While Donald Trump prepares to meet Vladimir Putin there is evidence to suggest that Russian hackers are attacking our power grid.

Courtesy of Bloomberg: 

Hackers working for a foreign government recently breached at least a dozen U.S. power plants, including the Wolf Creek nuclear facility in Kansas, according to current and former U.S. officials, sparking concerns the attackers were searching for vulnerabilities in the electrical grid. 

The rivals could be positioning themselves to eventually disrupt the nation’s power supply, warned the officials, who noted that a general alert was distributed to utilities a week ago. Adding to those concerns, hackers recently infiltrated an unidentified company that makes control systems for equipment used in the power industry, an attack that officials believe may be related. 

The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an aging nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc. -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.

The New York Times also reports that there is evidence the hackers are Russian:  

The two people familiar with the investigation say that, while it is still in its early stages, the hackers’ techniques mimicked those of the organization known to cybersecurity specialists as “Energetic Bear,” the Russian hacking group that researchers have tied to attacks on the energy sector since at least 2012.

Great so not only are the Russians undermining our democracy, but now there is evidence that they are trying to find a way to leave us completely in the dark.

And of course this was not brought up today during the highly anticipated Putin/Trump meetup.

Between Putin and Trump, "There was not a lot of re-litigating of the past." - Tillerson

— Simon Shuster (@shustry) July 7, 2017

So Putin was not confronted, and they essentially have a green light to continue doing what they have been doing without fear of retaliation.

Iran, the EU, and US reach historic framework agreement on nuclear program. Update!

Secretary of State John Kerry with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

Courtesy of USA Today: 

Iran and six world powers reached a historic agreement Thursday on a broad framework for resolving their long-standing dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which has left the Islamic nation economically isolated. 

"Today we have taken a decisive step. We have reached solutions on key parameters for a comprehensive future nuclear deal," said European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Federica Mogherini, in formally announcing the deal in Lausanne, Switzerland. 

She said Iran would not produce weapons grade fuel and that international monitors will have enhanced access to Iran's nuclear facilities. 

She also said that sanctions would be "terminated" but did not specify the timetable, which has been a key sticking point of the negotiations. Iran had pushed to lift them immediately, while the United States wants most of them in place until Iran follows through on terms of the deal.The precise timing will be determined as the negotiators work out a final agreement scheduled for completion in June. 

President Obama called the deal an "historic understanding" that was "a long time coming." 

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, he said it "shuts down" Iran's path to a bomb using enriched uranium. 

"This deal was not based on trust," the president said. "It was based on unprecedented verification."

Of course this does not mean that this framework is set in stone, and it is contingent on reaching an actual agreement by June 30th. However this is a great first positive step.

Under this new framework, Iran would shut down more than two-thirds of its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, and accept intrusive verification from inspectors.

No doubt Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu is going to take a giant dump all over this, as will his sycophants in the Republican party, but that does not mean it is not a good deal or that President Obama is naive.

Simply put I would trust him to make a deal with Iran, over every single Republican in the country.

Update: Don't believe the hype that America gave away everything and Iran gave little, it is not true. 

Here is a copy (PDF) of the actual framework. Take a look for yourself.

You know I watch Rachel Maddow because her command of the pertinent facts usually has a calming effect on me. This is not keeping me calm.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yes the radiation cloud from Japan's crippled nuclear plant IS headed toward Alaska. But NO it should not present a health hazard to its residents. (He says hopefully.)

There is a lot of information about this to be found over at  Jeff Master's Wunder Blog, and the proprietor, Mr. Masters, has a PHD and is a well respected expert on Meterology, so I am pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

Here is a diagram of the anticipated trajectory of the radioactive cloud.

And for Alaskans here is the pertinent information.

There will be some radiation from Japan lofted to high altitudes today by the low pressure system affecting the region, and if the radiation manages to escape being rained out, it could potentially be transported thousands of miles over the next week. A run of the HYSPLIT model following the path of a radioactive cloud emitted at 12 UTC (8am EDT) this morning shows the radioactivity being lofted 4 - 5 km in altitude and being transported over Alaska over the coming week. After a week of transport, this cloud will be considerably diluted, and I strongly doubt the radioactivity would be harmful to human health if rain or snow were to carry it to the ground over Alaska or Canada, assuming that the radiation levels currently being advertised at ground level in Japan are correct.

I am choosing to be comforted by Doctor Master's assurances, but I would personally feel much safer without the "assuming that the radiation levels currently being advertised at ground level in Japan are correct" qualifier. I am not saying I don't trust the Japanese exactly, it is just that they have demonstrated a desire to downplay the potential danger since the beginning of this catastrophe, and that makes a me a little uneasy.

I will feel tons better once scientists on the ground in Alaska test the air and determine whether it presents a legitimate danger or not. And let me just go on record as saying that nuclear energy has just become my LEAST favorite alternative to fossil fuels.  Just in case anybody is taking a survey.

Rachel Maddow explains what is happening with the nuclear reactors in Japan. And it is NOT good.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As many of you may have noticed, Rachel has become my go-to person to explain what is happening in the world.  To my mind NOBODY breaks the information down and makes it as easily digestible as Rachel Maddow.

And this is extremely horrifying information, so having somebody as clear headed and well informed as my favorite MSNBC host explain it to us, may not make it less frightening, but it does allow us to know exactly what we are facing.

Update:

Officials say dangerous levels of radiation were detected after a third explosion rocked a nuclear plant damaged in last week's earthquake.

People living within 19 miles of the facility are being told to avoid drinking tap water, and keep their houses air tight.

This reminds me of the instructions children in the US received to hide under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack.  It does not seem like sufficient protection to keep families safe this close to the reactors. They should evacuate these people in my opinion.

Earthquake in Japan reveals frightening concerns about safety of nuclear energy.

From CNN:

An explosion at an earthquake-damaged nuclear plant was not caused by damage to the nuclear reactor but by a pumping system that failed as crews tried to bring the reactor's temperature down, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Saturday.

The next step for workers at the Fukushima Daiichi plant will be to flood the reactor containment structure with sea water to bring the reactor's temperature down to safe levels, he said. The effort is expected to take two days.

Radiation levels have fallen since the explosion and there is no immediate danger, Edano said. But authorities were nevertheless expanding the evacuation to include a radius of 20 kilometers (about 12.5 miles) around the plant. The evacuation previously reached out to 10 kilometers.

You know it may just be that I am a product of my time, but I have always become very uncomfortable when politicians start pushing the idea of building more reactors in America to ease our burden on foreign oil and to move us toward more modern energy solutions.  I have even heard nuclear energy rebranded as a "renewable energy source" in order to make it seem more palatable.

Of course I still remember how panicked we all were during the incident at Three Mile Island, and have watched the China Syndrome at least a half dozen times, so perhaps my perspective is skewed.

What do all of you think about nuclear energy making a resurgence in America?  Do you feel it is safe?  And considering what is happening in Japan, has that altered your point of view?

The LA Times takes John McCain's energy plan to task.

McCain claims that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap, but it is none of the above. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for millenniums, and this country still hasn't developed a practical way to store it. The risk of meltdowns or other serious accidents remains high, there is a small but persistent threat of nuclear materials falling into the hands of terrorists, and the cost of building new plants, even though it's subsidized by the federal government, is prohibitive.

McCain can be forgiven for ignoring or downplaying such issues; they're mostly technical challenges that could someday be resolved. He can't be forgiven for pretending that his goal of building 45 plants in 22 years is practical, nor that it would make any difference if it were.

The great majority of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States are nearing the end of their useful lives; by McCain's 2030 deadline, roughly half may have to be decommissioned. So even if it were possible to build so many plants so quickly, there's a good chance they still wouldn't replace those that would be closed -- meaning the amount of energy the U.S. derives from nuclear power wouldn't change. And it is extraordinarilyunlikely that McCain's goal could be met. Because of the regulatory and community hurdles that must be overcome to build a plant, experts think it would take more than a decade from planning to completion for any new project. Add to that the fact that even though investors have applied for 10 licenses for new plants since September 2007, no U.S. utility has dared to build one since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.

This is a constant topic of conversation in my household with one of the kids completely convinced that nuclear energy MUST be part of a comprehensive energy plan.

I have calmly explained that it is not a source of clean energy but the boy simply will not listen.

In my opinion the future of our energy has nothing to do with nuclear or fossil fuel energy, and everything to do with wind, solar, and electric energy. I am always unhappy to see my future President Barack Obama and my future Senator Mark Begich talking about opening ANWR or allowing offshore drilling. But at lest they are not talking about creating more nuclear waste that will continue to pollute the planet for hundreds of thousands of years.

Spending money on those enterprises seems like a step backward when our country is desperate to move forward in solving our energy needs.