Fukushima Radiation Concerns in Alaska: No clams found in area — Salmon season canceled, population too low — Large mammals with huge sores (VIDEO)

Published: October 24th, 2012 at 12:18 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
76 comments


Interview with Don Heckert, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Host: John B. Wells
Date Published: Oct. 23, 2012

Full broadcast here

Published: October 24th, 2012 at 12:18 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
76 comments

Related Posts

  1. Tepco Adviser: Wait until Alaska salmon is found with Fukushima contamination, it’s only a matter of time — US Gov’t Report: “Radiation hot spots may occur… radioactive contaminants could remain a valid concern for years” (VIDEO) November 22, 2013
  2. TV: “Could it really happen?” State of Washington testing CLAMS for Fukushima radiation — Salmon and steelhead also — Will continue “until public concern abates” (VIDEO) May 7, 2012
  3. Sickened Alaska animals getting more tests for Fukushima radionuclides — Oozing sores, bleeding, swollen internal organs, hair loss (PHOTOS) March 14, 2013
  4. Mother/Farmer: We found 75% of Fukushima contaminated with high levels of radioactivity — This should be declared a ‘radiation control area’ (VIDEO) October 2, 2012
  5. Gundersen: Gov’t dumping radioactive material into Tokyo Bay — Contaminated seaweed found in area (VIDEO) December 22, 2011

76 comments to Fukushima Radiation Concerns in Alaska: No clams found in area — Salmon season canceled, population too low — Large mammals with huge sores (VIDEO)

  • Cataclysmic Cataclysmic

    "..return didn’t come in back in the numbers that were required to even sustain the population." :( bye bye King Salmon, we let you down, I am very sorry we did not love you enough to protect you.


    Report comment

  • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

    and so…the massive die-off begins…


    Report comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    "They may fix the weather in the world like Mr. Gore said but whats to be done bout the weather in my head" from Donald Fagen's new CD. I have nothing positive to contribute to this news very dire and sad indeed.


    Report comment

  • jump-ball jump-ball

    I love salmon enough to have stacked several cases along with other long-dated 2015-17 canned tuna, sardines and meats, even before 3/11, anticipating possible financial and supply disruptions. Friends were laughing, then Fuku hit, and I quickly tripled my pacific canned seafood and other supplies, then quit buying, and as the pacific and left coast contamination becomes more acknowledged, I am not surprised, and increasingly believe I will have the last laugh. And probably the last safe salmon.


    Report comment

  • harengus_acidophilus

    "and they can't define why they have these huge sores on them."

    Can't they or don't want they?

    h.


    Report comment

  • Jon_NY Jon_NY

    Northern Pinnipeds (ice seals and walruses)
    Unusual Mortality Event (UME)

    http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seals/ice/diseased/ume_qa0612.pdf

    "Muscle and liver samples from sick and healthy seals were collected in 2011 and 2012 for radionuclide analysis, specifically cesium 134/137. All the muscle samples had to undergo an extensive four week freeze-drying process in preparation for analysis and are currently being analyzed. Preliminary analysis of control samples from healthy seals has been completed and composite tissue samples from diseased seal samples are undergoing analysis. As soon as final results are available they will be provided."

    The testing is being done by the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

    http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/news/story/?ni=410

    I doubt we will ever see the results.


    Report comment

    • GlowInTheDark GlowInTheDark

      At least the university freeze dry the sample before taking the measurement. Japanese only measures wet flesh, discards the bones and guts :(


      Report comment

    • Fred

      Laying a crisp new $20 on the table, I'll bet you the cause of all of this will be "global warming" or "human caused climate change", because it kills two birds with one stone. It expands the message of the planet dying because of CO2 and AGW, which supports thousands of academics, universities and others with blank checks from grants….AND shields the nuclear industry from any scrutiny which may result in their demise and economic shutdown.

      The results of all these tests has already been decided….long before the first sample gets anywhere near a geiger-muller tube.


      Report comment

      • GlowInTheDark GlowInTheDark

        I too think that they will blame anything but the nuclear.
        Poor water quality affected by algae, lack of oxygen, bacteria…may be virus or cause unknown!


        Report comment

      • Thank you, Fred! Climate change as the new terrorism so we can wage war on Mother. I'm from Anchorage, so I have a hard time even talking about salmon and the potential impacts of radiation. The Alaskan food chain revolves around the salmon.

        http://prosperouswaydown.com/hair-of-dog-limits-technology/


        Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        Gee, Fred, you're right on. Climate destabilization IS having a pretty harmful effect on sea life, along with coal burning because of all the mercury in the ocean now and the fact that the seas are becoming increasing acidic, too, which makes it really hard to stay alive if you live in water. There's no where to run. I find it interesting how many bloggers here are quite happy to pollute the crap out of the planet as long as it suits them and only kills other species. "But, radiation, well, that's different. It might effect me, too!"


        Report comment

    • kauaisoapbox

      Jon_NY…isn't it convenient that the preparation period would just about deal with the Iodine 131 component… half life being 10 days… coincidence? I have been working with a company that sells a food analysis scintillator and I can tell you it doesn't take a month to prep. This is really bad science.


      Report comment

  • weeman

    You are missing the point, clams are water filters any contaminants in water are picked up by them, that is way it is important that they are raised in clean water if you want to eat them, they are a perfect indication on the state of the Eco system that they exist, more science needs to be done.
    If that is liaisons on the higher mammals due to radiation then we are in big trouble.


    Report comment

  • Fred

    Killing whole reefs with radiation will be a bonanza-sized gold mine to the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion trying to put us back into the Middle Ages. They'll be out there, in droves, photographing and documenting the reef's demise at the hands of CO2 increasing .1ppm every decade as the only possible cause of the mass extinction.

    Fukushima is a gold mine to certain branches of faux "research scientists" living off pre-determined conclusions.


    Report comment

    • amberlight amberlight

      Bingo! Everybody stop breathing, cuz you're killing the oceans. Next they'll be blaming the rising radiation levels on CO2…


      Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        I guess i don't understand this selective concern for the environment. I'll worry about a few rads heading my way but no problem with dumping toxins, acidifying the oceans or thawing the methane layers. So the science for climate destabilization is bogus and a conspiracy, the science for nuclear power is bogus and a conspiracy, the only truth-tellers are those who have no scientific, political, or corporate background, and every study will be corrupted accept the ones done by the man or woman on the street. The damage from burning hydrocarbons is imaginary. All those kids with asthma are just wimps. Am i getting this right?


        Report comment

        • amberlight amberlight

          Vic, nobody is justifying dumping toxins in the ocean or air or claiming that humans have no impact on the environment. At 68 I've been a low-consumption environmental activist for most of my adult life.

          However the AGW hysteria is based on junk science. I fell for it at first, but when I looked at the actual data and the historic climate profile, it became obvious that the whole "carbon footprint" narrative is a globalist hoax to control sovereign nations and peoples. Who do you think will benefit from the global carbon tax they want to foist on the industrialized nations, i.e., us? Do you honestly think the developing nations will see a cent of it? If AGW priests like Al Gore and James Cameron really believe that man-made climate change is a genuine threat, why do they live in obscenely large mansions, ride in stretch limousines and consume more power in a month than my entire neighborhood does in a year?

          I don't want to turn this into a verbal sparring match, but please be realistic about the very real menace of radiation contamination and the attempts of governments and industry to cover it all up with any excuse they can grasp!


          Report comment

          • Radio VicFromOregon

            I'm not going to base the acceptance or rejection of something as fact and good scientific methodology on whether someone profits from it or not. People profit from many things, including failure. Take Wall St. as a recent example. I am, however, going to continue to read second ad third source reports and articles on the effects of burning fossil fuels as i have for the last 30 some years. I will take into account their motives. I read research from both sides of the issue. My concern here is not our disagreement. I'm good with disagreement. It's healthy. My issue is that people so easily reject other people's findings be they for or against coal or oil or fracking, nuclear, solar, geothermal, what have you. Everyone accuses the other side of high handedness and uses their own set of stats to back it up. Given that very, very few people actually want to put in the hours it takes to study all this research themselves, they move on to character assassination as Proof Positive of their claims. "So and so is an SOB, therefore global warming is a myth". "I don't trust them, so they must be lying". That's not reasoning. That's suspicion. And, so nothing changes…


            Report comment

            • Radio VicFromOregon

              Very similar arguments were made against the Jews in 1930 Europe – why do they need all that money? Why aren't they helping as the economy collapses? They must benefit from our suffering? They are, after all, the money lenders. Of course, no one wants to mention that Jews were historically not allowed to own land, so they put their family money into cash, jewels, artwork, lending businesses, mercantilism. There are good people who are rich and bad people who are rich. I don't know Al's reasonings, but, i do know that he gives away a lot of money. Not all the rich are on the same side. Some are on yours. Some oppose you. I take people's greed into account as a factor but it doesn't determine for me whether the science is correct or not. How many here buy green energy? Protest power plants? 1 out of every 500? Less? More? Should i reject every person's argument who fails my criteria of being sincere?


              Report comment

              • amberlight amberlight

                My assessment of anthropogenic global warming is not based on Gore's behavior (although he obviously doesn't take man-made warming seriously) but on "science" that makes definitive statements resting on flawed computer models of future events while ignoring a long history of empirical evidence. Many creditable scientists are AGW skeptics.

                The issue that started this thread was that, based on past performance, AGW zealots would likely point to climate change as the cause of reduced salmon and shellfish populations without bothering to consider other factors such as radiation poisoning. Even if AGW were a legitimate concern, ignoring other factors is unscientific and irresponsible.

                So we have differing opinions of AGW, but agree on the culpability of the nuclear industry and government toadies in creating the current crisis. Let's leave it at that…


                Report comment

                • Radio VicFromOregon

                  My misunderstanding, then. You had used the example of Gore, or Gore like people riding around in gas guzzlers not caring about the environment while espousing concern. I thought you were putting forth our argument from a character/action/income analysis. And, again, for me, it isn't how many scientist believe in climate destabilization, but, rather, is it true or not.


                  Report comment

                  • Radio VicFromOregon

                    I just don't see the hysteria. No one around me is conserving. Very few even look at the arguments or the scientific research. It gets a mention on the news, but, most always incompletely and inaccurately. Very little legislation, if any, has actually been passed to even address it beyond accepting that it might be fairly possible. So, characterizing people rationally concerned about warming as alarmists and hysterical and zealots seems a bit misplaced. I think if you reread those articles or reports, you will find that they list the warming of specific areas of open waters along with increased cooling of others and a neutralizing of temps in still others, such as the Atlantic Conveyor, along with acidification, toxins, and farming run off, damns, habitat destruction, etc. as ALL factors contributing to the decline of these species. I've never read an article by an AGW proponent that has ever claimed differently. It is based on a Gaia model, not on exclusivity of other theories, even other warming theories.


                    Report comment

              • Maggie123

                Vic, also interesting to me is the history of usury. Most ancient teachings have had strict laws against it. I can't remember the "cultural setup" in play 'way back when' but think the Jewish people were admonished to not charge interest among themselves but were "allowed" to charge interest in loans to non-Jewish people. At the same time, the Christians were having a period of "no usury allowed" (The Christian 'rule' waxed and waned across time if I remember correctly). So it was very convenient for all concerned, especially for the Christians, to shunt banking over to the Jewish population! Muslims also were/are not allowed to charge interest, and have been more rigorous in holding to their law, as I understand it. But I think they have developed indirect systems to "return benefit" to lenders. (I should take time to look all this up again!)

                Wanted to weigh in a bit on climate warming. It seems we have each 'settled' on a personal interpretation. I'm personally convinced fossil fuels are a HUGE contributor, likely *the* primary factor. Since they're also the source of many of the damaging toxins we use they rate top of list for me as problematic. Nuclear is turning out to be more involved on the deadly toxin side than I'd realized. Given ENE speculation, I'm now keeping it in mind re warming but not primary. Pretty tricky to prove, I'd think.

                I've always had an issue with Gore but not the science – Gore lacks calluses! :)


                Report comment

                • Radio VicFromOregon

                  You got the history right as far as it is known, Maggie123. Usury fees. Thanks, i forgot the term. Very convenient to have the Jews handle the interest rate charging on behalf of the Christians and Muslims who's varying prohibitions wouldn't allow them to do it. I forgot tat little piece, too. But, i think, if i recall correctly, some of those prohibitions were put in place because these two groups were charging excessive interest rate fees over and beyond the Jews. It comes down to things always being a bit more complicated than easy categorization of good, bad, right, wrong. Gore is man awkward with himself. And, of course, he has had nothing to do with the science or research. He is simply a supporter of the theory of climate destabilization and an international celebrity who is using his status to get his concerns out. He hasn't forced anyone to do anything about cutting emissions, but, many people have given him a sinister power and an agenda that he certainly doesn't emanate imho. Nuclear freaks me out, but, i've been living with it for decades and despite things being more radioactive than ever, the human population seems to keep climbing.


                  Report comment

      • GlowInTheDark GlowInTheDark

        @amberlight, "Bingo! Everybody stop breathing, cuz you're killing the oceans. Next they'll be blaming the rising radiation levels on CO2"

        Before they say 'stop breathing'… oh no they have to charge YOU for breathing to squeeze out every penny you've got. It's coming, honestly, if Oregon can tax rainwater collected in your garden, these things are coming. You might think a car tax for driving your car is reasonably but in the UK, a council has decided to tax people for walking a certain path and for some people not walking is unavoidable depends on where their front door is located etc.


        Report comment

    • AFTERSHOCK AFTERSHOCK

      if you haven't gotten it by now Fred, corrupted scientific research will soon be the least of your worries…


      Report comment

    • harengus_acidophilus

      Tell us about your hate visions.

      h.


      Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality….


      Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        Tracing the spread of radiation through the food chain will take time. One of the challenges for the grassroots geiger counter folks, and bless you everyone, is knowing if they are getting a Fukushima reading or a reading from another source that got kicked up and redistributed. Remember that this planet was bombarded nearly weekly by nuclear detonations for decades and the US is using depleted uranium in the Middle East. Nuclear power plants are aging and have always been leaking. Just like in Japan from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Fukushima, and finding the radioisotopes signature to know the source, radiation lies in dust all over the globe now and gets disturbed, then carried in the wind or water or through a tomato or a fish all over again.


        Report comment

        • Maggie123

          VicFromOregon – You describe what's been wafting through my mind recently. How to sort out what contamination is 'new' and what has been with us, quietly working its damage, across time?

          Add to that all the other carcinogens and otherwise damaging ingredients we've introduced into our lives via mostly fossil fuel based chemical wonders, and now we're racking up time with GMO's in our diets and bombardment by radio frequencies! Impossible to decide a single cause of illness? Sometimes I'm in awe of how successfully life seems to have "processed" the onslaught we've delivered, (especially when I think of how as a child me and my siblings messed with DDT and so far all of us are in decently good health.)

          But I'm fully convinced we've pushed our and earth's capacity to "repair and restore" to the absolute limit. All evidence seems to fire off alarms if we pay attention. Saw more news recently on ocean acidification, and also again on methane release risks from oceans and tundra. … just tossing in some remarks … OT, I suppose to the specific article!


          Report comment

          • Radio VicFromOregon

            Life can be crushed, but, it is also resilient. This manifestation in this little sector of the universe isn't exactly for the timid from my perspective. Funny thing about DDT. You can eat bowlfuls of it and be just fine. Get it on your skin in just the right conditions for just the right amount of time, and you can be dead. I agree, it isn't just one thing to worry about. It's that many things are now reaching their fullest momentum, as it were, all at once. Humans, at the expense of everything else, have managed through all this toxin and radiation to reach 7 billion people. That's why governments see it as such a good thing. It's obviously beneficial, right? Yep, until they all preponderating and start mushing together, and just like that salt dome, it all starts to melt. I don't know about saving humanity. I just want to reduce suffering, everyone's suffering. I see climate destabilization as the factor that becomes too big to deal with. Nuclear has that potential, imho, too, but regarding the storing of it long term more than all its other issues. Currently it is impossible to do. Plants, animals, people 400 years from now may be getting sick when they enter certain areas and won't understand why. So, i come to blog on enenews because it all comes down to energy now, doesn't it. The choices we make. If someone tells me it is getting hotter because of my choices, i will look at their argument long and hard. Same with nuclear. Same with…


            Report comment

          • Radio VicFromOregon

            For many people, this is their first big nuclear crisis, but, for us folks born in the fifties and beyond, this is simply the next, sad crisis in nuclear energy. I lived in what is called a cancer cluster. I survived, just, but, a lot of people and animals did not. Some was probably manmade radiation. Some was probably natural radon from the nearby rock formations. A lot was from the agricultural toxins that leached into the shallow wells from the contaminated aquifer, a situation common in many rural farming areas from DDT to Paraquat to 24d4 to Round Up. Wells still untested throughout the land. Yet, each year, things still grew. I finally began to see that it wasn't just one technology or chemical or person that i needed to fear, but, an entire paradigm and attitude towards the Earth that will surely eat every last acre. And, i began to learn more deeply that i needed to transcend my fear into compassionate action in order to be effective because folks have been angry for eons and nothing is better, so i know that doesn't work. So i blog here and reiki SFP 4 to try and keep it upright. To try and reduce suffering. Not lay blame unless it is relevant to opening a door to better insight and knowledge. I appreciate you being here Maggie 123 with your reflection and kindness and thoughtfulness.


            Report comment

            • gladys a milyon gladys a milyon

              Vicfromoregon. In my book you are going down as controlled opposition.

              "Just another nuclear disaster… Let's not.place blame ….probably the background radiation. "

              In the words of my generation . F@*! off


              Report comment

            • harengus_acidophilus

              Hi, VfO I like your rational explainations.

              "people 400 years from now may be getting sick"

              Remember all the fairy tales from our ancestors:
              "The poisonous breath of a dragon"
              "This location is bewiched, who ever enters will suffer and die!"
              and with a twinkle of an eye,
              "Tell me, tablet on the wall,
              who is fairiest of us all?"

              History repeats and most frustrating for me is:
              we have no chance to send a message to the future.

              Books?
              Today they are printed on acid containing paper,
              a built-in selfdestruction.

              Computer-based storage?
              Anyone able to read 8″ floppies, 5¼″, 3½″, Ls-120, QIC, DAT…

              Rocks? Paintings on the wall? Artwork?
              Oh, wait…

              You see, history repeats, in my eye… looks like a circle.

              h.


              Report comment

          • Hi, Maggie, I've been trying to sort all of that out myself. I've been sitting on a post about radiation and health, and haven't posted it, partly because I don't want to go there, and partly because I really need the help of an epidemiologist to churn the numbers. What I know about evidence-based medicine is that because of our reductionist methods of statistics, there are huge blind spots in what we view as causation. Potentially, heart attacks and strokes, Type 1 Diabetes, thyroid disease in women, stress ulcers, and a number of other unsortable immunodeficient-related disorders are at least in part caused by or potentiated by the increasing problem of radioisotopes in the food chain.

            I asked a pathologist friend (MD-PhD) if he had ever heard of cesium heart. Nope. And not buying it either. Yet if you look at the long arc of these diseases over time, they appeared en masse in the general population after the above ground testing (DM and MIs, for example), and are resurging now. Yet when you look at epidemiology studies, radiation is NOWHERE in sight as a risk factor. Study after study where I search for radiation and find . . . nothing.


            Report comment

  • jec jec

    Have been asking and asking for the results from the U. of Alaska..what they did..in one report was issue a "NO radiation in the non-sick animals"..no dah!So news media picked up the NO radiation..but the actual sick animals tests..are still out. The University did say it was NOT a virus or bacteria..so what else could it be??? I guess a FOIA is needed..which takes months..but if that is the only way..cost is 25.00 bucks to file one..with USA Government, guess the U of Alaska has to accept FOIA? Has anyone tried it yet? Let me know…..Just saying…


    Report comment

    • Radio VicFromOregon

      Even Arnie Gundersen didn't expect high rad readings in fish until next year or later. That any has shown up this early probably attests to the amounts of radioactive fall-out directly into the Pacific offshore of Japan when certain schools of fish were just migrating away from the waters. It takes salmon, for instance, 5 to 7 years to make the round trip from Oregon to Japan and back. We may not see those fish for another few years. Trace amounts is all they should be finding at this time. The tuna, on the other hand, feed throughout the water column up and down and north and south and may or may not be where radiation is falling at any single point in time or may get heavily dosed but never caught and tested. These are still early days yet.


      Report comment

  • kauaisoapbox

    I drove from the tip of Vancouver island (Victoria) all the way up to Tofino. I unfortunately only had the Inspector+, but I was happy to find an average of 21cpm all the way up. At Tofino, I worked with a local fisherman from the First nation, and tested 25 different salmon samples. Long counts and found NOTHING over background. Again, this is only a GM Inspector, and possibly not sensitive enough to pick up anything but glaring high reads… but I was glad to see the results. I am more interested in filter feeders and bivalves… the clams and oysters. I was there for a few weeks and did test a lot of oysters from various restaurants and never found anything high. The Inspector is a limited device. I wished I could have gone past Tofino. I am very concerned as we live on kauai and eat a lot of fish. I am purchasing a $4000 food scintillator from Polimaster. I will bring it back on my next trip. Cheers. Karlos.


    Report comment

  • kalidances

    Kauisoapbox are you more qualified than NOAA's scientists and those from Oregon State? They don't make public releases like this without a reason.
    This same issue presented itself back in May over the Pacific Bluefin near San Diego. They said exactly the same thing about "trace" amounts. So since you have direct experience can you please tell us all how the Bluefin taken from the Pacific has been faring since the last published readings in May?


    Report comment

  • kalidances

    @kauaisoapbox and if you can update us about Strontium levels in the Bluefin and Albacore we'd appreciate that as well.


    Report comment

  • dosdos dosdos

    I noticed that tuna cans have gone from the traditional 7 ounces down to 5 ounces. I have to wonder about the downsizing. Most products have downsized over the years as an economic ploy to raise the price per unit without seeming to do so. But why tuna all of the sudden, after being 7 ounces for almost a century? Hmmmm. (Not that I'm buying any.)


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    It can be important to remember that radiation does not actually disperse evenly, as previously assumed. Some salmon schools will be effected, others won't. Some beaches, other clear and safe. Radiation dumps here and there because of many variables from temperature to rain to wind to height in the atmosphere to particulate concentrations in the atmosphere. The radiation pouring ito the Pacific Ocean near Fukushima is primarily still got up a a loop along the Japan coastline, while some of it will make it's way further out. The fish that migrate to Japan and then return home, wherever that may be, will bioaccumlate the radiation. It may takes years before we see amounts that fall into the government guidelines, which are too high and based upon outdated and incomplete studies. To approach these studies with the notion of evenly dispersed radioisotopes over a wide area will be to miss the actual radiation flows as they occur – random, concentrated, sudden.


    Report comment

  • demo demo

    More bad news. Admin how could you publish the ad at the top of this pg touting San Onofre safety? I feel betrayed.

    Here it is: http://enenews.com/fukushima-radiation-concerns-alaska-clams-found-area-salmon-season-canceled-population-low-large-mammals-huge-sores-video

    US Nuclear Plant Safety
    San Onofre operations comply with the NRC's high safety standards.
    songscommunity.com/safe

    http://songscommunity.com/safe.asp?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=songs-one&utm_content=safe&gclid=CMiF_4jSm7MCFUlxQgod-BYA3g


    Report comment

  • Radio VicFromOregon

    I'm not sure ADMIN gets much choice about the banner ads. If we all chipped in a little more, maybe they could do away with them altogether?


    Report comment

    • gladys a milyon gladys a milyon

      Maybe if you chipped in some of that paycheck from being a nuclear shill


      Report comment

      • Anthony Anthony

        Don't you think VicFromOregon is one of the great posters here? I'm not sure where your attack stems from, I figure, even if Vic was/is from the industry, he seems to have our interests in his mind and heart at this stage.


        Report comment

        • Radio VicFromOregon

          Female, short for Vicki, shorter for Victoria. I learn from many of your posts, Anthony, and you are one of the reasons i keep coming here to blog. We don't always agree on every detail, but, we do where it really matters – creating nuclear energy on Planet Earth is simply too dangerous. It may not kill as many as some people think over some other calamity, or life and aging itself, but, the illnesses and deaths from this are far too "yang" for earth energy and are really quite terrible. It brings unnecessary suffering. Sometimes immense suffering. We have so many other options than using nuclear power.


          Report comment

          • Anthony Anthony

            OOOps!! Love this place! I just wondered how that poster justified their attack on you. Thanks for your comment – I'm sure most people here truly appreciate your many excellent contribution.


            Report comment

            • Radio VicFromOregon

              Interesting, Anthony. And, thx. The blogger took some of my words, added their own, then put them in quotes to suggest i had said them when i hadn't. Not to mention telling me to f– off, which was a teche rude. I do feel a bit icky now. A wild misunderstanding? Maybe i didn't agree with something someone else had said? Usually folks here are much more tolerant of differing opinions. But, i need to be, too. I can be less than tactful at times. I hope i was saying that some of us blogging here have been dealing with radioactive fall out much of our lives, there are some Downwinders here, too, like Anne. We've all also been dealing with chemicals en mass for as long or longer. It's a toxic brew and can be hard to tell just what is making a person sick since there are so many sources given what humans have done. Then, here in the Portland area is a lot of radon. Schools close, people get sick and die from it, it seeps up unnoticed through the ground. Those with basements seem to collect it. I've lost friends and animals to the illnesses of toxins and radiation. I've spent most of my life working to reduce the use of these various poisons in the world around me, including helping to get NPPs shut down here. It is a very long and hard road with much institutional and public resistance all along the way. But, we must continue to work and agitate. There is always some success, but so far, not enough. I simply feel more sadness and reflection now than anger.


              Report comment

      • Maggie123

        My goodness! I hope we don't get into suspicious minds among ourselves. Not sure where you picked up the idea – Vic's a valued community member/contributor!


        Report comment

        • Radio VicFromOregon

          Maggie123, thanks to you, too. I do tend to stir things up a bit and i am drawing a little fire. Sometimes i wish i had your patience and capacity to help walk people to the next insight or ask them to do the same for me. Casting suspicion on other bloggers is simply a lack of belief in one's own truths or facts. I really do think that truth and facts stand on their own. It isn't about who says it. It's about finding truth and saying it in a way that people can acknowledge. If i'm not doing that, then the fault is usually my own. I was little short tempered yesterday and could have worded things better. Reading some of your posts yesterday reminded me that i'm not here to discharge emotions. I am here to exchange ideas and experiences, to share knowledge and deepen insight. I get that every time i read one of your posts.


          Report comment

      • Radio VicFromOregon

        gladys a milyon, there's no point in refuting a false accusation when i have no way to prove otherwise. If i've offended you in some way, please accept my apology. Whatever opinions i express here i am sure can be checked out on the web. But, i think you won't find too many of my arguments or ideas on pronuclear websites or blogs. But, i do visit these nuclear sites from time to time just to see what they are thinking, or to check into something a blogger here might bring up, such as the debate about thorium reactors, which is not settled even within the nuclear power community. When i was a child, i was raised Catholic for a time and it was considered a sin to visit other churches of differing faiths on Sundays. I long moved past that.


        Report comment

  • Sickputer

    A Cary Grant moment… Great actor… Left behind such a legacy and perhaps even more in his ditty bag for future descendants to share…;-)

    Meanwhile…back on topic… The Alaskan salmon sport fishers, commercial trawler fishermen, the native Alaskans, and the nucleocratic bureaucrats are arguing far more than jn previous years about the disastrous 2012 season. Everyone is pointing fingers at trawlers and lobbyists, misguided state policies, but nobody mentions the invisible elephant in the room of spreading radiation.

    But the bickering and state memos is interesting reading for people who don't have their head up their ass:

    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2012/08/yes-salmon-disaster-in-upper-cook-inlet.html?m=1

    SP: Those clues that jump out at Enenewsers:

    "“The Alaska Department of Fish and Game appears to be recommending against a full hearing of the Kenai River king salmon issues by the Alaska Board of Fisheries before the 2013 season. Such a decision is surprising, given the aftermath of the 2012 Upper Cook Inlet salmon season…” Gease said in a statement."

    http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/October-Issue-1-2012/Cook-Inlet-issues-set-to-dominate-Board-work-session/

    SP: And the sockeye salmon on the western side of the Aleutian chain seem to be in the worst fix:

    Swanson Lagoon sockeye salmon in peril:

    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/regulations/regprocess/fisheriesboard/pdfs/2012-2013/worksession/rc8.pdf


    Report comment

  • demo demo

    The pro-nuclear San Onofre ad is gone now. Thanks, admin! And thanks for not deleting my post. My trust is somewhat restored.


    Report comment

    • Sickputer

      Google buys space for the ads and has some scheme to rotate them. There have been numerous nucleocrat ads (notably GE), but why shouldn't they fund the Forum here? They don't feel very threatened and that's good. Small acorns grow into big trees.


      Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.