Santos in the Pilliga could mean light and fugitive emissions pollution for Siding Spring Observatory

The Santos Narrabri Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) covering the Pilliga region is on public exhibition until 22 May 2017 and submissions can be made online by concerned individuals until then.

Go to http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6456 for details and submission page.

FACEBOOK:

Siding Spring Observatory - please protect it from gasfield light pollution

5 March 2017

WE NEED YOUR HELP! PLEASE READ, FILL OUT AND SHARE.

Santos plan to build an 850 coal seam gasfield near Siding Spring Observatory has been submitted to the NSW Govt. They plan to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of huge flares, adding damaging light pollution to our region in defiance of the recent declaration of this area being Australia’s only Dark Sky Park recognised internationally.

https://majorprojects.affinitylive.com/public/983a679b1da9a99bcfcd355d122edff4/Appendix%20Q%20Landscape%20and%20visual%20impact%20assessment.pdf

SO WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Copy and paste this provided submission below to this link or write your own with the information provided.

http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6456

To whom it may concern,

This submission has been written to draw attention to the unacceptable impacts of Santos current plan with light pollution from their upcoming 850 gaswells and flares near Siding Spring Observatory. It is a simple solution, as recommended by the NSW EPA to enclose all flares, not just for emissions and cleaner burning, but also to reduce the amount of unnecessary light pollution from giant flames lighting the night sky.

Siding Spring Observatory is Australia’s only unique science research facility using the largest optical telescopes for astrophysics and astronomy. First established in Coonabarabran NSW, on the Warrumbungle Ranges in the 1960’s it was built here because of the dark skies in this region. While there is historic value of this site from telescopes established over 50 years ago, this observatory hosts the largest optical telescopes from national and international universities and research entities. Not only hosting the largest, this site hosts the second, third, fourth, fifth largest telescopes etc in Australia, playing a key role in science research across the Southern Hemisphere. Over 50 telescopes are listed across the site being used by over 30 universities, institutions and private businesses using cutting edge technology, with some of the most advanced telescopes being used is astrophysical research. Future plans include another 50 telescopes to be built on site within the next decade. All this is reliant on keeping the dark sky dark! If this area was to lose the dark sky, this observatory would not be replicated again in Australia, but moved elsewhere in the Southern Hemisphere.

From 2013 onwards light emissions from the Santos gasfield exploration have increased to the point that, just the Bibblewindi large flare and unmanned facility alone, creates more light pollution than the entire town of nearby Coonabarabran with over 3500 people residing there. Santos have listed plans to triple the amount of pilot flares and double the amount of large flares including constructing 50 metre high flare stacks, with an average 30 metre high flame above it. Nowhere do they list the EPAs recommended practice to enclose flares, as has been done in NSW areas such as Gloucester. Enclosing flares is the only acceptable mitigation to protect the scientific community from the unnecessary light pollution they plan to emit. Siding Spring Observatory already has to deal with light pollution from existing mining and regional towns. Even Sydney itself, from over 400kms away can affect research from its light glow.

Santos are a lot closer than this. Every bit of extra light pollution is making it more difficult to continue the leading scientific research, and while each pollute in different levels, most consider they aren’t doing any damage. But it’s the combination with the existing light sources, adding a cumulative effect which is becoming worse as more pollution is created.

In summary, this is a simple fix in this case, as while Santos building infrastructure is willing to comply with shielded lights for buildings, they need to go a step further and enclose all current and future flares as the NSW EPA recommend. It is the only acceptable solution.

Thanks,

your name

Where to submit
http://majorprojects.planning.nsw.gov.au/index.pl?action=view_job&job_id=6456
(Click link then scroll to bottom)

Please copy and paste or add your own information. Privacy is an option if you do not want your name made public. Take this opportunity now to help protect Siding Spring Observatory. There will not be another chance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People For The Plains

4 June 2015 

Siding Spring Observatory - A Priceless Resource Under Threat

Astronomers at Australia’s world-leading Siding Spring Observatory are becoming increasingly concerned about the potential threat to the observatory from adjacent coal seam gasfields. 

So much so that leading astronomers Robert McNaught and Malcolm Hartley have taken their protests directly to Santos.

Astronomer McNaught commented, “To put at risk the world class status of Siding Spring Observatory is both illogical and galling. It’s also infuriating that community concerns are being trampled upon by both government and industry.” 

The threat of light pollution from gas flares and infrastructure (expected to equal that of a reasonable sized town) and the increase of particulates in the air from flares, increased traffic on unsealed roads and clearing, has prompted the protest against Santos.

Other concerned astronomers and the community of Coonabarabran are united against coal seam gas (CSG) developments in the area.

The iconic observatory has been an important scientific tool and economic boon for the Coonabarabran area and Australia for over 50 years, with 30,000 visitors annually, many of them school children and family groups. About $5 million dollars is injected into the local economy each year.

The Federal Government has highlighted the protection of the observatory as one of the key areas it will be looking at in the Environmental Impact Statement of the Narrabri Gas Project, because of its importance to the regional economy and the national astronomy sector.

The site was chosen due to its high elevation, low humidity, non-turbulent atmosphere, clean air and clear night skies. These attributes bring astronomers from around the globe.

Siding Spring is the largest optical astronomy research centre in Australia, now with 47 Australian and international telescopes, and with more international and local research institutes looking to expand, including Japan and the US. 

More than $100 million worth of research equipment is located at the observatory.

Siding Spring employs many technical and maintenance staff, with around 40 living in Coonabarabran and another 50 (not including astronomers) living in Sydney and Canberra.

The observatory has been integral in the discovery of many comets, asteroids and galaxies and is renowned throughout the world.

Recent discoveries include the oldest known star, the largest comprehensive mapping of the universe in the world, and an intensive study of the closest known super nova.

The Siding Spring Observatory survived destruction during bushfires in 2013 and is now under threat by the proposed Santos coal seam gas developments in the Pilliga Forest and future expansion into other PELs including the Liverpool Plains and Coonabarabran itself.

The threat to Siding Spring Observatory is just one of many issues created by proposed Santos CSG developments that have led to community solidarity against Santos in Coonabarabran and opposition in the surrounding area.

The Guardian, 21 October 2014:

As well as light pollution, astronomers are concerned that material dispersed from mining operations will be corrosive to telescope lenses. Siding Spring has around 50 high-grade telescopes pointing at the heavens.

Peter Small, who provides technical support for Siding Spring, said an existing mining operation at Boggabri already gives off more light than the neighbouring towns of Narrabri and Gunnedah.

“We get light pollution from that – we even get light pollution from Sydney, which is 400km away, so you don’t have to be that close,” he said.

“This will reduce visibility. If there’s light pollution from anywhere, never mind about the gasfields, this site becomes unviable. It would shut down and all those local jobs would be lost.

Astronomers Malcolm Hartley and Robert McNaught

No CSG Coonbarabran

Won't be finding Planet 9 from @SidingSpring if fracking gasfields go ahead all around North West NSW #auspol #StarGazingABC #CSG pic.twitter.com/LJYVh6RU4t

— Protect the West (@protecttheplain) April 3, 2017

Labor attempts to close anti-vaccination loophole

TBA

9 News, 2 April 2017:

Parents who oppose vaccinations on conscientious grounds will no longer be allowed to enrol their children at New South Wales child care centres under legislation to be introduced by the state opposition.

Labor leader Luke Foley announced the policy today and said the legislation, set to be introduced this week, would plug the loophole which had allowed specialist anti-vaccination child care centres to be set up.

The changes will not affect children who can't be vaccinated because of a medical condition such as a specialised cancer treatment.

“We need to be encouraging vaccinations not discouraging them," Mr Foley said in a statement.

"Vaccinations are the only way to protect against serious diseases like polio, mumps, whooping cough, meningococcal, diphtheria and tetanus."

Mr Foley said his plan would also cover family day care operations.

The announcement comes after an unvaccinated NSW girl was diagnosed with tetanus earlier this month.

It is believed the seven-year-old picked up the disease through an open wound on her foot while playing in the garden of her home in the state’s north.

The case prompted renewed debate in the north coast region, which has some of the lowest immunisation rates in Australia.

The Daily Telegraph, 1 April 2017:

A five-week-old baby boy is fighting for life after a catastrophic brain haemorrhage followed his parents decision to decline a routine vitamin K shot given to all newborns.

The baby, from northern NSW, presented to Lismore base hospital last week with bleeding on the brain before being transferred to Lady Cilento Children’s Hospital in Brisbane where he remains in a very serious condition. If he survives, he will likely be severely disabled.

Vitamin K is the new battleground of the anti-vaccination movement which has been scaring thousands of parents into rejecting the shot — a safe injection which has saved hundreds of children dying of Newborn Haemorrhagic Disease.

The Sunday Telegraph is today calling on the Federal Government to add the vitamin K injection to the National Immunisation Program (NIP) and tie it to Commonwealth family payments.

Australia at the sharp end of global warming

“Australians endured another intense summer, with more than 200 record-breaking extreme weather events driven by climate change” [Climate Council, 7 March 2017]

World Weather Attribution (WWA), media release, March 2017:

Extreme Heat:

A look at the recent record high temperatures in Australia

New South Wales, located in southeastern Australia, just experienced its hottest summer on record (Figure 1). Temperature records across the central and the eastern parts of Australia were broken, leading the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to issue a Special Climate Statement on the exceptional heat. For example, January 2017 saw the highest monthly mean temperatures on record for the cities of Sydney and Brisbane, and the highest daytime temperatures on record for Canberra. Overall, Australia experienced its 12th hottest summer on record.

There were three distinct heat waves in southeast Australia during January and February, with the highest temperatures recorded from February 9th to the 12th. For much of the country, the heat peaked on the weekend of February 11th and 12th, when many places hit upwards of 113°F (45°C). The 2016-2017 heatwaves broke long-standing records in central New South Wales that were originally set back in January of 1939 (Figure 2).

The WWA team and colleagues from the University of New South Wales conducted a rapid attribution analysis to see how climate change factored into the exceptionally warm summer (December to February) of 2016-2017. The team also looked at the hottest three-day average February temperatures in Canberra and Sydney.

 Figure 1: New South Wales, located in southeastern Australia, reported its hottest summer (Dec. 2016 – Feb. 2017) on record while the northwestern part of Australia reported cooler than average temperatures. Map shows temperature deciles. Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Figure 2: Time series (1910-2016) of summer mean temperature anomalies for New South Wales. The 2016-2017 heatwaves broke long-standing records in central New South Wales that were originally set back in January of 1939. Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Regional Level: New South Wales

The New South Wales record hot summer can be linked directly to climate change. Two different methods were used to reach this conclusion. First, drawing from a previously published analysis using coupled model simulations, we see that average summer temperatures like those seen during 2016-2017 are now at least 50 times more likely in the current climate than in the past, before global warming began. The team also performed an analysis based on the observational series from ACORN-SAT. This approach is similar to previous analyses used for record heat in the Arctic in 2016 and Central England in 2014. Comparing the likelihood of this record in the climate of today compared with the climate of around 1910 (before global warming had a big impact on our climate system and when reliable observations are available), the team again found at least a 50-fold increase in the likelihood of this hot summer.

The team then looked at the maximum summer temperature for New South Wales (see graphic below). Based on climate model simulations (weather@home and CMIP5) and observational data analysis (ACORN-SAT), maximum summer temperatures like those seen during 2016-2017 are now at least 10 times more likely in the current climate than in the past, before global warming began. In the past, a summer as hot as 2016-2017 was a roughly 1 in 500-year event. Today, climate change has increased the odds to roughly 1 in 50 years — a 10-fold increase in frequency. In the future, a summer as hot as this past summer in New South Wales is likely to happen roughly once every five years. In addition, climate change has increased the intensity of an exceptionally hot summer like this by roughly 1ºC (1.8°F). In the future, the intensity increases by roughly 2°C (3.6°F).

Local Level: Canberra and Sydney Heatwaves

The team also looked at the local scale to see if a climate change role could be measured in the heat waves that hit Canberra (population ~380,000) and Sydney (population ~4.9 million). Climate has much larger variability at the city level compared to a big area like New South Wales. This can make it more difficult to see the influence of climate change within the overall noise of the weather system.

In Canberra, temperatures hit 96.8oF (36°C) on February 9th and 104oF (40oC) on both February 10th and 11th. Using the weather@home model and ACORN-SAT observations, we analyzed three-day average maximum temperature. Both the observational data and the climate model simulations show that climate change increased the likelihood of the kind of extreme three-day heat observed in Canberra. The weather@home results point to at least a 50 percent increase in the chance of a heatwave like that.

For Sydney, a coastal city, the effect of climate change on this heat wave is less clear. Observations show that climate change increased the chance of such a heat wave occurring, but the high year-to-year variability makes identifying a clear human influence more difficult.

The Future

The heat seen this past summer across parts of Australia is still rare in our current climate. However, if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced, intense summer heat will become the norm in the future.

For Further Information Contact:

Andrew King (University of Melbourne): andrew.king@unimelb.edu.au

Sarah Kirkpatrick (University of New South Wales): sarah.kirkpatrick@unsw.edu.au

David Karoly (University of Melbourne): dkaroly@unimelb.edu.au

Geert Jan van Oldenborgh (KNMI): persvoorlichting@knmi.nl (press office)

*****ENDS*****

Excerpts from The Climate Council’s Angry Summer 2016/17: Climate Change Supercharging Extreme Weather report released on 7 March 2017:

In just 90 days, more than 205 records were broken around Australia.

The state-wide mean temperature in summer was the hottest for New South Wales since records began, with temperatures 2.57°C above average.

Sydney had its hottest summer on record with a mean temperature 2.8°C above average.

Brisbane had its hottest summer on record in terms of mean temperature at 26.8°C, equivalent to 1.7°C above average.

Canberra had its hottest summer on record in terms of daytime temperatures and recorded temperatures of at least 35°C on 18 days, already far higher than what is projected for 2030 (12 days).

Adelaide experienced its hottest Christmas day in 70 years at 41.3°C.

Moree in regional New South Wales experienced 54 consecutive days of temperatures 35°C or above, a record for the state.

Perth had its highest summer total rainfall on record of 192.8 mm.......

The impacts of the last Angry Summer of 2013/14 cost the Australian economy approximately $8 billion through absenteeism and a reduction in work productivity. The economic impact from the 2016/17 Angry Summer has not yet been quantified.

The Australia State of the Environment (SoE) 2016 Overview was tabled in the Australian Parliament on 7 March 2017.

Global Warming: the Red Herring strikes again!

One of the Clarence Valley’s arch-denialists is once more on the anti-climate science campaign trail…..

Letter to the Editor, The Daily Examiner, 10 February 2017, p.11:

Old heat

Browsing through past newspaper articles brought up this reminder of just how hot it's been in years gone by.

The 1896 February 3 edition of the Kalgoorlie Miner carried this article titled: Heat in NSW: A record of the extreme heat which has prevailed in the West during the last month has been supplied to the government by the Manager of Gundabook estate on the Darling river.

The record shows that from January 1-25 the thermometer ranged from 112deg. to 123deg. in the shade, during the first week from 118 to 124: during the second week from 118 to 128 and during the third week the thermometer once went to 129 degrees: All these readings are in Farenheit and when converted to Celcius range from 44.44deg. to 47.77deg to 50.55 deg to 51.11 deg, 53.55 deg, and 53.88 deg. the highest reading.

Now that was a heat wave that occurred without the assistance of the much maligned industrial revolution.

Fred Perring, Halfway Creek

As usual Mr. Perring doesn’t do his homework.

The Industrial Revolution began around the mid-1700s and over a century later (in the year cited by Perring) the effects of greenhouse gases on global atmosphere and ground temperature, as well as the possibility of fossil fuels being a source of carbon dioxide were already being discussed in the scientific community.

The following is a snapshot of a paper by Nobel Prize winner Svante August Arrhenius published in April 1896:

Royal Society of Chemistry, retrieved 11 February 2017

The paper in its entirety can be read here.

The 'Archie Bunker' of Clarence Valley has offered his head for public washing again...

The ‘Archie Bunker’ of Clarence Valley John Ibbotson has offered his head for public washing again…..

Letter to the Editor, The Daily Examiner, 2 February 2017, page 9:

No science to it aka Climate sceptic's howlers insult to mainstream science

A good general knowledge implies knowing a fair bit about a wide range of subjects but it can also mean not knowing enough about anything specific in order to become to become an authority. John Ibbotson and climate science is a classic example.

Because of his lack of knowledge John's letters have a tendency to contain scientifically indefensible howlers.

From the many, an Ibbotson clanger highlights reel would include (and I paraphrase):

1. "CO2 is a harmless, benign compound!"

2. "Ocean acidification is impossible because sea water is alkaline!"

3. "Velocity ratio for a wind turbine is an absurdity!" and so on.

No doubt with some prompting, John's grasp of climate science has improved over time, but it still begs the question: is it too easy to believe you are absolutely correct when you don't, won't or can't understand the basic science which would show that you are just simply wrong?

The kindest thing that can be said about John's letters on climate is that his offerings on other topics (apart from maybe being too frequent), are more or less based on fact.

In his latest climate letter (DEX Jan 1) John quite graciously confirms that the last two decades for the planet have been abnormally warm but he will be most disappointed to learn that contrary to his assertion I am decidedly of any colour other than green.

In fact I am just a very average DEX reader who is more than willing to defend mainstream science from unjustified denigration by self-indulgent sceptic opportunists such as John Ibbotson, the esteemed Viv Forbes and others.

Ted Strong, Seelands

In 1947 the Atomic Clock was set at 7 minutes to midnight & by 2016 the clock stood at 3 minutes to midnight - Donald Trump's presidency has moved its hands to 2 minutes 30 seconds

Six days after Donald John Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States of America the Atomic Doomsday Clock moved closer to Armageddon.

Image found at Business Insider Australia

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

2017 Doomsday Clock Statement

Science and Security Board

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Editor, John Mecklin

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the Doomsday Clock, a graphic that appeared on the first cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists as it transitioned from a six-page, black-and-white newsletter to a full-fledged magazine. For its first cover, the editors sought an image that represented a seriousness of purpose and an urgent call for action. The Clock, and the countdown to midnight that it implied, fit the bill perfectly. The Doomsday Clock, as it came to be called, has served as a globally recognized arbiter of the planet’s health and safety ever since.

Each year, the setting of the Doomsday Clock galvanizes a global debate about whether the planet is safer or more dangerous today than it was last year, and at key moments in recent history. Our founders would not be surprised to learn that the threats to the planet that the Science and Security Board now considers have expanded since 1947. In fact, the Bulletin’s first editor, Eugene Rabinowitch, noted that one of the purposes of the Bulletin was to respond and offer solutions to the “Pandora’s box of modern science,” recognizing the speed at which technological advancement was occurring, and the demanding questions it would present.

In 1947 there was one technology with the potential to destroy the planet, and that was nuclear power. Today, rising temperatures, resulting from the industrial-scale burning of fossil fuels, will change life on Earth as we know it, potentially destroying or displacing it from significant portions of the world, unless action is taken today, and in the immediate future. Future technological innovation in biology, artificial intelligence, and the cyber realm may pose similar global challenges. The knotty problems that innovations in these fields may present are not yet fully realized, but the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board tends to them with a watchful eye.

This year’s Clock deliberations felt more urgent than usual. On the big topics that concern the board, world leaders made too little progress in the face of continuing turbulence. In addition to the existential threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, new global realities emerged, as trusted sources of information came under attack, fake news was on the rise, and words were used in cavalier and often reckless ways. As if to prove that words matter and fake news is dangerous, Pakistan’s foreign minister issued a blustery statement, a tweet actually, flexing Pakistan’s nuclear muscle—in response to a fabricated “news” story about Israel. Today’s complex global environment is in need of deliberate and considered policy responses. It is ever more important that senior leaders across the globe calm rather than stoke tensions that could lead to war, either by accident or miscalculation.

I once again commend the board for approaching its task with the seriousness it deserves. Bulletin Editor-in-Chief John Mecklin did a remarkable job pulling together this document and reflecting the in-depth views and opinions of the board. Considerable thanks goes to our supporters including the Carnegie Corporation of New York, MacArthur Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, David Weinberg and Jerry Newton, as well as valued supporters across the year.

I hope the debate engendered by the 2017 setting of the Clock raises the level of conversation, promotes calls to action, and helps citizens around the world hold their leaders responsible for delivering a safer and healthier planet.

Rachel Bronson, PhD

Executive Director and Publisher

26 January, 2017

Chicago, IL

It is two and a half minutes to midnight

Editor’s note: Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains. A printable PDF of this statement, complete with the executive director’s statement and Science and Security Board biographies, is available here.

To: Leaders and citizens of the world

Re: It is 30 seconds closer to midnight

Date: January 26, 2017

Over the course of 2016, the global security landscape darkened as the international community failed to come effectively to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats, nuclear weapons and climate change.

The United States and Russia—which together possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons—remained at odds in a variety of theaters, from Syria to Ukraine to the borders of NATO; both countries continued wide-ranging modernizations of their nuclear forces, and serious arms control negotiations were nowhere to be seen. North Korea conducted its fourth and fifth underground nuclear tests and gave every indication it would continue to develop nuclear weapons delivery capabilities. Threats of nuclear warfare hung in the background as Pakistan and India faced each other warily across the Line of Control in Kashmir after militants attacked two Indian army bases.

The climate change outlook was somewhat less dismal—but only somewhat. In the wake of the landmark Paris climate accord, the nations of the world have taken some actions to combat climate change, and global carbon dioxide emissions were essentially flat in 2016, compared to the previous year. Still, they have not yet started to decrease; the world continues to warm. Keeping future temperatures at less-than-catastrophic levels requires reductions in greenhouse gas emissions far beyond those agreed to in Paris—yet little appetite for additional cuts was in evidence at the November climate conference in Marrakech.

This already-threatening world situation was the backdrop for a rise in strident nationalism worldwide in 2016, including in a US presidential campaign during which the eventual victor, Donald Trump, made disturbing comments about the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons and expressed disbelief in the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board takes a broad and international view of existential threats to humanity, focusing on long-term trends. Because of that perspective, the statements of a single person—particularly one not yet in office—have not historically influenced the board’s decision on the setting of the Doomsday Clock.

But wavering public confidence in the democratic institutions required to deal with major world threats do affect the board’s decisions. And this year, events surrounding the US presidential campaign—including cyber offensives and deception campaigns apparently directed by the Russian government and aimed at disrupting the US election—have brought American democracy and Russian intentions into question and thereby made the world more dangerous than was the case a year ago.

For these reasons, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes and 30 seconds to midnight.

The board’s decision to move the clock less than a full minute—something it has never before done—reflects a simple reality: As this statement is issued, Donald Trump has been the US president only a matter of days. Many of his cabinet nominations are not yet confirmed by the Senate or installed in government, and he has had little time to take official action.

Just the same, words matter, and President Trump has had plenty to say over the last year. Both his statements and his actions as president-elect have broken with historical precedent in unsettling ways. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding the US nuclear arsenal. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or outright reject expert advice related to international security, including the conclusions of intelligence experts. And his nominees to head the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency dispute the basics of climate science.

In short, even though he has just now taken office, the president’s intemperate statements, lack of openness to expert advice, and questionable cabinet nominations have already made a bad international security situation worse.

Last year, and the year before, we warned that world leaders were failing to act with the speed and on the scale required to protect citizens from the extreme danger posed by climate change and nuclear war. During the past year, the need for leadership only intensified—yet inaction and brinksmanship have continued, endangering every person, everywhere on Earth.

Who will lead humanity away from global disaster?

The full transcript can be found at http://thebulletin.org/sites/default/files/Final%202017%20Clock%20Statement.pdf.

Donald Trump apprised of the facts regarding Iran's nuclear capability in 2017

As 20 January 2017 inexorably approaches a letter to Donald Trump from thirty-seven scientists and engineers was made public:

2 January 2017

Dear President-Elect Trump;

On August 9, 2015 a group of scientists and engineers with understanding of the physics and technology of nuclear power and of nuclear weapons sent an open letter to President Obama about the Iran Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). We characterized the JCPOA as “an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

Eleven months after “implementation day” we write to provide our assessment of the current status of the JCPOA. As agreed, Iran has deactivated and put into storage under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seal about 2/3 of its centrifuges, and it has exported more than 95% of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium—a springboard to weapon-usable highly enriched uranium. Iran no longer produces uranium with enrichment near 20%, as it did before the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), but is restricted to 3.67% enrichment. As a result of the reduced centrifuge capacity and the elimination of the large stock of partially enriched uranium, the breakout time for Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon has increased to many months, from just a few weeks during the time that the JPOA was under negotiation. IAEA inspectors now have the right to daily access at Iran’s enrichment plant at Natanz, and monitoring devices there make continuous on-line enrichment measurements. We are confident that no surprise breakout at this facility is possible.

The large “calandria” or reactor vessel for Iran’s heavy-water reactor has been rendered inoperable, and Iran’s stockpile of heavy water has been reduced to 130 metric tons and capped at that level. The overage of 0.1 tons recently reported by the IAEA, of no strategic significance, was remedied by export of 11 tons as verified by the IAEA. The redesign of the reactor will ensure that its plutonium production will be about 10% of that from the original design, and, when construction is complete and the reactor has begun operation, the fuel that has generated plutonium will be removed from Iran. These steps eliminate the means for Iran to produce plutonium, the alternative material for nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, Iran has agreed to an enhanced version of the procedures of the “Additional Protocol” to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives IAEA inspectors access to, inter alia, centrifuge manufacturing, R&D and storage sites, and uranium mines, as well as any suspect potential clandestine uranium enrichment facilities.

In sum, the JCPOA has dramatically reduced the risk that Iran could suddenly produce significant quantities of nuclear-weapon materials. This has lowered the pressure felt by Iran’s neighbors to develop their own nuclear weapons options and none has announced a new dual-use nuclear program of its own.

In the near term it will be necessary to maintain vigilance using the verification procedures in place. As we noted in our previous letter, if Iran decides to increase its enrichment capacity as allowed by the JCPOA after about ten years, enhanced verification measures would be desirable and consistent with Iran’s commitment in the JCPOA to implement certified modern verification procedures in line with internationally accepted IAEA practice. Multinational participation in what is currently a purely national program for producing power reactor fuel may also be a desirable means to enhance transparency.

The JCPOA does not take any options off the table for you or any future president. Indeed it makes it much easier for you to know if and when Iran heads for a bomb. It provides both time and legitimacy for an effective response.

Our technical judgment is that the multilateral JCPOA provides a strong bulwark against an Iranian nuclear-weapons program. We urge you to preserve this critical U.S. strategic asset.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Garwin, IBM Fellow Emeritus Robert J. Goldston, Princeton University

Siegfried S. Hecker, Stanford University

Martin Hellman, Stanford University

Rush D. Holt, American Association for the Advancement of Science R. Scott Kemp, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Frank von Hippel, Princeton University

_______________________________________________________________________

Also signed by:

John F. Ahearne, Member, National Academy of Engineering

Philip W. Anderson, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University

Lewis M. Branscomb, Professor Emeritus, University of California at San Diego

Christopher Chyba, Princeton University

Leon N. Cooper, Brown University

Pierce S. Corden, Former Director, Office of International Security Negotiations,

Bureau of Arms Control, Department of State

John M. Cornwall, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, UCLA

Philip E. Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and

International Affairs, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Sidney D. Drell, Stanford University

Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton

Harold A. Feiveson, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University

Charles D. Ferguson, Federation of American Scientists

Michael E. Fisher, Emeritus, Cornell University and the University of Maryland

Jerome I. Friedman, Nobel Prize in physics 1990

Victor Gilinsky, Former Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Howard Georgi, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard University

Sheldon L. Glashow, Higgins Professor of Physics Emeritus, Harvard University,

Arthur Metcalf Professor of Science and Mathematics, Boston University

Lisbeth Gronlund, Union of Concerned Scientists

David Gross, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, UCSB

Gregory Loew, Emeritus Stanford/SLAC Professor

Allison M Macfarlane, George Washington University

Richard A. Meserve, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution for Science

Marvin Miller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

C. Kumar N. Patel, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Physics and Astonomy, UCLA

John Parmentola, Former Senior VP General Atomics and Former Director for Research

And Laboratory Management U.S. Army

Malvin A. Ruderman, Columbia University

Burton Richter, Stanford University

Myriam Sarachik, City College of New York, CUNY

Roy F. Schwitters, The University of Texas at Austin

David Wright, Union of Concerned Scientists

(Affiliations for identification only)