100 more homes evacuated in Paulsboro, NJ.
Well see, someone gave them information about the Iran nuclear program, but they don’t want to be quoted because well, and the AP says, okay, buddy, good enough for me!
Claiming to have obtained proof that “Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon,” Jahn admitted that the diagram “was leaked by officials from a country critical of Iran’s atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran’s nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon,” on the “condition that they and their country not be named.” You’d almost think someone wanted to trump up reasons for another war.
Devoid of any official markings or even a date, the crude diagram is supposedly one of several used as evidence for a controversial November 2011 IAEA report that raised multiple questions, but fell short of direct accusations, about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program. The diagram, as well as the bulk of the other intelligence referenced in that report, were not obtained directly by the IAEA itself but admittedly received via other agency “member states.”
According to AP, the graph displays “a bell curve — with variables of time in micro-seconds, and power and energy both in kilotons — the traditional measurement of the energy output, and hence the destructive power of nuclear weapons.” As Nima Shirazi of Columbia University’s Gulf/2000 Project points out however, “[it] shows nothing more than a probability density function, that is, an abstract visual aid depicting the theoretical behavior of a random variable to take on any given value.” Such normal distribution curves can be plotted with nearly any data set and are not specific to nuclear physics at all.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists—the premier non-technical trade journal of nuclear policy discussion—concurs, adding that “even if authentic, it would not qualify as proofof a nuclear weapons program. Besides the issue of authenticity, the diagram features quite a massive error, which is unlikely to have been made by research scientists working at a national level.” It details the error, remarking upon the graph’s two curves:
[O]ne that plots the energy versus time, and another that plots the power output versus time, presumably from a fission device. But these two curves do not correspond: If the energy curve is correct, then the peak power should be much lower — around 300 million (3×108) kt per second, instead of the currently stated 17 trillion (1.7 x1013) kt per second. As is, the diagram features a nearly million-fold error.
The Bulletin goes on to conclude, “This diagram does nothing more than indicate either slipshod analysis or an amateurish hoax.”
This is a good one!
Not that there aren’t some really good arguments for getting rid of the electoral college, but Dominic Pileggi’s been in Pennsylvania politics a long time, and he didn’t express similar concerns after George W. Bush was reelected. I assume he wants to change the rules because it makes it easier for Republicans to gain the system. Which is the point, I guess:
A Pennsylvania lawmaker’s plan to divvy up electoral votes based on a presidential candidate’s public support may be just the first of many state legislative moves to alter the way the nation chooses a leader.
State Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Republican from Chester, wants to replace the winner-take-all system, which gave President Barack Obama Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes, with one that divides them to reflect the proportion of public support for each candidate. His method would have given 12 votes to Obama and eight to Republican Mitt Romney this year.
“Anyone who voted for Governor Romney, and many Pennsylvanians did, does not have any reflection of that vote in the electoral college vote,” Pileggi said. “This is a proposal that is not party specific or partisan in any way, but just an attempt to have the popular vote reflected in the electoral college vote.”
Pileggi’s proposal, which he asked senators in a memo to cosponsor, may be the first of a spate presented to lawmakers nationwide. Daniel P. Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University in Columbus and associate director of its Election Law @ Moritz center said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Republicans and Democrats seeking ways to “game the system” ahead of the 2016 presidential election.
If all states had used Pileggi’s method, the final outcome Nov. 6 wouldn’t have changed, though it would’ve narrowed Obama’s margin of victory, according a preliminary legislative analysis of the proposal. The president would’ve won 281 electoral votes to Romney’s 256. Obama won, 332 to 206.
Next year, at least 36 states will have one-party control of legislatures and governor’s offices, including Pennsylvania, according to MultiStates Associates Inc., a lobbying firm in Alexandria, Virginia.
“It’s never too early for partisan gamesmanship among partisan politicians,” Tokaji said.