STRANGE: Two high-profile Fukushima studies ‘edited’ by global warming advocate James Hansen — Wrote article “Why America Needs Nuclear Energy”

Published: November 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
34 comments


Assessment of individual radionuclide distributions from the Fukushima nuclear accident covering central-east Japan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Nov. 14, 2011:

Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 29, 2011 (received for review July 24, 2011)

Cesium-137 deposition and contamination of Japanese soils due to the Fukushima nuclear accident, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Nov. 14, 2011:

Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved October 5, 2011 (received for review July 25, 2011)

Who is James Hansen? via Wikipedia:

James E. Hansen (born March 29, 1941) heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He has held this position since 1981. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. [...]

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change [...]

Some recent articles by or featuring Hansen

Here is Hansen in a video uploaded to the Nuclear Energy Institute’s YouTube account:

From June 23, 2011 on ‘Treehugger Radio’:

James Hansen: Well, it’s changed the situation for us solving this climate problem, because a number of nations have indicated that they’re going to phase out nuclear power, which, I think, is very unfortunate. The truth is, what we should do is use the more advanced nuclear power. Even the old nuclear power is much safer than the alternatives.

Listen here: ‘Treehugger Radio’

Published: November 22nd, 2011 at 8:09 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
34 comments

Related Posts

  1. Document shows high-profile nuclear experts under Japan gov’t surveillance December 28, 2011
  2. BBC breaking news shows Fukushima protester interrupting high-profile press conference — Televised for nearly 2 minutes, event ended abruptly (VIDEO) March 7, 2013
  3. Japan nuclear minister with strange sores on face (PHOTOS) — Emperor unable to leave hospital: “He has lost his appetite”… New respiratory infection? November 16, 2011
  4. Public authorities avoiding details that may trigger alarm or panic — “They don’t want to go there” says former advisor to US secretary of energy April 2, 2011
  5. Discovery.com: Nuclear reactors to power Mars colonies — “Sadly” biggest hurdle for space fission may be bad press August 30, 2011

34 comments to STRANGE: Two high-profile Fukushima studies ‘edited’ by global warming advocate James Hansen — Wrote article “Why America Needs Nuclear Energy”

  • Mauibrad Mauibrad

    James Hansen is a scumbag. Intellectually dishonest with global warming data and a nuclear energy proponent. How’s your Nuke now, James? Enjoyin’ suckin’ down that Fuku fallout?


    Report comment

    • Stlouieishot

      whoopie i wonder if this is the guy you and me have been argueing with posting on HP under atoms for peace, polonium man etc? considering the positive ratings on our comments and the fact that none of his comments have more than 3 positive ratings leads me to believe so. that and the poster always assumes that we are advocating the switch to coal fired plants as a means to produce electicity, and how he claims coal is more deadly than nuke power. the shoe seems to fit doesnt it?


      Report comment

    • mikael

      The drivel Saga continoues, whit more drivel.
      The Hockey man is without credibility what so ever, nada.
      The sole reson for Coals fall from Grace is The Nucklear Industry lobyings in the Early 80 and thru the 90 and they even managed to squize it in a “green” envirioument mindsett.
      All the Ladys and Gentlemen was done by Building a Political Consensus. That PC is becomed a Religion, where the Inqisitores always make shure the Arageddonistas are in the Lime light.
      The scaremongering is by it self a Billion dollar cirkus.
      Cap and trade.

      And when I try to tell people that for 3500 years ago, the wolrd was considarably warmer than to day, and the Sea Level was apox 13.5 meters Above present level, and even the fu.. polarbears is Still alive, why didnt they Boila away then.
      CO2 is the Key.
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

      The Carbonazis seven stages of denile:
      Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
      Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
      Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
      Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
      Stage 5: this is old stuff
      Stage 6: this is nothing
      Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

      Repeat as needed

      hehe
      Any sceem is bound by its own inertia, and based on fraud, its just a matter of time before the core is exposed, as always.
      They never learn.
      CO2 is infact Food, the trees breaths it in, breaths O2 out, and we suvive because of that, and breaths out CO2.
      And if someone is stil belive in the “dangers” of CO2, look down in the gutter, by the interstate.
      What does it look like.
      Dying.
      huh
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119271/climategate-2-0-the-warmists-seven-stages-of-grief/

      wake up, and I have not a shaddow of dubt that we as Begins wil find a alternative energy source, i am not afraid of the Future, its…


      Report comment

  • Bobby1

    Fuku radiation itself is releasing heat into the atmosphere:

    http://enenews.com/govt-japanese-average-exposed-100-microsievertsyr-internal-radiation-fukushima-food-alone/comment-page-1#comment-153232

    This is also how the radiation found its way to the jet stream and the upper atmosphere which is much higher up. It generates bubbles of warm air that go up.


    Report comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      Fallout does indeed heat up the atmosphere. This they proved in the early 50s but didn’t tell everything…taken two steps fuRther, let’s say maybe those glorious upper stratospheric test shots blew a few holes in the ionosphere…

      The sun took the rap for skin cancer,
      WheN the cause may be
      Any number of fission products most notably Yttrium 90 evil daughter of Strontium 90

      Tobacco took the rap for lung cancer
      When uranium and plutonium were evident

      Now they race For the cure for Breast cancer 1 in 3 women
      And run right through the Cause

      When all risk is ASSessed, its all about the lawsuits, its all about the money

      Hansen is a pro nuker: a human depopulation through child specific genocide and a troll for the globalist carbon ponzi scheme cause

      WHAT IF…global warming is really caused by global fallout and damage to the Van Allen radiation belts

      Congress authorized the use of emerging technologies of weather modification in 1969. Did they discover they bLew it back then?


      Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    “The corrupt reporting of Fukushima radiation risks”

    “Nuclear authorities and the mainstream media have been actively minimising and trivialising the grave radiation dangers of the Fukushima disaster, says John LaForge.”

    http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/media-2/the-corrupt-reporting-of-fukushima-radiation-risks/


    Report comment

  • Whoopie Whoopie

    Knew it was coming
    BUSBY ATTACK:
    きましたね。RT @2525FEDis: Chris Busby and the Expensive Anti-Radiation Vitamins for Fukushima – Forbes http://onforb.es/sw79lK フォーブスもキタ
    15 minutes ago
    The Nuclear Industry will NOT go quietly in the night.


    Report comment

  • Grampybone Grampybone

    It is a stupid statement to say that nuclear and coal are our future energy. Nuclear can end our future altogether and coal puts enough mercury into the atmosphere for 1 in 6 people to have down syndrome. Either way we get more retards and weaker immune systems. It’s down right criminal to say radiation has no known deaths linked to it because no one has done the research. Plenty of people have done the work and the nuclear industry has worked twice as hard to shut everyone else up. Reminds me about the south park episode where everyone puts their head in the sand.


    Report comment

  • James Tekton James Tekton

    Howdy hey all,

    Who is james hansen they will say in the future?

    One of the first that were taken out and hung for his crimes against humanity!~


    Report comment

  • They don’t even have a solution for permanent storage/disposal of spent fuel rods. Nuclear Energy generates tons and tons of poisons from mining to reactor. Just a different type of pollution. There is a petrified tropical forest on a island close to the arctic circle. There is no reason to believe our present weather patterns are the norm for this planet. We know much of North America was covered in ice many years ago. Nuclear energy has its own set of problems that make it anything but clean or green. There is evidence right here in Vancouver that makes me believe this global warming/ grenhouse gas thing is a scam. “Carbon offset credits” our school system is paying to say they are carbon neutral is money being funneled away from schools to finance big business projects. If a company pollutes to make money why is taxpayer money earmarked for schools paying for clean-up projects/technology? Lowering pollution is a good thing but the power brokers have hijacked that too. George Orwell’s term “doublespeak comes to mind. But what are people really worried about? Christina Aguilera’s unflattering dress at the American Music Awards. God Bless


    Report comment

  • Nigwil

    James Hansen has given the world the best and most technically robust warnings about climate change and all it means for us. His focus on nuclear as a ‘solution’ is driven by his quite proper desire to have us move away from burning coal and oil and creating a climate that will destroy us.

    His advocacy of nuclear as a non CO2-emitting energy source is therefore technically understandable from that perspective, but he has consistently under-valued the risks of present day nuclear as typified by Fukushima, which is a shame. I think his is driven to this position as part of his very human need to offer the world some hope of Business a Usual.

    If he didn’t offer nukes as an energy source, then the alternative (and it is the only real alternative we have) is for us to spin down our overall energy use to about 10% of today’s by about 2020. To have people listen to his climate change message he has to offer us some hope. Nuclear was that hope, but Fukushima has taken that hope away, and we are now left with the stark choice. Drastically reduce energy use and its emissions, or trash the climate and all who live in it.


    Report comment

    • vivvi

      …except to say it isn’t true. Mining, processing, enriching, transporting etc of uranium ore produces every bit as much co2 as coal, maybe more. As usual, more LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES. The real agenda is to kill most of us and hog the planet for themselves.
      Personally I would rather have the co2, because anybody who was paying attention in school would have noticed that co2 is plant food, and the more you have, the better the plants will grow. Remember when you were younger how people were saying if the government could find a way to tax the air you breathe, they would do it? They found a way. Demonise carbon dioxide and tax the living daylights out of it. Scamming bastards.


      Report comment

  • Then Jimmy Hansen frames the question as nuclear or coal as if solar wind hydro don’t exist. Then he mentions the economy will suffer if USA doesn’t go nuclear. I don’t get it. USA has old reactors built on fault lines. It will cost a fortune to safely dismantle them and even more if there is an accident. The spent fuel is another issue that creative accounting hides.. The taxes G.E doesn’t pay and the Billions being sunk into Savanah MOX fuel project. USA has a chance to move forward with new technology or stay with nuclear and have even more used nuclear waste to deal with costing your sons and daughters down the road. Your an idiot or well paid shill, Jimmy


    Report comment

    • americancommntr

      Does there not have to be a Hell, into which people on the side of what is clearly evil, can be confined and kept so weak and busy as to never be able to inflict further evil, in Heaven or in the earth?


      Report comment

  • americancommntr

    Every once in a while, the camouflage fails, and for those watching, the extent of the world system of corruption tips itself off.

    For instance, this global warming guru advocating nuclear power, as the whole world suffers from a multiple meltdown, when just yesterday a nickel-hydrogen non-nuclear-radiation cold fusion technology made it into the news.

    Connect the dots and you see corruption at the highest levels of academia and industry working together to hold the current evil cartels in place.

    Another example of evil exposed is the state government of California making it legal for schools to administer a vaccine without parents’ consent, or even knowledge. The schools are made $400 per kid sales offices for vaccines, and the vaccines are designed to make girls sterile. How anyone can do this, in spite of the checks and balances, shows how utterly corrupted the entire system has become.

    Creation cries out for the Creator to come back.


    Report comment

    • americancommntr

      If you think about it long enough, and have the eyes to see the spiritual side of things, it becomes apparent that it is supernatural power holding all this together. People think they are not bad, but the truth is they are only good if Christ is in them. Otherwise they are spiritualy blinded and unable to discern things. So they are busy in their workaday world and home life, never seeing any responsibility or need to be involved. When the job and paycheck are threatened, if they do have any moral scruples, most people just sigh and do what they are told. The corporation says do your expected part in this evil or that evil, and don’t question, so they just do it. Spoiled rotten superrich people who consider themselves wise yet don’t believe in God, or have their own version of them who is okay with them, go about devising plans to save mankind, when all the while they are part of Satan’s plan to destroy the earth and wipe man out.


      Report comment

  • Grampybone Grampybone

    What happens when the radiation travels into the north pacific ice rim of the north pole? I’m sure hot particles melt ice and will cause just as much climate change as the power output of 6 coal fire plants. The recent hole over the south pole is also suspect to have been caused by radiation. My guess is that a lot of radiation is still trapped in the atmosphere and has not landed. 8 months of fission events would easily cause atmospheric damage. The catch is that no one has ever seen the effects of 4 nuclear reactors worth of radiation shoved into the clouds. The hot particles could be more damaging to climate than CFC’s and CO2 combined. Since there is no predicted outcome of this kind of event there is no measure of the damage to the atmosphere. The scientific community did not do any projections of hundreds of tons of fuel entering the skies. Well the government did do some projections, but won’t release them to the public. Most likely because it would “terrify” the people who are educated enough to read them.


    Report comment

    • americancommntr

      Good question. If there was a heavy enough blanket of fallout on a normally snow-covered area, it probably would melt snow or ice. If Fukushima was not strong enough to do this, an event like a catastrophic solar flare or large asteroid hit probably could. How many nuclear power plants and spent fuel pools would melt down in the event of an EMP over a large part of the earth? Has anyone ever studied this? Is there some group of government or military scientists somewhere who have given this serious consideration, or just talked about it between meetings, coffee, and doughnuts? And would the owners of the nuclear industry even let them do anything with the results of such a study, or let them take necessary action?

      Incidentally, you may know, the book of Revelation talks of two such events, one of a star falling from Heaven, another of a mountain falling into the sea.


      Report comment

      • James Tekton James Tekton

        Thanks AC for the good input,

        You said,

        “Has anyone ever studied this? Is there some group of government or military scientists somewhere who have given this serious consideration, or just talked about it between meetings, coffee, and doughnuts?”

        Oh yes. They have and the plan is going well so far. The elitists that are at the top of the octopi-vampire bankster empire that profits from all the doom and death have long discussed this outcome and yes, after a EMP, maybe a few, all hell will break loose. Those starving zombie and mutation people movies that everyone has seen will not be to far off after the complete breakdown of the human civilization happens.

        Then the comet(s) will hit.

        All well discussed of course.


        Report comment

  • Net

    James Hansen = Jack A$$ Moron
    There is no SAFE nuclear power! The waste is dangerous and the chance of accidents and power outages are just not worth it. How come people think that nuclear power is good? The risks are too great!


    Report comment

  • Mack Mack

    Coal vs. Nuclear is one of those red herring arguments.

    It doesn’t have to be coal or nuclear.

    It’s so simple…

    Nuclear energy usage in the U.S. is only 8.35% consumed at source.

    We could easily conserve 8.35% of energy and close down all nuclear power plants and then there’d be no need to replace it with coal.


    Report comment

  • Ron

    Contrary to what many are saying here James Hansen in neither evil nor a scumbag. The science of climate change is very real and the facts are that the earth is indeed warming and rapidly. One only has to look at the many “then” and “now” pictures of glaciers, called repeat photography, to know its true.

    There are three major voices in environmentalism today that are pro-nuke. James Hansen, James Lovelock and George Monbiot. However the great majority of environmentalists are opposed to it and have been since the beginning.

    My feeling is that these three are so worried about climate change, (for good reason), that they are willing to gamble on the empty promises of the nuke industry. They believe that there is no other way. Most others, myself included, believe that they are wrong on this point and are short changing alternative energies.

    It’s sad that if you look at the history of alternative energies what you find is that though we’ve known about it for decades the Republicans, ever in bed with Big Dirty Energy, has done every thing in it’s power to trip it up. Even up to Reagan removing the solar panels on the White House roof, a symbol of his opposition to clean energy. Meanwhile congress has given Dirty Energy billions of dollars in taxpayer funded subsidies, as if they need the money.

    Yet even with this alternatives are growing. The solution today is simple. The entire world needs to be outfitted with every alternative energy source it can be FIRST. In developed countries this could be paid for simply by diverting money from the war machine (about $1,000,000,000,000 a yr currently in the US), When that is done and if everyone is still not covered then dirty energy can take up the slack. This would take the pressure off in so many ways. It would drastically reduce GHG emissions. It would drastically reduce our dependency on foreign oil (and oil wars). It would put off the effects of peak oil until well into the future.

    We do NOT need,…


    Report comment

  • Ron

    To finish my last sentence, we don NOT need, NOR want nuclear power.


    Report comment

  • jimbojamesiv

    At least now I know that Hansen is not credible.


    Report comment