TV: MOX fuel probably caused nuclear explosion in No. 3 spent fuel pool (VIDEO)

Published: December 28th, 2011 at 12:52 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
62 comments


Title: Dr Chris Busby on Sky: Fallujah, Fukushima and Radiation

Uploaded by: radioactivebsr

Date: Dec 27, 2011

Description: Dr Chris Busby interviewed 20th December 2011 by Theo Chalmers on Sky TV’s “One Step Beyond” about Fallujah, Fukushima and the cover-ups over the health effects of exposure to radioactivity

Transcript Excerpts

At 34:50 in

MOX fuel, which contains plutonium, and this was probably why there was a nuclear explosion in the waste fuel tank of that particular reactor

Published: December 28th, 2011 at 12:52 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
62 comments

Related Posts

  1. Expert: I think plutonium probably reached critical mass at Reactor 3 which caused explosion (VIDEO) September 6, 2012
  2. Nuclear expert: Powerful explosion at reactor No. 3 may have been from “prompt criticality” in spent fuel pool (VIDEO) April 27, 2011
  3. Koide: Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 “was caused to tilt” after the explosion, worried about great danger from pool falling down — NISA: “We confirmed it was not leaning, we think there is no problem with the building” (VIDEOS) May 8, 2012
  4. Highest Yet: Iodine-131 in No. 3 spent fuel pool at over 1,000,000 times normal — “Generated during nuclear fission” (VIDEO) May 10, 2011
  5. 220 Million Bq/liter of Cesium now in No. 2 Spent Fuel Pool — SFP No. 1, 2, & 3 “clearly have significant spent fuel damage” (VIDEO) August 28, 2011

62 comments to TV: MOX fuel probably caused nuclear explosion in No. 3 spent fuel pool (VIDEO)

  • James2

    Jesus Christ – did they buy Busby too?

    Folks it is not possible for the explosion of #3 to have been in the spent fuel pool.

    It came from the MOX Core… Everyone inside knows it. Everyone outside doesn’t yet.


    Report comment

    • tomb1

      James, please explain it to me: Why isn’t it possible?


      Report comment

    • Kevin Kevin

      James.

      I have not listened to this entire video,but I did listen to the point covered in this post by the admin of ENENEWS where he refers to the MOX fuel and the spent pool at reactor three. I think you might be too quick to attack and suggest he has been “gotten to.” First off he does not explicitly say that the explosion did not occur in the reactor core but rather sort of off handedly refers to the explosion in the pool while talking about MOX fuel. Which is to say that he was focused on the topic of the MOX fuel and not precisely where the explosion occurred.

      He is right that the explosion was a nuclear explosion. I would presume such an explosion would sooner happen in the core rather than the pool. Also if MOX is being detected far from the plant and it it is true there was none inthe pool than your assertion is correct. Regardless we know reactor three is a huge issue and his comments seem to support my assertion that the pool is not intact but again it is far from definitive as he was not necessarily commenting precisely on the status of that pool but rather he was responding to a question about MOX fuel.

      Lets keep an open mind on this one until unrefutable evidence surfaces. I know the liklihood of that is slim but we could push to have people demand this information.


      Report comment

      • James2

        Perhaps he’s just being casual about it.

        Kevin I’ve been watching for 9 months straight. I could draw an entire picture of the plant from memory. I know where every beam fell on #3. I studied the blueprints of the building.

        The irrefutable evidence is already in our hands. It doesn’t get any better than this.

        In that entire time, I have not seen one shred of evidence against my position. In fact nearly all of them fall in line with it.

        If you show me evidence that i have not seen and not considered I will consider it. if not, there’s no compromise..

        Did you read the logs in the INPO document yet, where they were struggling to let the pressure out of the #3 RPV before it blew? And when it blew up it rained MOX plutonium? There was no MOX in the pool. only the core.

        The explosion came from the MOX core. Not the SFP.

        The SFP is on fire right now – you can look at the cam right now this minute and see where it zipped open a couple weeks ago.


        Report comment

        • Kevin Kevin

          Sorry I should be more clear, i am not saying you are wrong about the reactor core blowing. I have not spent the time you have on that one. And I am convinced it was not a hydrogen explosion

          I am again referring to the status of the SFP. I know part of your assertion is that the pool is fine becuase it holds up your feeling that the core blew and thats all cool. (Except I cannot see the core blowing and creating that huge explosion while not damaging the SFP.)

          Whats left of the SFP maybe on fire, as you say, but I still beleive part of it went up with the original blast. We are on the same page with most of this stuff we just are not agreeing details around the SFP.

          But we should not be attacking Busby when he talks in this fashion. Lets approach him and see if we can clarify these things with a broader audience.


          Report comment

          • tomb1

            I believe we had at least two explosions:

            1. Hydrogen explosion in core or primary containment. The top lid resisted, but the sideway passage to the SFP failed. This explains why we can see the lid still on the core (I argued a lot with people claiming that the core did not explode because we see the lid on a photo, and yes, they are right) and also explains the bright orange blast to the side in the beginning of the explosion. And it explains why the building is damaged very asymmetrically.

            2. The shock wave triggered the SFP to go critical. It compressed the water and possibly also the fuel rods causing at least a steam explosion, possibly also a nuclear explosion.

            I think it is quite obvious that this is what happened. Look at the videos and the construction plans.


            Report comment

            • James2

              There are no pictures of the lid intact. There was one that looked like it but long ago proven to be a misinterpretation of shadows and lighting.

              You may be correct about the door failing first, but there is no doubt the lid blew off and the core came out.

              It is not possible that the SFP blew up and remained intact, holding water.


              Report comment

        • My take:
          The explosion was a nuclear & hydrogen explosion.

          The zirconium fuel cells released their nuclear payload. Due to power loss no emergency control mechanism was employed. The buildup of heat leaked vast amounts of hydrogen both inside the primary containment as well as the reactor housing (block).

          Neutron bombardment also released large quantities of hydrogen via the spent fuel pool. Once The block filled to a flammable level; fission that took place inside the reactor block engaged the hydrogen plume releasing a primary hydrogen explosion followed by a severe nuclear hyper criticality. Thus we had both explosions stemming from both the sfp and the reactor core.

          Although due to the low level hydrogen buildup inside the core, the lid as designed withheld the mini nuclear explosion (with slight damage I might add). but quantum leaping allowed neutron bombardment to take place inside the sfp. Leading to a large release from the sfp as well. This however helped keep the reactor 3 lid from releasing due to the emergency cooling lines taking the brunt force of the R3 explosion to the sfp ‘via duct channeling’…

          P.s. nuclear reactor fuel is only typically about 3-7 percent weapons so to witness a cloud that explosion of that proportion from only a reactor core containing 100,000 grams of 3% weapons grade plutonium seems to me impossible. This was a combination of hydrogen from the sfp. (there simply wouldn’t have been an explosion that large from a single nuclear fuel bundle). This was either the sfp or even a possible excess storage fuel pool. But when compared to the core exploded in reactor 1. (Thats the size of an explosion you should think of in reference to a single nuclear fuel bundle). that is half moderated by coolant.
          Reactor 3 sfp is literally in all our backyards…


          Report comment

          • I am really tired so please excuse me for typos… See ya all in the morning.


            Report comment

          • john lh john lh

            Dear Tacomagroove,

            Thanks for all your efforts here om this forum.

            The truth for the so-called Fukushima disaster is actually on-going world war III,start without be disclosed from Japan In nature.

            The way Japan gov. and this world deal with it is just like Children play on game ground!

            no any war time measure has been take till now , and there is no way return or stop it.

            There is just how, when,how much,how many times the nuclear war heads will explosive.

            and how long we can survive,or how much quickly we will die.

            Very sad Japan story.. BUT it is not the end.

            HAPPY nEW YEAR!

            WELCOME TO THE BRAVO nEW WORLD ,2012

            HAPPY nEW YEAR!

            WELCOME TO THE BRAVO nEW WORLD ,2012

            HAPPY nEW YEAR!

            WELCOME TO THE BRAVO nEW WORLD ,2012


            Report comment

          • James2

            According to the INPO report, the fuel pools contained no MOX.

            The #3 reactor contained a full fresh load of mox in its reactor.

            If MOX was found on the ground (it was) then it came from #3.


            Report comment

          • James2

            Tacoma, you are incorrect. It is a physical impossibility for the explosion to have occurred in the SFP3, and produce the plume we saw.

            The plume and the MOX on the ground, came from the core – which blew right through the steel roof structure and concrete roof.

            Read the logs in the INPO report. It was a 36 hour battle by the folks on the ground to try to relieve pressure in the Reactor Pressure Vessel before it blew. They were battling lack of water, lack of electricty and huge amounts of radioactive steam.

            The logs themselves are harrowing


            Report comment

        • VanneV anne

          There was MOX fuel in the SFP. It was there to rotate into the reactor at the next fuel cycle. A nuclear explosion would have damaged both the SFP and the reactor no matter where it originated, either the SFP or the reactor core. No matter what my opinion might be leaning towards, there are experts who know far more than I do. And I respect their judgments and explanations.

          The amount of plutonium found outside the plant suggests that MOX blew out of both the SFP and the reactor core. There were 3 consecutive explosions. It is quite possible that one was hydrogen, one was a nuclear MOX explosion in the SFP and one was a nuclear MOX explosion in the reactor core.

          The radiation is so bad that no one can examine the ruins for evidence for a completely definitive explanation. No one can know exactly how much fuel was driven underground and no one can know exactly how deep that fuel is now or how much has already seeped into the ocean. No one can trust that the Japanese are able to or have done accurate and complete radiation readings to help the analysis or to report the readings that have been done.

          I tried in earlier links tried to show that the Japanese have previously violated licensing for experimental reactors. It is possible that the complete story may never be known.

          Science demands that facts be reported and hypotheses be formed based on the current facts. The important word here is hypothesis. Absolutely sure knowledge is a matter of faith. Science is based on hypotheses which are reformed as more information becomes available. Only God has all the facts. Only God can form the perfect hypothesis. Man’s knowledge is imperfect and his hypotheses are also imperfect.


          Report comment

          • James2

            See above. MOX was found on the ground, but there was none in the pool, so it came from the core.

            And as physics dictates, fuel did not blow out of the pool.


            Report comment

          • VanneV anne

            Fukushima Daiichi Intended To Increase MOX Use In Unit 3
            September 6th, 2011
            [Translate]
            Editors note: Documentation TEPCO #1 Documentation TEPCO #2
            “Preliminary Analysis of Tepco Documentation 3-2
            “Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit 3
            According to the results confirm the soundness of the new MOX fuel in the long-term storage”
            July 31, 2010
            Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency

            “Introduction: Analysis of this document began under the premise that MOX fuel could in no possible terms be viable and intact after spending a period of 10-11 years in the spent fuel pool. Documents show that 32 Mixed Oxide Fuel Assemblies were manufactured and sent to Fukushima-I in 1999. These fuel assemblies were then stored in the Spent Fuel Pool of Reactor 3 pending local government approval. This approval did not come until late summer of 2010, at which point arrangements were made and the fuel assemblies were loaded into Fukushima I-3 in September 2010.

            http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/nuctrans/2001jan28.html

            http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2000/2000-12-29-11.html

            http://www.nuclearconsult.com/docs/consultationNCG_Submission_to_UK_DECC_Plutonium_Consultation_2011.pdf”

            “Shift of Focus (as it pertains to analysis of Tepco document): Upon periphery work in translating this document, it soon became evident that Tepco was not just seeking approval to install 32 MOX fuel assemblies into the core of Reactor 3 at Fukushima – I. It appears that they were intentional about taking it a step further and in fact seeking approval for a quick transition to a 1/3 MOX core at the NPP in question.

            “Below is an excerpt from pages 5-6 of the translated document for consideration:

            4.1.2Nuclear reactor core design

            “(1)Criterion

            “Taking into account the impact on the reactivity of the fuel and the characteristics associated with changes in fuel composition will be required to meet the following criteria characteristic…


            Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              [cont.]
              “Taking into account the impact on the reactivity of the fuel and the characteristics associated with changes in fuel composition will be required to meet the following criteria characteristic of the core nucleus.

              1. Even if one is completely pulled out with a control rod reactivity worth up to be able to subcritical reactor core.
              2. Moderator void coefficient is negative and the Doppler factor.
              3. For boric acid water injection system can be less than the critical core of the reactor rated power operation state, and can be maintained.

              “(2)Rated by TEPCO

              “①Evaluation criteria

              “a. Operating cycle

              “Is planned core was loaded with MOX fuel in 25 cycles in a cycle following the Unit 3 nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, and MOX fuel since it is expected that the use of three cycles from 25 to 27 cycles of have been evaluated for the core.

              “The number of MOX fuel loading body

              “As shown in Table 4.1-2 25 cycles first body 32 in the long-term storage, 26 cycle, the second body 32 of the pending inspection bodies imported fuel, to 27 cycles first new fuel MOX body 80 of the number of body replacement is assumed in the equilibrium core has been evaluated as being loaded with the new.
              表4.1-2 MOX fuel loading per cycle, the body count
              Number of operating cycles*1 for fuel loadingNumber of MOX fuel loading body*2

              New fuel

              All the fuel in the furnace
              Setting a new basis for fuel loading
              25 cycles of 32 body 32 body MOX fuel in the spent fuel storage pool in Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3
              26 cycles of
              32 body
              64 body
              Body examination pending imported fuel (November 14, 2000), MOX fuel
              27 cycles of 80 body
              144 bodies

              MOX fuel per replacement permit a change in the equilibrium core of the analysis established

              *1:Operation period of each cycle, the rating is adjusted for duration of operation, including about one month to 13 months


              Report comment

            • VanneV anne

              [cont.]
              *1:Concerning the operational period of each cycle, in regard to appraisal has included the adjustment operational period of approximately 1 months in 13 months.

              (Babel Fish Translation for comparison)

              *2:The number of bodies of all fuel assemblies in the core is the body 548.

              “Talking Point 1:

              “When looking over this rough translation and table 4.1-2 in particular, the supposition that Tepco was indeed looking at a short term goal of a 1/3 MOX core loaded in Reactor 3 is reinforced. Taking careful note that there remains to be imported MOX fuel (Nov. 14, 2000) in water cooled storage somewhere pending import inspection.

              “Talking Point 2:

              “Information with regard to the operational period of each cycle is given (via google translate) in ambiguous terms. We can, however, begin with the idea that every 18 months 1/3 of the MOX fuel loaded has to be replaced because it has lost efficiency. http://dcbureau.org/201103141303/Natural-Resources-News-Service/fission-criticality-in-cooling-ponds-threaten-explosion-at-fukushima.html

              “If it was indeed Tepco’s intention to rapidly move Reactor-3 to a 1/3 MOX in 3 operating cycles, then we have to assume that this would have to be accomplished prior to the 1st Fuel Assemblies losing their efficiency. Therefore, I would like to put forth the supposition that Tepco was planning to load the 2nd 32 MOX Fuel Assemblies within a time frame of less than 6 months after the 1st 32 MOX Fuel Assemblies were loaded in the reactor core. Extrapolating, this leaves the conclusion that March 2011 would have initiated the 26th operating cycle and therefore an additional 32 MOX Fuel Assemblies would have on site at Fukushima I – 3.”
              http://www.simplyinfo.org/?p=1734


              Report comment

        • Just tangentially FYI, they store the new fuel they intend to load into the reactor on the next cycle…in the “used” fuel pool. i.e. it is just a fuel pool, it contain new fuel and used fuel.


          Report comment

        • HoTaters

          Agree, and that’s what can be inferred from what he said.


          Report comment

    • HoTaters

      He didn’t say that. He said “when the reactors explode” and then goes on to describe what happens to the spent fuel rods sitting on top of the reactors. From what he said, one can directly infer he’s stating FOUR reactors exploded, not three. Listen again and see if you concur.


      Report comment

      • HoTaters

        Comment didn’t go where I intended. What I meant was, Dr. Busby didn’t say the spent fuel pool at No. 3 exploded on its own. He said “when the reactors exploded” and then goes on to talk about how this affects the spent fuel pools sitting above the reactors.

        He said four reactors had melted down. He said there was a nuclear explosion at at least one of the reactors. In later discussion, one can infer he means no. 3, as “it couldn’t possibly have been a hydrogen explosion.”

        What one can infer is he meant the reactor exploded (nuclear explosion because of the MOX), then the spent fuel pool.

        Am not debating the possibility of this happening, just giving my two cent’s worth on what it sounded like he was saying. He wasn’t linear in his discussion of how it happened.

        If you don’t agree, please post your views.


        Report comment

  • Dr. McCoy

    MSM is paying more and more attention…finally.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45800485/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.TvqxyvF5mSM

    Just a hint at what is to come.


    Report comment

    • Mack Mack

      From the article:

      “There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor’s damage,” said John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

      Thanks to the “members of the local communities” who pressed the Fukushima issue!


      Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    lets see the british ministtry of defence wants busby off as an expert witness.fail!!.. then the guardian comes up with a self employed expenses “scandal” … BREAKING busby bought a buy one get one free bumper pack of toilet paper?? :/ against

    GOOD BRITISH SERVICEMEN WHO RISKED ALL, GETTING THEIR FAIR AND JUST COMPENSATION!!

    SHAME ON YOU MONOBIOT!!

    for our fighting boys abroad, busby cares and he will be there for you if you need him.. unlike george monbiot!! working for the MOD now george?? thats some rabbit hole there boy!!??

    just my take


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    More info on Fukushima and depleted uranium from DU expert Doug Rokke:

    http://www.podomatic.com/profile/rogercooper99

    A search turned up notes from the podcast (if you don’t have time to listen to it) that were posted on Berkeley:

    http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/5099


    Report comment

    • The transcript you linked has an assertion from an “anonymous” poster that says reactor waste is used to produce depleted uranium munitions. Which of course isn’t true – DU munitions are made from processed ore (in solution) that has been ‘depleted’ of its small content of U-235 during the process of enrichment for reactor fuel. IOW, the uranium in DU munitions has never seen the inside of a reactor, and won’t because it doesn’t contain enough fissionable isotopes.

      The assertion goes unchallenged, which is pretty odd given the site.


      Report comment

      • Mack Mack

        Hi @JoyB – Did you happen to notice regarding majia’s blog that the EPA said the radiation spikes were from radon?

        Do you know if that’s true? Any info you can give on that would be appreciated.


        Report comment

  • arclight arclight

    George Monbiot: in a hole but still digging

    “Ignoring all the information on these pages, Monbiot repeated his opinions in the print editions of the Guardian, 6th December.

    I know that people have contacted the Guardian urging the editors to give Professor Busby space to answer. Since 22nd November Busby himself has discussed the scientific issues with science reporters who promised to raise them with the editor Alan Rusbridger and the “Readers’ Editor” Chris Elliott. Nothing more has been heard. Both of these men have failed to acknowledge letters and emails from me since May, when Monbiot began his smear campaign during his Guardian-sponsored “Left Hook” lecture tour. So much for the Guardian’s stance as a champion of liberal values.

    Richard Bramhall: 6th December 2011 ”

    more info here!..

    http://www.llrc.org/

    and this from the gardian emphasis added!

    BunnyFlumplekins ( pro nuke schill)
    28 December 2011 12:20AM

    Response to seanmcgee, 27 December 2011 04:28AM

    Please please please keep commenting.

    You are doing more harm to the irrational anti-nuclear arguments than even VenusianVan can with their random links to google hits.

    Keep up the good work !

    “Leo writes good articles. Try reading this one. He talks sense and embraces reality – this article is a perfect example of balanced reporting.

    emphasis here….
    Unlike two others on the Guardian Env staff, who are somewhat of an embarrassment when it somes to interpreting facts.”

    shows that not all at the guardian agree with george monbiot and Leo Hickman!! good news??

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/26/fukushima-disaster-nuclear-japan?commentpage=all#start-of-comments


    Report comment

  • James2

    Fuku fireworks update:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmiq5CtF3N0

    Fire burning In #2 now.

    Fires at the south end of #3

    North end of #3 is spewing MOX plutonium from the open china syndrome pit as we watch.

    Look closely at the charred area on the left side of the #3 rubble – you’ll see massive waves of heat rising out of the hole…


    Report comment

  • James2

    The one I just linked.

    Between the time of that post and now – the webcam went to a totally different view. The freakin tree is on there again…


    Report comment

    • I believe you. The other cam is showing lots of smoke in the vicinity of 3.

      gotta go to bed now…

      Scary dreams I’m sure will haunt me…


      Report comment

      • Wanted to note. Zoom in on the video…
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmiq5CtF3N0

        There is also ____? cant tell either gas smoke fog ect… coming from directly in the soil? (dark area) Between reactor 2 and reactor 3.


        Report comment

        • James2

          Can’t see it now as they have implemented the night time photoshop view, but yes, that’s what I called the open China syndrome pit. At one time there were buildings there.


          Report comment

        • jec jec

          Does not look very health or in any way a COLD SHUTDOWN. The emissions/heat/gases..whatever..fires/or not fires…its a radiative mess there. And the photoshoping..on the stacks..where they are “filtering out 90% of the particles HA!)–the lighting effects..well lets say it would be really really hard to get a light to do what is showing on the top of the stacks..but as an “art form”..well I guess it is a Picasso of disaster…

          Whats interesting..the TBS/JNN cam I describe in the above paragraph..well the TEPCO webcam stacks..do not show the same lights..gee..do you think its a cut and paste job?????


          Report comment

  • James2

    Is there a youtube link to the other cam?


    Report comment

  • Hersay

    To use the conversion, the company’s Internet censorship Google! We Use the same ISP since November are forced to Canada, the proxy server, this site Fact or radiation is used to display the site you need to. Tokyo is a ghost town.


    Report comment

  • maaa

    Japan Male Cedar Flowers Found With More Than 250,000 Bq/kg of Cesium http://enformable.com/


    Report comment

  • FaraFola

    I’m not a Nuclear Specialist of any kind, but like Kevin I’ve been watching Fuku from day one, and information regarding #3 has been minimal and probably also misleading

    Explosion of #3 was totally different than others. I have looked it several times, and it’s huge and extremely powerful, hydrogen explosion is far from that blast. If it was a core inside of vessel, isn’t there a thick Concrete walls surrounding? How much power is needed to fully destroy that concrete nest?

    How we can be a sure for SFP and MOX in there? Was it really a 1st time when it was used, and how about a new load on MOX, fuel must be replaced in time to time

    Could SFP be strong enough to hold up a blast of that scale. It’s however located on same building and concrete walls are not a same caliber than Reactor vessel

    My opinion is that #1,2,and 4 is mostly a problem of Japan, contamination is huge on 0-250km but #3 could be a killer on a large scale. Plutonium is extremely toxic material and when upstream hot particles can spread all over the world


    Report comment

  • StillJill StillJill

    DING DING DING DING DING,…we have a winner! (All those who think #3′s MOX core blew,….)

    Seriously,…..to an outsider,….it sounds like some of us are quibbling over where the deck chairs were on the Titanic.

    Just my unsolicited two cents–I could be wrong and I’d admit it.
    My health tells me, ‘there’s Plutonium in the upper atmosphere’, raining down day and night.


    Report comment

  • StillJill StillJill

    Sorry ADMIN,…the thread’s topic is also our friend Dr. Chris Busby. He is being nibbled away at by sharks of all stripes and colours! (While we argue about the deck chairs, remember?)
    I will not be silent while a ‘friend’s’ REPUTATION is being soiled and smeared! Period! EVER!


    Report comment

    • arclight arclight

      well i think BUSBIES COOL!!

      nice beret too!! gonna get one!! :)

      great comment stilljill!!
      peace


      Report comment

      • Bob Hardin Bob Hardin

        You should buy some of his magic anti-radiation pills. Click here.


        Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          hi bob… no new findings? have to wait for the court case!! :)
          cant wait either!!


          Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          hi bob
          also the dalai lama is a terrorist.. trust me.. :)

          China accuses Dalai Lama of terrorism

          http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2181518a-a13b-4b84-8740-9c49efd79983


          Report comment

          • Bob Hardin Bob Hardin

            The link in my post about Busby’s magic pills is to his own site (built with his business partner James Ryan). The site has videos of Busby pimping his pills. Try it. Maybe you’ll like it! It’s here: http://www.4u-detox.com/


            Report comment

            • arclight arclight

              bob.. yes i like busby..
              however, if i dont like someone because they are wrong, i dig around.. and find the dirt!! maybe you couls do the same! more info please!! how bad is busby?? selling pills to little children is bad ! i saw the adverts on tv (when i used to watch it) they said pill pushers are evil and should be locked up!! quite right too! if you are worried about cost, do not go to the harrods web site for anything!! i like your critiques though i dont always agree with them, but it would be better if you dug deeper in true enenews fashion!! come up with the dirt!

              try a breakinbg story about the seedy side of helen caldicott or pictures of arnie in suspenders (sorry arnie) for instance! something new not something that is minute compared to the good that he does..

              want some links to the dirt on helen caldicott? or some other views on busby? wego find em yourselfll but let us know?? oh and if you can find the dirt on the quiet man of nukedom tony blair, that would be excellent! good luck with that last one!!.. you rogue :)
              peace


              Report comment

              • arclight arclight

                bob one addition fact

                chris has said in his videos and interviews i normal calcium tablet a day bought from a health food shop(non specificaly described)
                did it today on alex jones..
                marketting suicide??
                you decide?
                peace
                ps sorry about the typos dyslexia playing up!


                Report comment

        • arclight arclight

          hi bob are you aware of the guardian / julian assange and the young man being tortured in the usa?? great errr coverage!!/sarc


          Report comment

  • unspokenhermit

    at least one or more of the reactors at Fukushima were using a type of fuel called mixed oxide, or MOX. Mixed oxide fuel, because it’s partly made from recycled weapons grade plutonium, is much more toxic and dangerous than the typical uranium type fuel. If this fire is in a spent fuel pond that contains that type of spent fuel we are dealing with a much more serious situation.

    I recently discovered the following dispersion model, which someone had linked to Berkeley’s discussion page. It uses TEPCO emission data to model possible dispersion patterns for Neptunium and Plutonium

    http://www.datapoke.org/blog/89/study-modeling-fukushima-npp-p-239-and-np-239-atmospheric-dispersion/

    http://datapoke.org/partmom/a=114

    If this model is accurate, it is very disturbing. Where are all of the so-called experts who claimed these elements were too heavy to travel far from the plant site?


    Report comment

  • James Tekton James Tekton

    ATTENTION!

    Christopher Busby is on Alex Jones right now!

    http://www.gcnlive.com/playlists/live/channel2.m3u


    Report comment