionosphere.
  • 1972: Potential Value of Satellite Cloud Pictures in Weather Mod. Projects – Report prepared for NASA by Institute of Atmospheric Sciences South Dakota School of Mines and Technology Rapid City.
  • 1973: Documentation that launch of Skylab and associated rocket exhaust gases `’halved the total electron content of the ionosphere for three hours.
  • 1973: Recommendations for study of Project Sanguine’s biological effects denied by Navy.
  • 1974: United Nations General Assembly bans environmental warfare. ENMOD
  • 1974: High-frequency experiments at Plattesville, Colorado; Arecibo, Puerto Rico; and, Armidale, New South Wales heat “bottom side of ionosphere”.
  • 1974: Experiments airglow brightened by hitting oxygen atoms in ionosphere with accelerated electrons.
  • 1975: Evaluation of Monte Carlo Tests of Effectiveness of Cloud Seeding on Growing Season Rainfall in North Dakota.
  • 1975: Stanford professor Robert Helliwell reports that VLF from power lines is altering the ionosphere.
  • 1975: U. S. Senator Gaylord Nelson forces Navy to release research showing that ELF transmissions can alter human blood chemistry.
  • 1975: Pell Senate Subcommittee urges that weather and climate modification work be overseen by civilian agency answerable to U.S. Congress. No action taken.
  • 1975: Soviets begin pulsing “Woodpecker” ELF waves, at key brainwave rhythms. Eugene, Oregon, one of locations where people were particularly affected.
  • 1976: Drs. Susan Bawin and W. Ross Adey show nerve cells affected by ELF fields.
  • 1977: Environmental Impacts of Precipitation Management – Inferences to Project Skywater
  • 1979: Launch of NASA’s third High-Energy Astrophysical Observatory causes large-scale, artificially-induced depletion in the ionosphere. Plasma hole caused by “rapid chemical processes” between rocket exhaust and ozone layer.” …“ionosphere was significantly depleted over a horizontal distance of 300 km for some hours.”
  • 1979: Annotated Bibliography of Predictor Variables for Weather Modification Applications – Funded by NSF Grant ATM 79-05007 pub., Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana.
  • 1985: Bernard J. Eastlund applies for patent “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere,” (First of 3 Eastlund patents assigned to ARCO Power Technologies Inc.)
  • 1986: US Navy Project Henhouse duplicates Delgado (Madrid) experiment — very low-level, very-low-frequency pulsed magnetic fields harm chick embryos. 20
  • 1987: In the later part of the decade the U.S. begins network of Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN) towers, each to generate Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves for defense purposes .
  • 1987-92: Other APTI scientists build on Eastlund patents for development of new weapon capabilities.
  • 1994: Military contractor E-Systems buys APTI, holder of Eastlund patents and contract to build biggest ionospheric heater in world (HAARP).
  • 1994: Congress freezes funding on HAARP until planners increase emphasis on earth-penetrating tomography uses, for nuclear counter proliferation efforts. (Oil and gas exploration)
  • 1995-1997: Public complaints accumulate across the US regarding unusual cloud formations and sudden increase in observable persistent jet contrails that appear unnaturally under dry atmospheric conditions. These observations are accompanied by complaints of biological specimens and web formations that appear to fall from the sky. Many instances of qualified lab analysis reveal high concentration of aluminum, barium and other elements that are consistent with DoD electromagnetic experiments
  • 1995: Raytheon buys E-Systems and old APTI patents. The technology is now hidden among thousands of patents within one of the largest defense contractor portfolios.
  • 1995: Congress budgets $10 million for 1996 under “nuclear counterproliferation” efforts for HAARP project.
  • 1995: Test of patent number 5,041,834 to generate an Artificial Ionospheric Mirror (AIM), or a plasma layer in the atmosphere. The AIM is used like the ionosphere to reflect RF energy over great distances.
  • 1994-6: Testing of first-stage HAARP (euphemistically named High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) equipment continues, although funding was frozen.
  • 1996: HAARP scientists test the earth-penetrating tomography applications by modulating the electroject at Extremely Low Frequencies (ELF)
  • 1998: Projected date for fully-operating HAARP system.
  • 2009: Operation HAMP – Department of Homeland Security operation to Modify and Steer Hurricanes with Geoengineering Aerosols
  • 2012: Celebrating 50 years of Success. A Compilation of highlights from the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at South Dakota School of Mines & Technology Rapid City.


The World is Waking Up to State Crimes of Climate Warming and Violent Weather by Combinations of Powerful Electromagnetic Energy Weapons and Aerosol Geoengineering


It was in the mid- 1990’s when the US public a were suddenly confronted with unexplained changes in the sky that included bazaar new cloud formations and new types of jet contrails that persisted in the skies for hours even while the relative humidity was very low at the altitudes where the jets were flying. These observed changes were coincident with events following the 1994 E-Systems purchase of APTI, also holder of plasma physicist, Bernard Eastlund’s patents and contracts to build the world’s largest ionospheric heater (HAARP).

The history of the 1966 National weather Modification Program and the coincidence of events around the time of bazaar new cloud formations is sufficient reason to pursue the relationship of persistent jet aerosols to the ionospheric heater experiments at the HAARP facility and Gakona, AK, Aricebo, PR and many more similar facilities brought online in recent years.

The ongoing depletion of earth’s protective OZONE layer is a known risk to manipulation of the ionosphere with powerfully heated beams of electromagnetic radiation. Pollution from the Shuttle missions, alone has accounted for rapid ozone depletion according to NASA’s own documents.

Further damage results when chemical aerosols deployed over either polar region traps heat in the troposphere resulting in a rise in surface temperatures to endanger normal formation of seasonal ice with an associated plunge in stratospheric temperatures into the range of -109 deg. F. with the formation of chemically contaminated ice crystals that react with sunlight to further deplete the OZONE.

From 2009 to 2012 persistent jet chemical aerosols are clearly observed over the North Polar regions on many satellite images and ground-based photographs. It is no surprise that NASA now reports new OZONE depletion in far northern latitudes where none was previously detected.

It’s no secret that government agencies, the military and commercial interests of the US and abroad have invested in a radical scalar system of weather modification that is now revealed to have far too many unintended negative consequences to sustain life on earth.

Continuation of this vast and terra-deforming aerosol geoengineering operation will only confirm that one agenda is to deplete the arctic ice – a concept that has been embraced by influential men, Oil companies and nations for nearly 100 years.

The government, military, IPCC, UN and corporate stakeholders can no longer pretend to be desperately concerned about global warming and climate change while the world is waking up to realize these same entities are participating in the deployment of electromagnetic weapons and aerosols of massive climate destruction as a monstrous and Orwellian hoax on humanity.


World Wide Watch Institute, 2014:

In the seas north of Russia and Alaska, expanded oil-and-gas development is already under way. The U.S. Department of Interior last month sold a record-breaking $2.6 billion in development bids throughout the Chukchi Sea, just above the Bering Strait. Additional sales are scheduled for 2010 and 2012.  As companies move into the Arctic to search for energy reserves or to create new shipping lanes, the potential environmental impacts could be huge. Balton acknowledged that shifting ice and coastal erosion makes exploration and development risky. “It’s definitely a dangerous area to maneuver. An oil spill would be really hard to clean up,” he said.  *** Continue

Related Links:


NikolaTesla, Inventor of the Death Ray, died in Jan, 1943 wherein the FBI took possession of his papers and documents.

After WWII, Operation “Overcast” (Later named opertion Paper Clip) was a US program to employ NAZI regime scientists in US laboratories.

The National Security Act, passed in 1947 Created the Central Intelligence Agency and made possible the rise of the military industrial complex
to increase opportunities for scientific experiments to be conducted without public knowledge or Congressional oversight.

In 1958, the military announced they were experimenting on the ionosphere with electronic beams for the purpose of manipulating the weather.

In 1962 Respected Meteolrologist Harry Wexler proposed geoengineering strategies to warm the planet.

In 1963 the National Academy of Scientists proposed formation of a panel to create a “National Weather and Climate Modification Program”.

In 1966 Plans to warm the arctic were abandoned without comment to be replaced with warnings that CO2 was already causing the atmosphere to get warmer.

This video introduces the article. Global Warming Linked to Advanced Climate Change Technology.

The title sounds provocative but NASA has concluded that man-made, persistent contrails are exacerbating global warming and could contribute to long-term changes in Earth’s climate.

The article explores the forgotten history of America’s National Weather and Climate Modification Program – Still in existance – and how it rapidly evolved into a military/civilian weather warfare program of mass destruction.
The documentation and subsequent critique reveals a program that went into rapid mission creep when the military became involved. The critique was drafted in 1986 by a member of the Union of Atomic Scientists.

The record shows that industrialists and their scientists have been looking for ways to warm the arctic for 100 years beginning in 1877 when Harvard geologist Nathaniel Shaler proposed diverting warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Sea.

Decades of arctic warming proposals followed until 1962 when respected MIT meteorologist, Harry Wexler proposed 3 schemes to increase the global temperature of the Earth by 1.7°C,:

(1) Detonate 10 hydrogen bombs in the arctic ocean to send ice crystals into the polar atmosphere
(2) Destroy the ozone layer by using aircraft to spray chlorine or bromine into the stratosphere .
(3) Launch dust particles into equatorial orbit to diffuse light to heat to warm the polar regions.

These ideas sound pretty frightening today, but in 1962 Wexler’s ideas were gaining traction and nobody “important” was calling him a lunatic. But following Wexler’s untimely death that same year the problem of how to warm the planet completely reversed polarity.
Suddenly – and without explanation – it was now imperative to find ways to cool the planet and to keep the atmosphere from warming.

The U-turn in national direction came about when a paper was published by oceanographer, Roger Revelle who claimed earth’s atmosphere was warming due to a buidup of carbon dioxide from burning coal back in the industrial age.

The new narrtive became “official” for media consumption in 1966 when Gordon MacDonald – Chairman of the new ICAS Select Panel on Weather and Climate Modification stated: “Carbon dioxide placed in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution has produced an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere of a few tenths of a degree Fahrenheit.”

Wexler’s proposals to warm the planet were never mentioned again but remained quietly popular with stakeholders in the oil and energy markets who had always seen vast opportunities for new shipping lanes and drilling as soon as the ice melted a bit.

In view of NASA’s position that man-made persistent contrails are exacerbating global warming – what are we to think?

If these man-made clouds are normal water vapor we have a problem that accelerates global warming. But If the problem can be fixed, and no governrnment authority has yet thought it was important enough to take immediate action we can reasonably assume that warming the climate with persistent contrails is a tolerable or even desired outcome.

And if If man-made clouds are revealed to be chemical aerosols deliberately sprayed into the atmosphere we can reasonably assume that heating the atmosphere is a hidden agenda inside a covert aerosol operation that mimmicks the appearance of a geoengineering plan to cool the planet. In reality, the chemical aerosol operations provide plausible deniablity to spectators that our benevolent government is secretly spraying the skies to test ways to mitigate global warming for the good of humanity.

This plausible deniaility is taught to us through media coverage of geoengineers lake David Keith who presents aerosol “cooling” strategies in frequent public appearances that are – in turn – presented as news in multiple media sources..

So, the agenda to warm the planet is cleverly hidden in plain sight disguised as an undisclosed but benevolent government program to test aerosol spraying to cool the planet if we should ever decide it’s necessary. Meanwhile, arctic ice continues to retreat despite decades of “testing”.

Aerosols are not the sole requirement in advanced climate change technology. High energy ionospheric heaters, Tesla Arrays, and exotic electromagnetic devices are required to interact with chemical aerosols in ways that normal water vapor contrails never could.

TLB recommends you visit Chemtrails Planet for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:



(Photo: Barbara Friedman/Getty Images)

The Fish and Wildlife Service will phase out genetically engineered crops and neonicotinoids by 2016.

The U.S. government is creating a safe place for bees in national wildlife refuges by phasing out the use of genetically modified crops and an agricultural pesticide implicated in the mass die-off of pollinators.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System manages 150 million acres across the country. By January 2016, the agency will ban the use of neonicotinoids, widely used nerve poisons that a growing number of scientific studies have shown are harmful to bees, birds, mammals, and fish. Neonicotinoids, also called neonics, can be sprayed on crops, but most often the seeds are coated with the pesticide so that the poison spreads throughout every part of the plant as it grows, including the pollen and nectar that pollinators such as bees and butterflies eat.

“We have determined that prophylactic use, such as a seed treatment, of the neonicotinoid pesticides that can distribute systemically in a plant and can affect a broad spectrum of non-target species is not consistent with Service policy,” James Kurth, chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System, wrote in a July 17 memo.

The move follows a regional wildlife chief’s decision on July 9 to ban neonics in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands by 2016.

The nationwide ban, however, goes further, as it also prohibits the use of genetically modified seeds to grow crops to feed wildlife.

A FWS spokesperson declined to comment on why the agency was banning genetically modified organisms in wildlife refuges.

But in his memo, Kurth cited existing agency policy. “We do not use genetically modified organisms in refuge management unless we determine their use is essential to accomplishing refuge purpose(s),” he wrote. “We have demonstrated our ability to successfully accomplish refuge purposes over the past two years without using genetically modified crops, therefore it is no longer [necessary] to say their use is essential to meet wildlife management objectives.”

GMOs have not been linked directly to the bee die-off. But the dominance of GMO crops has led to the widespread use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids and industrial farming practices that biologists believe are harming other pollinators, such as the monarch butterfly.

Neonicotinoids account for 40 percent of the global pesticide market and are used to treat most corn and soybean crops in the U.S.

“We are gratified that the Fish and Wildlife Service has finally concluded that industrial agriculture, with G.E. crops and powerful pesticides, is both bad for wildlife and inappropriate on refuge lands,” Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said in a statement.

Related article: How to Help Stop Industrial Agriculture From Killing the Monarch Butterfly

toddwoodybiopicTodd Woody is TakePart’s senior editor for environment and wildlife – full bio. Follow on Twitter … Google Plus


TLB recommends you visit takepart for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:

  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated