TV: Huge increase in US Navy sailors suffering injury after Fukushima exposure — Gov’t reports show USS Reagan went directly into most intense area of plume just as radioactive releases hit peak — Over 20 trillion becquerels coming from plant every second — “We’re now beginning to see the real data” (VIDEO)

Published: October 2nd, 2014 at 2:53 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
882 comments


Interview with Charles Bonner, Esq., representing US Navy sailors exposed to Fukushima radioactive releases, Sept. 25, 2014: “These kinds of illnesses… are characteristic of people who’ve been exposed to radiation… We’ve seen them at Chernobyl, they are not difficult to prove… We know Tepco… misrepresented the levels of radiation these sailors were exposed to… The number is more than 110… we now have 225 injured sailors — 21, 22, 23, 25-year-olds. A population that you don’t usually find cancers such as leukemia, testicular cancers, uterine cancers, thyroid cancers. We also have cancers so rare only 0.001% of people have experienced it. Yet we know that radiation causes these kinds of cancers… Information that initially came out was totally incorrect… We’re now beginning to see the real data that’s revealing the exact kind of exposures — the kind of toxic soup — that these sailors were literally sailing through for days.”

The maps on the left indicate the location of the USS Ronald Reagan (‘R’) provided by the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (pdf) for an 8-hour period on March 13, 2011. Images of the radioactive plume’s position were produced by the U.S. Navy Research Lab. The chart on the right is adapted from a report by the IRSN, France’s radiation safety agency (pdf), and “represents the release rate of iodine and caesium… for the three reactors.”

Watch Bonner’s interview here

Published: October 2nd, 2014 at 2:53 am ET
By
Email Article Email Article
882 comments

Related Posts

  1. Fox Host: I wasn’t aware sickness among Navy sailors was so widespread after Fukushima; Experts say dangerous radioactive releases to air and ocean — Tepco didn’t give U.S. radiation data for 3 to 4 days (VIDEOS) December 20, 2013
  2. Officials reveal about 2 Trillion becquerels of Fukushima radioactive material flowed into ocean every month during 2013 — “Deadly strontium” releases now more than double cesium — “Strontium gets into your bones… it changes the equation” (VIDEO) August 29, 2014
  3. VIDEO: Significant amounts of Fukushima radiation detected on west coast — Nuclear Expert: Levels are 30 times worse than predicted… “and it’s just the beginning of the onslaught”; Scientists have no clue about what’s coming, their real goal was downplaying damage to Pacific May 9, 2015
  4. Gundersen on WHO: I don’t trust their data — Garbage in, garbage out — I suspect hot particles and internal emitters are omitted, and radioactive releases underestimated November 25, 2012
  5. Hearst Newspaper: Bad news, Fukushima radioactive releases may be “far greater than originally stated” — Bloomberg: Levels ‘significantly’ undercounted — Fairewinds: Data they reported for nearly 3 years is wrong — Asahi Interview: “Politicians are hiding the dangers of radiation” (VIDEO) February 28, 2014

882 comments to TV: Huge increase in US Navy sailors suffering injury after Fukushima exposure — Gov’t reports show USS Reagan went directly into most intense area of plume just as radioactive releases hit peak — Over 20 trillion becquerels coming from plant every second — “We’re now beginning to see the real data” (VIDEO)

  • Jebus Jebus

    I had seen where our resident gnome stated that there were no acute symptoms from the Reagan crew….

    Radio: US Navy sailors had radioactive snow ball fights off Fukushima — Crew “pretty well toast” after weeks on Pacific… significant cancers, incessant bleeding from anus or vagina, blindness — Debris from USS Reagan sent to Hanford nuclear waste site.

    http://enenews.com/radio-u-s-navy-sailors-were-havinng-snow-ball-fights-on-deck-using-radioactive-snow-off-fukushima-crew-was-pretty-well-toast-by-time-they-came-into-port-contaminated-debris-off-uss-reagan

    Answers the why without any other reason needed.

    The US Military effed up very much, in a nuclear way…

    The Japanese government lied, true.

    US nuclear emergency crew, had boots on the ground in situ.

    The US Military can see any ant it wants to, brushing it's teeth with it's antennae, from space, any other time, but this time?

    The US CHOSE to remain silent. As the rest of the nuclear world.

    The silence is deafening…


    Report comment

  • I'm finding it hard to read this sailor's early account when it was all a guessing game for the crew members. 3-29-11 Very poignant to be inside his or her mind while it was happening. Wonder if that sailor's still alive or possibly being represented in the lawsuit.
    http://rense.com/general93/crew.htm

    I found many articles via doing this google search–> USS Ronald Reagan site:rense.com


    Report comment

  • StarMouse StarMouse

    I feel for the sailors. I hope someone helps them. I have no science skills beyond that of medical. So can someone say how much these sailors where exposed to with in a two day period? I have lurked here for years, appreciate so many of you and Enenews!


    Report comment

    • Welcome thar lurking Mouse!

      When the nuclear powered ships cannot do not release data on the exposure you know it was major high. I don't know of any data that shows actual release.


      Report comment

      • StarMouse StarMouse

        Hello Stock and thank you so much for the welcome! I have read here and still feel stupid, your information is so helpful. I never thought about the exposure from Chernobyl until about a yr half ago, as I got sicker supposedly from fibromyalgia. I had to have a hysterectomy after coming back from Europe as well. About ten yrs or so ago I started having issues. I went to college so I could finally have a life of my own outside my home and children, only to be met with fatigue and pain:( You ppl here are so awesome, I understand more thn I did, but still so in the dark, I have spent many an hour in tears and prayer as my friends and family all have issues, cancer is rampant..all this makes me so sick n no one seems to care:(


        Report comment

        • PlowboyGrownUp

          Starmouse Just posting this in case it could be of help and if you are not familiar with Dr Mercola's articles:
          " Story at-a-glance

          Chronic Lyme disease is called the "great imitator" because it is often misdiagnosed as another condition such as Multiple Sclerosis, Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, or anxiety. Misdiagnosis is a common experience for patients with chronic Lyme disease and treatments that work for these other illnesses are not appropriate for treating Lyme disease. "
          http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/26/under-our-skin-lyme-disease.aspx

          http://search.mercola.com/results.aspx?q=lyme%20disease


          Report comment

          • StarMouse StarMouse

            I took the tests for Lyme but they where negative, they say it is fibro n RA….I think they just do not know. Thank you for the information will look it over! Also no explanation why we take vitamins and eat the right foods, but intestines will not absorb vitamins, no answers :(


            Report comment

          • Ya, misdiagnosis is so rampant now. It will get worse with Gov mandated health care.

            I had a friend "diagnosed" wit Neuropathy. I researched it and advised him….that is not a diagnosis, it is an open admission that "we have no idea what the eff is going on, there is something wrong with your nerves or something"

            Must push your med practiioners, show knowledge, and yet not insult their larger than life egos (sorry Doctors, some of you folks are just as bad ego wise as nukers)


            Report comment

    • Sickputer

      Hi StarMouse! Great first post… Try it a few more times and it gets easier. I do most of my posts from a smart phone because although it is slower to organize a reply I can relax and feel a bit like Paul Revere sending out the alert of nuclear crisis. :-)

      The levels of radiation and types are state secrets (Japanese and Americans). They release whatever truth in data they wish to achieve their goal (which is to stay employed by their higher bosses mainly).

      Still, we can look at types of radiation and timing based on those first 2 weeks. Basically enormous clouds of radioactive noble gases, radiodines and the toxic top 100 raft of long-lived isotopes. The Unit 3 blast in particular unleashed atmospheric microparticles of plutonium and uranium which was probably the longterm 40-year death sentence for the 15,000 sailors in the carrier group. Not too many of those sailors will get to hit 80 or 90. Some will die sooner like Theodore Holcomb. The rest will trickle along.

      They spent ten days scrubbing the decks with the fire suppressing foam systems, certainly on all the ships, but we only have photos from the Reagan. No protective gear to speak of, so that group will be of particular statistical interest over the next 5-10 years.

      Don't forget all the sailors in Yokohama Bay in various ships. Their families scrambled to fly out when the big MOX clouds pushed southwest across Honshu, but the ships couldn't leave as quickly. Yes, the swabbies were in harms way.


      Report comment

  • AirSepTech AirSepTech

    A carrier is never alone, it is with a group.
    10,000-15,000 sailors.
    You can read between the lines whatever you want to imagine, the USN will never admit to this 'incident', just downplay it.
    There is a full on nuclear engineering laboratory onboard, they are testing, verifying, everything. There is extensive drilling on prep and survival of a close nuclear hit.
    Believing they did not know what was going on is like believing in the tooth fairy.


    Report comment

    • melting mermaid melting mermaid

      So you think the navy used their own men as labrats? I think they must use psyops on all their young men. I wish the navy would wake up and defend the constitution against the corporations. Defend the innocents instead of their cruel greedy masters. The nuclear military industrial complex is our greatest existential threat to mankind as far as I am concerned. Unrestrained capitalism backed by industrial technocratic violence will be the death of all of us.


      Report comment

  • And they just barely touched the edge of the plume, from the looks of the "maps on the left"…


    Report comment

  • Aloha, I bet there are hundreds of lurkers reading these comments today, as they have done for a year or two or three.

    Try your first comment here today. I lurked at a stock trading site for years and then finally became a participant. I am not a shy person but I was very shy of placing that first comment, not really sure why.

    Place your first comment. We are legion, even more so when we are not anonymous. The lying trolls must remain anonymous.

    Join us in shutting down nuke


    Report comment

  • Wolffish

    As far as the exposure goes for our military and civilian personnel, all you have to do is study history. Military and civilian personnel have always been used as guinea pigs for testing and experimental treatments. The most blatant was atomic testing in the early days of the atomic age, where the government was testing over water they had personnel on ships close to the detonation site. If on land they had them in foxhole close to detonation site with orders to rush toward the explosion site after the blast blew by. This way they could test effects and treatment on hundreds or thousands of people.
    As far as recent, the government ordered the aircraft carrier into the most contaminated area with 3,000 sailors on board, and 3,000 personnel into the ebola areas.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    Houston, we have a problem……

    …..peaceniks are destroying the planet with their insane antinuke beliefs…….

    Try this:

    Prove that Tritium is harmless. (THAT is a belief, non-scientific drivel of a LIE fed to us all by those who engage in nuclear endeavors)

    I await the exalted one's response.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    Another thing…

    FC, what is with the amazon links to books? Unless you clip quotes folks can't always read what you are referring to.

    Over the years it has evolved that web-links to score/reinforce a point are best when the reader
    can quickly verify the info.

    To just paste up a book title doesn't cut it these days.

    Try harder, friend.


    Report comment

  • Dick Shenary

    FactChucker – you asked me a direct question and I will give you my answer. FC – "Depends on your skill set, but if you were given a choice between working and not working, if it meant working in nuclear, you would work." Answer – Absolutely Not. I am an electronic engineer who has refused his whole life to work for the agents of war and destruction (most companies in the Military Industrial Complex). I wish you could say the same. In fact, if way more humans refused to work for or support the MIC, the world would not be in such a crisis. But the exact question you pose is: is it better to be unemployed or employed by an industry of fleeting power and long term death? I will take the former over the latter any day and thank you for asking.


    Report comment

  • wetpwcas1 wetpwcas1

    The cost of a training one person to become experts in their job is very high, yet they have laid those aside as they weaken our military to enlist illegals who are there for a 3 hot's & a cot. Get rid of the best & what is left those that will obey orders that those now dead or to sick to be of any use against illegal orders to fire on US populations when the crash hits or worse as Ebola is running wild. Only sick minds dream up such plans & carry them out & yes they are being carried out daily, all by design. Take out the only officers who would stand in their way & the personal who would back them, hire & arm private armies(Para-military-Police Force), Black Water & who knows who else & what has come up from Mexico?
    I would call this out right murder from the top of the owners of the nuke industry, all by design as they destroy all the world with this so called safe, clean & cheap energy source! Dictatorship is alive & well, as O & his bunch kiss the feet of their masters in the banking cartel. Make what ever laws you want & the hell with the people & their Constitution!


    Report comment

  • Dick Shenary

    One more thing FactChucker – Do you remember posting a comment to the effect that you are here to raise the level of technical discourse. In light of that statement, please explain this post of yours.

    "Yes and wear a baja hoodie, camp out, go protest a nuclear plant somewhere, sing Kumbaya. Oh thats a great way to further the human race. Dont forget to bathe and brush your teeth on the way to the rally. Free bananas for everyone."

    With such technical flourishes as these, we are in awe of your brilliance.


    Report comment

  • Betcha he hates that we have geiger counters and easily know when our background readings escalate. I'm 10 miles from the Canadian border. A neighbor talks with the hwy border patrols that drive our town back roads frequently. Unofficial word from one regular, is that when the crossing inspectors check the truck/trailer loads going across these days, their equipment doesn't always function quite as what they expected to see, since they are familiar with years of reading patterns and used to knowing who, what to pull over for inspection. Apparently are getting more erratic or seemingly *false readings* this year at times when load is actually OK.

    One neighbor hauls legal ore loads every week to a company this side of the border. He's been held up twice recently waiting for hours because of high counts on his truck and load while the border station called USA feds back east who finally gave local inspectors the permission to let him pass into WA. Something a little fishy with needing to wait hours for the feds to OK him & his odd load readings? Interesting.


    Report comment

  • Nick

    Dick S.

    Careful.. .. he who shall not be named is in awe of his own professed brilliance.

    At any rate, so be it.

    The USS-RR sailors have gotten tossed aside by our government.

    Their story will become a chilling reminder to us all about the evils of our militarized world.


    Report comment

  • califnative califnative

    Brian Catt is MF/MoFo/Socref/factchucker and all other aka's but we should call him BDOF- Belligerent Deranged Old Fart. Thanks to some folks here, below is the shill/troll internet information that's open to the public. Note he doesn't have a Ph.D which is why he's available for money.

    It would be best to start ignoring every antagonizing comment he makes, there is no reasoning with a deranged, nonhuman robot. Would also help to start reporting his comments to get the admins attention.

    If you feel the need to respond, throw stupid questions at him and watch the melt down unfold. http://www.wattpad.com/20312947-random-funny-and-stupid-questions-to-ask-people

    Brian Catt
    International B2B Business DeveloperBrian
    Catt@catandman
    Physicist, Tech Businessman, semi retired but available for money. Teaching science for fun. Campaigning against green energy fraud threatening our economy.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pub/brian-catt/0/72/58
    https://www.facebook.com/brian.catt.37?fref=nf
    https://twitter.com/catandman/media

    BDOF this link is for you – What is a Ph.D.?http://www.phdproject.org/downloads/What_is_a_PhD.pdf


    Report comment

  • "investigation also tested radiation levels, which measured at expected background levels and posed no demonstrable threat" http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/japan/ig-report-finds-health-hazards-in-japan-base-housing-questions-pentagon-policy-1.306126

    For anyone who had missed the article re the RIMPAC war games exercise near Hawaii which ended in early August
    http://www.stripes.com/news/navy/23-nations-heading-to-hawaii-for-rimpac-as-exercise-details-emerge-1.280572

    My ex-yardwork helper was home for brief leave after the USS Reagan finished the exercise. He mentioned his/the Reagan's next regular duty assignment was back to the seas off eastern Japan, as far as he knew.


    Report comment

    • pinksailmatt pinksailmatt

      So…23 nations joining in and advertizing that they will be away from protecting what they should be protecting….shades of 911.


      Report comment

      • LOL, yeah. Guess really it's not too hard to spot where they are on the ocean though but neighbor kid did say they don't tell HIM everything after he joined, including that he'd be on the USS Reagan instead of what he put in for. (As if they really would have noted that one of his I want to see the world reasons for joining was "So I can see Antarctica, (request duty there)" Oh my, he's so young, sweet and naive. Hope nothing happens to him.

        Next news 'o the day> Woopsie! http://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-halts-nuclear-work-at-norfolk-shipyard-due-to-safety-violations-1.304952

        "Twice in the past month, shipyard workers improperly handled equipment that had been used to work on nuclear reactors, violating the Navy's strict rules for the handling of potentially contaminated materials. Shipyard leadership ordered the pause to study the problem and establish corrective actions, Cunningham said. He declined to say whether any workers had been disciplined.

        At least one former high-ranking Navy official, however, characterized a pause of this length as "a significant shutdown." A delay of even a few days in nuclear work could disrupt the Navy's maintenance schedule, which is already backlogged, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity."


        Report comment

  • aunavoz

    What a childish playground this site is.

    FactChecker I personally appreciate your efforts and fortitude to bring a second side here.

    Ultimately anti nukes have to find a way to work together with nuclear engineers. It's ridiculously naive to think otherwise. For the antinuke fanatics .. even if you shut down everything nuke .. you will still need nuclear experts to remediate the waste .. for eons.

    Or I suppose you could just get rid of the experts and Google how to do it.

    This website is more of a cult than meaningful discussion. As is any where only one party line is allowed.

    I will for one accept and learn from both sides.


    Report comment

    • Wow. So glad you showed up, LOL

      False arguments out of the gate, perfect…..

      "cult" yet you want to learn, that is convincing.

      Y'all should bring out alot of lurkers, thanks!


      Report comment

      • FactChecker

        I love the part about "just get rid of the experts and Google it"

        That seems to be the accepted form of learning these days.

        What false arguments?

        Shoe is on the other foot and you are feeling a little unnerved with more than one adversary. You should put it on "Before its News"

        I can just see the headline "Antinukes Loosing Grip on ENENEWS"


        Report comment

        • LOL ya it is the soc, another old reference

          soc made a threat to me personally, "i will expose you" unless you get Before Its News to remove the story you made it print,

          Hilarious!

          If your got game, bring it, soc


          Report comment

          • FactChecker

            No sir, I just know you like to put stuff on "Before its News". Its one of your patterns. It has nothing to do with this soc person you are constantly referring to. Was this some big counterintelligence campaign on your part? To cyberstalk? Seems like you and the old bat were trying to do with pinning me to Brian Catt.

            I'll clue you in on somethings:

            I drive on the right hand side of the road.
            I call soccer soccer.
            I have good toes, but can not feel them.

            All these clues will tell you I am not British, and I do not run.

            So how in the heck are you trying to still play the "lets ID the troll" game.

            BTW – Go see the movie "Boxtrolls" and really learn who the real villains are in life.

            Perception is not reality.

            There is no spoon.

            And you still cant hang with the big dog. Its ok you can have your little nuke pro site and preach to the Great Unwashed.


            Report comment

            • LOL thanks soc, have a good night. buy you a maitai in Hawaii if you think you can win an argument.


              Report comment

            • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

              Typical nuclear arrogance and hubris. The reason the earth is being totally destroyed by the nuclear industry.


              Report comment

              • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                Vanne, there is no real evidence this effect has manifested. There is no real evidence that any single cancer has been caused by low level radiation. But there is evidence that radiation does cause cancer. The question then becomes, can science show the definitive amount of radiation that results in a cancer? First comes the epidemiology yet even that aspect has bias depending on which way the wind blows.


                Report comment

                • danger kitty danger kitty

                  ManBearPig- Oh my! Ya know FC, I was just speculating about a species change for you, not reqesting one. A clinical psychologist yet! That just happens to post repeatedly on THIS thread.
                  You are here for one reason and one reason only: to deflect attention from the latest thread. You know the one- about Fukushima being recognized as a global threat?


                  Report comment

                  • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                    I do not understand your reference to species change. I am human.

                    I also did not say I was a clinical psychologist. Why did you assume that profession for me. I didn't even say I was a professional anything. For all you know, I could be a plumber.

                    You and I can have an intelligent, civil conversation. Lets try ok?


                    Report comment

                • danger kitty danger kitty

                  ManBearPig- Oh my! Ya know FC, I was just speculating about a species change for you, not reqesting one. A clinical psychologist yet! That just happens to post repeatedly on THIS thread.
                  You are here for one reason and one reason only: to deflect attention from the latest thread. You know the one- about Fukushima being recognized as a global threat?
                  See ya there.


                  Report comment

                • mutante mutante

                  ManPigGlair, you know you're a big piece of shit, don't you?


                  Report comment

            • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

              It appears his past exposure too radiation has now made him unable too walk and it sounds based on the description above like he is now an invalid.

              Just another reason that he should really quit his job, but alas, I am afraid he may be locked in or trapped in his job because of income needs.

              Not a good place to be..forced into doing something so wrong and so harmful too so many others. :)


              Report comment

            • StarMouse StarMouse

              Well instead of feuding, how about tell me and us here WHY nuclear is such a great idea, and state it next to the photos of the harmed. I am asking sincerely. There is a lot a lot of bad, Nast and harsh chemicals, people lie for a buck, un-cleaned water no one can ever drink, land no one alive today can use, I am asking you whom say you want so badly to make a point and to discuss to explain, while the ocean dies, why do I need or want nuclear anything when there is safer and better options? For this discussion and for respect let us leave the nuclear side of the military out of it. Also is there an organization to help these men and women? That can be gifted to?


              Report comment

              • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                Ok point me to photos of those that were harmed.

                Here I will start.

                These are pictures of people with acute radiation sickness. Some are from the Atomic Bomb, some from Chernobyl, some from other means (maybe medical gone wrong)

                https://www.google.com/search?q=acute+radiation+syndrome&espv=2&biw=1008&bih=504&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=aRI2VP3FFcqpyAThkILoDw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=isch&q=radiation+sickness+acute

                I can not offer anything other than my hope that people understand real radiation risks from large acute radiation.

                To extrapolate these horrific effects to those from "well I could be breathing in something here in Florida from something from Fukushima" really does not do these people justice. In fact, it trivializes their plight.

                I feel for them.

                If you believe your or any specific person's cancer is caused from Fukushima, or any nuclear power plant, I would recommend you seek out a lawyer that can litigate on your behalf. I won't say you will have an uphill battle, but someone on this forum, I believe a lawyer, has advised you that damages from low level radiation is very difficult to prove in a court of law. You might get some compensation, which is good for you. However that will not assuage you in your crusade.


                Report comment

                • You did not answer the question. Tell us here WHY nuclear is such a great idea. Tell us how you will prevent a mishap. Tell us why it is a good and safe idea to place nuclear reactors on fault lines, flood zones, tornado alleys, and coastal areas subject to typhoons. If they are so safe, show us the proof!

                  What did Madam Curie die of again?


                  Report comment

              • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                I am not a slave to extreme thinking. I do not believe the ocean is dying as you say. Mother Earth is very resilient. There is nothing humans can do that can hurt the planet in the grand scheme of things. There are things humans can do that can in the long run, hurt them and possibly remove them from the planet. But the planet will go on with or without humans. Nature knows the score.


                Report comment

                • "Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth…"

                  "Denial is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred [like TRIPLE MELTDOWNS] or is currently occurring."

                  "…while victims of traumatic events may deny that the event ever occurred."
                  (like Fukushima)

                  http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_3.htm

                  "…postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.."

                  see also:
                  minimisation:
                  admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial


                  Report comment

        • Un-nerved, quaking with fear, biting off fingernails, desperately covering computer screen and duct taping it shut! OMG!!!!! What if my whole lifetime of research and activism is neutralized by the the omnipotent shill!!!!

          :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

          (Sorry, carry on folks)
          :)


          Report comment

        • You should go through the threads for the past few weeks ad see how many times you and your aliases suggested we Google information to support your view. When I did Google the information, it contradicted everything you had to say. Only a bot, masochist, shill or NPD could take such a beating and continue to come back spewing more nonsense.

          Another thing, nuclear opponent is the proper terminology. Anti nuke? We are far more literate than to use the term anti-nuke to describe the movement. Do you call yourself a pro-nuker? Do you and your minions have little parades advertising, "I am pro-nuke and proud of it?" as you all hobble down the street with your eight arms and three ears growing off your asses?

          I really, really, really hope your boss reads this site and fire your ass for being the most pathetic excuse of a troll. You give the industry a bad name.

          I am not sure why you haven't been banned. Maybe it's because ad revenue must be going through the hoof with all of the page visits your presence has brought. Maybe you have kidnapped Admin, holding him hostage until he answers your inane question, "Is this a news aggregator or a anti-nuclear site?" or whatever it os that you are writing. I skim through it; it's redundant. So are my responses to you, I suppose, but at least people coming here for the first time will get a better idea of the face of the nuclear lobby.


          Report comment

          • Sickputer

            + 311 :-) KAT (Two-time winner in one day…or session) :-)

            Perhaps he IS the boss? >;->

            Or perhaps they give out blogging homework now at their facility,

            Banning is for rude behavior. Is there a rule against multiple accounts? No… How would Admin know how many people in a household or business use the same router (with one IP number)?

            Multiple shill attacks are best handled by the users. I saw this 500 times on Usenet in the 90s. Superior intellects detect the ploys. There were no personal domain websites with 500k hits in the early 1990s like this poster so blithely embellished his first day posting credentials.

            Hell, we were all on dialup except for a few lucky direct connected places with big budgets. Most people never hit a WWW site until 1995-96 at the earliest. I was ftping and accessing computer sites with Linux commands during most of 1990-1994.

            Little clues trip up big lies. Then it's time to ignore the latest reincarnation of the disrupter. As Arnold might have said: "He'll be back." With a different username. Be ready. In the old days people did not post on a listserv until they had lurked for the customary six months. New posters at Enenews need not lurk that long, but they rarely show up and agressively post 25 times the first day. If they do, then they had an agenda.


            Report comment

    • FactChecker

      OMG. You mean there are more people who feel as I do?

      You know you gave aid and comfort to the enemy, it could get you banned.

      Or worse, you could be the target of a massive sleuthing and counter intelligence campaign so that your real identity is exposed to these "fanatics"

      Thanks for your support.

      I mean people no harm, but hey if they bite me, I will bite back.

      We can all learn to get along, but some antinukes are so lost in their conspiracy and distaste of government that they refuse to listen to reason or support.

      I learn too as well. It makes me want to do my job better. And I hone my debate skills in the face of tremendous acrimony, hatred, and threats.

      Its ok Im a big boy and can take it from a small group of extremists. Unless they chop my head off. :)


      Report comment

      • @fact, please consider some couseling, I mean getting some, not providing it. RAFLMAO


        Report comment

      • aunavoz

        @ factchecker .. been there done that. Have already been labeled a troll and have had some of the same bullying.

        Just been a while since I stepped into the lions den.

        Like I said .. if you don't drink the same Koolaid as the doomers here .. well good luck.

        It isn't a legitimate news aggregate. It is an ambulance chaser orchestrating a free meal. A legitimate aggregate would present news from both sides .. ene NEVER does.

        If you want to challenge the only way you will succeed is to wear a tinfoil hat and talk about the world ending and how the Illuminati run things (that will win VanneV over) and throw in some shit about chemtrails and ufos.

        The folks here are so dug in that Fuku and nuclear being an ELE that they would push a red button to end it themselves rather than admit compromise.

        It really is radically all or nothing to them.

        Sorry to say .. some are quite intelligent and well meaning.

        But they will beat the shit out of you to defend this playground.

        I have often wondered what would happen if they actually put that effort into some legitimate activism.


        Report comment

        • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

          I don't think the illuminati run every thing. It is obvious that they don't.


          Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          @aunavoz and factchecker…

          Do you take your stance based on fact, or simply throw around belief? Here is one quantified Fukushima radioactive inventory;

          2,586E+21 Bq total fukushima inventory

          How much of this will eventually get into the environment, and how much of it is in the environment already? If you dont agree with Strohm, why not give your own quantitative assessment? Isnt that what you pride yourself on? Fact?

          Thus far Ive heard only one argument from your camp; "since you cant prove a causative link of fukushima radiation to illness, therefor there is none" Is that the best logic and fact you can come up with to support your accusation that concerned citizens are lunatics, morons and addicted to fear?

          To understand why some of us are incensed, consider this analogy; Several men are shooting random bullets (different sources of pollution) into a crowd of people. You ask them to stop but they argue that you cant prove whos bullet caused a wound, thus every man claims he has killed nobody.

          Now you cant argue that plutonium, cesium and strontium arent deadly given enough exposure. In fact they are a lot like microscopic bullets…and you cant argue that a lot of it isnt being discharged into the environment. …So how do you feel about these guys shooting bullets into the crowd, who are calling you a moron for being concerned?

          http://www.eurosafe-forum.org/userfiles/2_1_%20paper_Radioact%20inventory%20Fukushima_Pretzsch_19102011.pdf


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            Can you argue that radiation is not harmful in the quantities released?

            In 1949, in the wake of the disturbing new results from animal testing, the Tripartite Permissible Dose Conference set a strict standard: they agreed that the maximum body burden for plutonium should be 0.1 microgram

            Thats some toxic stuff you are calling safe and people fringe lunatics for being concerned about! And its not that theres just a small bit of it. Thats the thing, if you want to argue with facts, lay it on the table; give us your estimate of the quantity of Americium and Plutonium and all the others that you believe is in the environment. Everybody knows its enough toxin, should it be ingested or in close proximity, to cause illness and death to millions of organisms of one kind or another. The tests are in! Animals are getting wiped out and 1000 square miles or more are no longer inhabitable.

            Here is the "true" statement; anyone that thinks thats OK is a lunatic, a moron, a psychopath, and everyone who thinks its not OK is rightfully concerned.


            Report comment

          • FactChecker

            CS,

            You said "since you cant prove a causative link of fukushima radiation to illness, therefor there is none"

            This I have never said. On the other hand, "because you cant prove a causative link, therefore there are a million".

            Correlation is not causation.

            We have to remember the best science and engineering can not put Humpty Dumpty back together, however in this case, the plant design was pretty robust such that the WHO can come out and state there are no expected radiation related deaths in the near term and in the long term, the radiation effects (stochastic) would be within the fluctuation (one or two standard deviations) of a large scale population that would receive a cancer.

            No one said this risk assessment is an exact science, and to prove otherwise would be so subjective that no one person could come up with the smoking gun theory. Not anyone from your camp, living or dead (Gofman).

            While the presence of people that have an opposing view to the majority here may be considered anathema, I do remind you that this ENE is open to all.


            Report comment

          • danger kitty danger kitty

            CodeShutdown— You rock!!!
            Your analogy about bullets shot into a crowd was perfect: no 'PhD' required to understand it.
            What was really hilarious was when FC cited WHO as an authority for the delusion/lie that there have been ' no deaths at Fukushima from radiation'. HE SPELLED IT WRONG! Its not WHO, its HO. Owned by IAEA. Ho can't speak a word not approved by IAEA. By contract decades ago.
            IAEA the pimp, WHO the HO.
            WHO NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE.

            √ fact checked


            Report comment

        • aunavoz

          Any other questions?

          Good luck trying ..

          The only ray of hope is that as these folks make their views more and more small minded and mean .. and radically one sided ..

          The smaller and less interested their long term fellowship becomes.

          The vast audience of normal day to day working folks don't have time for or inclination for this kind of drama.

          And the vast majority of the writers here do nothing but blab on a site .. with zero activism that counts ..

          Mostly totally worthless circle jerking ..

          Or bullshit meanness.


          Report comment

          • danger kitty danger kitty

            aunavoz- the drama queen appears to be you. Ya think the shrillest, most hysterical voice rules? Seen your kind before…


            Report comment

            • califnative califnative

              yes, we don't like you, you won't go away so it's come to making fun of you as a last resort. Your not taken seriously, there's no respect and it's quite clear you are a belligerent, unstable, narcissistic man who's craves attention even if it's hateful. You bring out the worst in people.

              I can't help but think when you exit this world, as we all will, that it's said everyone will experience the emotional pain of all the people they intentionally hurt in this world, you FC will have a lot of people waiting for you on the other side. Fortunately there is unconditional love waiting for you as well.


              Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              for my part, I dont dislike FC and aunavoz, MoFo and the others as a principle. Rather they astound me. Like Charles Manson, they show no remorse and believe in the correctness of their criminal insanity. They have no remorse that thousands of miles of land are uninhabitable and animals are being born with small brains and defects. Dislike is something you might feel for an obnoxious neighbor.


              Report comment

              • califnative califnative

                CS true. Enough is enough, I'm done feeding the troll.


                Report comment

              • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                Maybe to them, it is not criminal. Maybe to them, it is the exact opposite as you describe. Try putting yourself in someone's shoes who has great responsibility for safety. It could be a surgeon, a chemical plant operator, or a lawyer. It could be the bus driver who has a bus load of screaming kids. In the end, people will advance their cause they feel is just.


                Report comment

                • MBP,

                  In the face of all evidence to the contrary?

                  Aren't you new around here?


                  Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  I follow your thinking ManBearPig, but it isnt enough. Read about the mercury poisoning of Japan, how the big business and government suppressed the information, how the people suffered. Its one thing to have responsibility, like a ship captain in rough waters, its another to secure nuclear with tax money, with no way to deal with its deadly cargo, all the while downplaying its known dangers.

                  How can you possibly, possibly feel it is just to have several thousand square miles uninhabitable, with the toxins spreading far and wide, enough to kill off a planet, using known quantification of toxicity? How can you dream this is responsible or safe? Listen to yourself, what are you saying!?


                  Report comment

          • aunavoz

            Here is my suggestion to the immature playground bullying ..

            Could admin at least confirm that the participants are at least 12 years old?

            My junior high students have more on you bozos.


            Report comment

            • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

              aunavoz; "my junior high students have more on you bozos." Is that the name calling you think they would use? Your 12 year old would say of ENEnews; totally worthless circle jerking, or would they be too mature?

              And what exactly did you bring to the table besides that name calling?


              Report comment

              • aunavoz

                Hi Code .. would my junior high students understand a circle jerk .. no .. but they do and should understand bullying.

                Are my kids over 16 aware of what the urban translation of a circle jerk is .. yes. Hella yes.

                Would they waste time defending against a circle jerk mentality .. especially when their rights and opinions are trashed by a crowd determined to shame them .. hella no.

                Would their parents support their exposure to that kind of discussion.

                Hella no.

                Would their parents themselves want to participate or read such one sided rhetoric .. especially if it exposed them to the bullshit of having to defend themselves against the vitriol here ..

                Hella no.

                Keep it up .. you are killing your cause here.

                Hopefully saner minds will take over your cause someday


                Report comment

                • aunavoz

                  Your kind your ranks are doomed to fail.


                  Report comment

                  • aunavoz

                    Regardless of right. They will find another venue than this.


                    Report comment

                  • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                    @aunavoz, Yes, but when you kill off all of us with nuclear energy and weapons, you will have killed off yourselves as well. Humans are doomed to their own failure. Sad, because we are supposed to be endowed with consciousness of our actions. But radiation has destroyed parts of the brain of many people. There are so many mental defects now because of radiation. Humans are doomed to kill themselves on a grand scale now that there are weapons of mass destruction. The human genome has suffered irreparable damage.


                    Report comment

                • @ anusvoz

                  You are done, toast, put in a fork in ya, carbon date ya. You have brought nothing to the table. You add no value, except lurker pull out.

                  2 million website hits last month.

                  That is a lot of education.


                  Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  aunavoz, your sane friends will have to come to terms with several complete meltdowns/explosions and some 3000 + Hiroshima bombs of fallout and scientists reporting loss of plant and animal life across Japan with nearly half the life in a wide area showing deformity. Im trying to explain to you why the posters have some anger toward your camp. We didnt do anything to you, its you and your nuke palls that did something to us. …like my friend who died of sudden inexplicable leukemia that will never be pinned on Fukushima but coincided nevertheless with emissions that are KNOWN to cause it…


                  Report comment

                  • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                    This is what I do not understand and maybe you can help me understand. As I understand, the Hiroshima victims were primarily affected by heat, shock, and blast waves. Hiroshima radiation was spread out, however the 100 kg of uranium would not have as great a radiation impact as say a full core nuclear reactor meltdown. To me, trying to tie the radiation effects of a nuclear weapon with a full core meltdown doesn't jibe.


                    Report comment

                    • @MBP yes it does jibe, it brings it home.


                      Report comment

                    • weeman

                      What you say is true, but they did drop the bomb in the center of city and you know the energy realeased in a nuclear detonation and anybody in X radius was vapiourized.
                      Anybody outside that radius survived and then depending on distance and location and a bit of luck survived, but many died later of acute radiation poisoning and latent cancer, never mind the release of radiological agents directly into the environment, to accumulate and affect future generations?


                      Report comment

                    • weeman

                      MPB, why are you posting on a older post, trying to get your feet wet and see if you have what it takes! Or do you have a vested intrest in sailors?
                      With no malice, inquiring minds?


                      Report comment

                    • Angela_R

                      ManBearPig,

                      Have you seen the effects of the depleted uranium used in Iraq?

                      An hypothesis:

                      Uranium/MOX is used for months in a reactor until refueled. The elements or isotopes produced are ongoing, mutating at different times, during this period.

                      What was shot out from the reactor via the initial hydrogen explosions will be different to old nuclear explosions. The use of spent uranium gives a clue to what transpires. Emissions today, will also be different to what they were even yesterday.

                      The longer it continues, the more unknowns it will produce.

                      From time to time, it is being expelled into the atmosphere (see regulars on webcam)and is then transported via the jet stream, returning to the earth in rain and snow.
                      (here is one such emission in the past couple of weeks – https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/77637499/septr14%2000%2024%20redflash%20R3.PNG

                      The substances used in the chem trails are also likely to become ionized.


                      Report comment

    • FactChecker

      This site is very much a cult. We need to deprogram some of these people. Antinuclearism really has a grip on them.


      Report comment

      • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

        Now you support brainwashing? I thought you personally euthanizing your friend was questionable?


        Report comment

        • FactChecker

          If I can deprogram one person here, lurker or not, it will have been worth it.

          My friend was my dog. Since I only had daughters, he is the only "son" I had.

          So you can understand when you see someone in pain, you want to ease their suffering. Its the compassionate thing to do.


          Report comment

      • StarMouse StarMouse

        Ya think? Please scientifically break down all the yuck, these things expose us to too, I would like to be educated, then make up my mind, exactly which cancers are good for us?


        Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        "Pro-nukers are very much a cult. We need to deprogram some of these people. nuclearism really has a grip on them."

        now THAT makes some sense.

        lmao


        Report comment

      • You're a total idiot.

        Man-made radionuclides are one of the few things that are proven to be carcinogens; scientifically proven, you little prick.


        Report comment

      • I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV, but regardless of my lack of television credentials,it's not a stretch to call you clinically insane as demonstrated by making up three identities in one thread to have an imaginary conversation. At no point have you and your aliases linked to anything other than a post written by one of your aliases. You write like a bot. I Googled per your suggestions and even Wikipedia contradicts statements you pass off as fact. I hope your boss reviews your posts and fires you for being incompetent as a troll. It's nothing short of pathetic that you cannot adequately perform the job of troll. I used to have an old flying toasters screensaver. It also had a random word generator. I swear someone in IT took a shortcut and used a random nuclear word generator when they designed your hardware. I see flying toasters. It's not like your words will change anyone's opinion. In fact, you do so much to show why we need to eradicate nuclear energy and weapons. Every lame comment you have made demonstrates just how corrupt, psychotic, and ignorant the nuclear lobby is. You have created a technology that you cannot control. If you think Fukushima can be cleaned up, by all means head on over to Japan. I am sure TEPCO will pay you more than the alphabet agencies are paying you (25 cents a post?), since TEPCO has admitted they cannot even find the coriums and that technology to clean up this disaster has not yet been invented.


        Report comment

    • combomelt combomelt

      it only becomes a childish playground when death shills show up spouting all types of lies and nonsense.

      IMO the news on this site, and its participants here, seek the evil hidden truth that is fukushima.
      fukudeathmarch is center stage for worldwide "energy" news, now and for the next few millenia.

      proving radiation effects worldwide from this triple meltout is next to impossible when the entire nuk-industry denies all threats to you and i from its lethal product at every turn.

      Aunavoz-"Ultimately anti nukes have to find a way to work together with nuclear engineers. It's ridiculously naive to think otherwise. For the antinuke fanatics .. even if you shut down everything nuke .. you will still need nuclear experts to remediate the waste .. for eons."

      THAT WOULD BE A GREAT START

      I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WORLDWIDE COLD SHUTDOWN ACROSS THE NUKLEARBOARD.

      YES, YES AND YES WE NEED NUK-ENGINEERS TO FIGURE OUT THE WASTE PROBLEM BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. COLD SHUT EM ALL DOWN AND CLEAN ALL THAT SHIT UP!

      AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY DEVOTED TO FIGURING OUT HOW TO REMEDIATE THE MOST TOXIC SHIT IN THE UNIVERSE, 'HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS' OF TONS OF IT.

      NO MYSTERY, NO CONSPIRACY, NO TEEPEES OR KUMBAYA, JUST START THE COLD SHUTDOWN PROCESS WITH ONE PLANT, AND THEN CASCADE ALLL THE REST OVER A 10? YEAR PERIOD???? IDK, JUST START CLOSIN EM DOWN.

      SONGS IS NON-OPERATIONAL, SOCAL RUNS ALONG WITHOUT A HITCH, SANS BLACKOUTS SUMMER'14. LOL

      FREE, FREEZING COLD SHUTDOWNS FOR…


      Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        ….FOR EVERYONE.

        SONGS IS NON-OPERATIONAL, SOCAL(LA & SD) POWERS ALONG WITHOUT A HITCH, SANS BLACKOUTS SUMMER'14. LOL

        NUK, THE MOST USELESS 12% OF THE GRID. SAYONARA


        Report comment

        • FactChecker

          ENE is an "energy news site". NO antinuke here will admit it is an antinuclear news aggregator.

          The consensus of this site from antinukes is that nuclear is an ELE, which is far from the truth. I and the sane world think otherwise.

          I dont know how you arrived at your conclusions, but my conclusions were arrived from sound, rational thinking.

          I am not alone in this thinking.


          Report comment

          • Yes, I am sure you have several aliases.

            IMO – All Nuclear Proponents should get on a plane and head on over to Fukushima and don't come back until it's all cleaned up.

            Seems like the verbal spewing of 'off topic' continual rhetoric is as nonstop as the spewing from Fukushima into our atmosphere and sea. ;)


            Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              The practical application of your request is unworkable. Lets assume there are 1000 daily flights to Japan. Assuming there are well over a million nuclear proponents, that would tie up the airlines for such a humanitarian gesture. I would think that anyone that could go over there, would go over there, but there is just so much a person could do to affect change over there. Ultimately, it would be a "too many cooks" effect.

              Why wasn't the US military mobilized on land for humanitarian aid for the tsunami?


              Report comment

              • Japan is too proud to ask for help.

                In 4 days those million nukers could be in place. Just act like a liquidator.


                Report comment

              • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                They could have taken boats/cruises, yachts, private jets, balloons… :)

                We are now going on 4 years and getting a million into Fukushima would have been a piece of cake by now.

                The reason no one went is that it is very dangerous and most of those exposed will get diseases and cancers.

                Already proven all over the world at other Nuclear Meltdown Locations of Nuclear Power Plants.


                Report comment

              • THey cannot fond workers at TEPCO. The Yakuza recruits for TEPCO. Airlines have reported more people flying out of Japan than into Japan. YOu must be getting paid by the post fro you to be writing drivel in a post several days old. I guess you are hoping that when your boss reviews your work, it will look like you have been working diligently instead of sitting in your parents' basement in your underwear, surfing for porn in between posting nuclear drivel. You haven't addressed the subject of this thread. You and your aliases have steered away from discussion on other threads other than to make nasty remarks while telling everyone how smart you are. Smart people don't need to advertise it. Powerful people do not need to tell people how powerful they are. Bragging about your power is a sign of weakness. Are you a troll or an Insecure, desperately in need of attention, grossly under endowed pathetic excuse of a human being? A bot? How many physics courses did you take in college before flunking out? Do you think that people on this site are morons who cannot figure out that you have resorted to multiple identities?

                Obviously you have done nothing to change anyone's opinion about you, nor have you swayed anyone with your claim that nuclear is safe, good and needed. I can say with 99 percent certainty that everyone her except for FactChecker, MF and te other sockpuppet aliases you use think you are a bot, a troll, a moron, or a combination of the three.


                Report comment

          • Enenews is devoted to news regarding the environmental impact of energy policy. This has been pointed out to you on many, many occasions. It is not about nuclear issues. Yes, it was created after 3/11. It was Florida Oil Spill Law. Admin added another site to deal with Fukushima and other energy disaster. Enenews has linked to stories about oils spills (not just the GOM), chemical spills, the Louisiana sinkhole (the only site covering news of a 28 acre and growing sinkhole next to a deteriorating salt cavern that may contain an unknown amount of radioactive material), the GOM disaster, fracking, deep water drilling, WIPP, solar flares, and plant and animal die offs of unknown origin. Some of the die-offs are obviously related to Fukushima; other may be related to fracking, corexit, VOCs from the GOM and any number of manmade disasters. Not everything is dying because of Fukushima, but just because you do not die instantly of radiation poisoning doesn't mean that you won't soon die of its effects. 49 percent of children in the Fukushima prefecture have enlarged thyroids. Tell them it is psychosomatic. I dare you. Many parents and spouses still living in the Fukushima prefecture have reported losing their kids and spouses to cancer or heart failure, but the doctors do not report it as linked to Fukushima, if they report the deaths at all. It is illegal to tell the truth in Japan. Truth needs no laws to defend it.


            Report comment

        • We are not anonymous, yet the pronuke liars MUST remain anonymous in their opinion. All except Conca and Dr Harding, oh and that Tammy creature from WIPP. Usually women aren't so diabolical.


          Report comment

          • ManBearPig ManBearPig

            Why do you believe pronuke people are liars? You might have your laundry list of "lies of nuke" but in the end are they really lies? Lets examine some of your "lies of nuke" in the context of reality.

            1. Plutonium fuel rods lie in the rubble

            There really is no way to confirm from the pictures you provided whether those cylindrical shapes are fuel rods or whether in fact they are nuclear at all?

            http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/largest-lies-of-nuke.html

            The cylinder you have a line to is obviously longer than it is wide, where as the H/D of a fuel pellet is closer to unity.

            2. The "heinous lie of Risk Factor"

            The "excess deaths due to cancer" is based on the application of Linear No Threshold theory to the radiation level expressed in Sieverts.

            This application actually began with nuclear medicine. Is the application nuclear medicine also a "lie of nuke"?


            Report comment

          • ManBearPig ManBearPig

            You also state

            "THE LIE: You need to work at a nuclear power plant or else you don't know diddly"

            This is not true. There are many people who understand the issues that do not work at a nuclear plant. Many work in policy think tanks on both sides of the issue. The caricature of nuclear plant workers being "Homer Simpsons" is also not accurate.

            You also state

            "THE LIE: "A Little Radiation in Your Food Won't Hurt" –

            We eat many foods that are radioactive. The list is endless. Yet no one has come out and said to the FDA, this (food) is dangerous and should be banned.

            So you see, there are embellishments and Confirmation Bias on your part to get your point across.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

            Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning.[2] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same…


            Report comment

    • Learning from both sides? You mean there is no truth available and no choice to be made, ever?

      Maybe it is possible to just sit on the fence forever, looking at 'both sides'?

      Some people certainly stay in this place and are very comfortable their whole lives.

      Politicians certainly.. like the 'all of the above policy'.

      Everything is ok, all sides are ok.. nothing is out of bounds; even assassination and torture, because that is just another 'side'.


      Report comment

  • socref it is, triple confirmed.

    Waste of time really.

    But hopefully we get more lurkers to comeout against nuke.

    Aloha!


    Report comment

  • F you seem to not understand how people evolve.. it indicates a very deep flaw, which is making assumptions about people and how/why they think the way they do.

    Being anti is so shallow. Assuming someone is anti, is even shallower.

    Go deeper F, seek a deeper meaning and why people think the way that they do.

    Go deeper still, if you dare, into the heart within you.

    Most people are not brave enough to venture there.. are you?

    Are you brave enough to venture into your own heart?

    This is a test.. but there is no right or wrong on this one..

    The mind and logic is such a shallow playground.

    The heart is where grownups are.

    Are you ready?

    Make your choice.

    You just got formally invited.


    Report comment

  • Invitation to Lurkers, place your first post

    thank you


    Report comment

  • ManBearPig ManBearPig

    As a psychologist, I can expect a fair amount of nit picking and silly banter here. However one aspect that troubles me is something called "Confirmation Bias". When people take it to the next level, personal attacks, etc., then the message gets lost.

    People on both sides seem to "confirm their bias". Fukushima showed us that disasters such as this one polarize the issues.

    I am neither pro or antinuclear. Do I have to declare sides in order to be here?


    Report comment

  • I call the new troll in 3 comments, LOL


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Fact Check!

    Ionizing Radiation

    In 2005, the National Toxicology Program classified X-radiation and gamma radiation as known human carcinogens. Although some scientists challenge this premise (e.g., Habron, 2012), most agree that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation (Brenner, 2003; NRPB, 1995). A 2005 National Research Council report confirms this finding, stating that “the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses [of ionizing radiation] without a threshold and … the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans” (NRC, 2005). Radiation damage to genes is cumulative over a lifetime (Boice, 2001). Repeated low-dose exposures over time may have the same harmful effects as a single high-dose exposure.



    Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      Ionizing Radiation

      Exposure to ionizing radiation is the longest-established and most firmly established environmental cause of human breast cancer in both women and men. Ionizing radiation can increase the risk for breast cancer through a number of different mechanisms, including direct mutagenesis (causing changes in the structure of DNA), genomic instability (increasing the rate of changes in chromosomes, therefore increasing the likelihood of future mutations) (Broeks, 2010: Goldberg, 2003; Morgan, 2003; Wright, 2004), and changes in breast cell microenvironments that can lead to damaged regulation of cell-to-cell communication within the breast (Barcellos-Hoff, 2005; Tsai, 2005). Ionizing radiation not only affects cells that are directly exposed, but can also alter the DNA, growth, and cell-to-cell interactions of neighboring cells, a phenomenon referred to as the “bystander effect” (Little, 2003; Murray, 2007b).

      http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/radiation-chemicals-and-breast-cancer/ionizing-radiation.html


      Report comment

      • ManBearPig ManBearPig

        Jebus, yes exposure to radiation can cause breast cancer. However what you have to show me is how much? Does a woman walking down the streets of Denver have a higher risk of cancer than the woman in Miami? In fact, Miami women probably have a higher risk of cancer due to lifestyle (South Beach), plastic surgeries and so on.

        I read something recently about the bystander effect and the jury is still out as to whether it is a precursor to cancer caused by low radiation doses over time.

        I also think that if you drink a carcinogen, like bleach in large quantities, it is more harmful than if you drank a drop full of bleach with a gallon of water. In fact, we put drops of bleach in camp water as safe, but dare not chug the gallon of Clorox.


        Report comment

        • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

          My, my, my, why are you building false arguments? WE all know that the spread of these radioactive poisons are not uniform throughout the environment and biosphere.

          So there is not a set dose required for the creation of diseases/cancers, since that has already been proven medically and confirmed through independent analysis, which already states there is no safe dose of manmade radiation.

          They key then is which woman or man will be subjected/exposed to an amount not healthy at any point in time during their personal travels here on planet Earth.

          Just where is this stuff? Does anybody know where all this decaying manmade radiation contamination is on this planet? Where are Fukushima's past 4 years of releases?

          Lets go down the line starting at the beginning with the mining in the early 1900's until today 10/8/2014.

          Where are all these manmade released decaying radioactive isotopes now located?

          Once again are human's feeling lucky today? Anyone seen Waldo?


          Report comment

          • ManBearPig ManBearPig

            Obewan,

            I do not believe my analysis is a false argument. The spread of radioactivity is not uniform through out the environment, but it does not explain why high background radiation levels in one area (e.g. Denver) have less cancer rates than lower background radiation levels.

            I am also reminded of the pictures that came from Fukushima and the impact that had with ominous clouds. There were drawings and depictions of radiation spread through out the air and water. One of the water depictions was actually a NOAA drawing of wave heights.

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/gallery/noaa-map-predicts-tsunami-wave-heights-around-the-pacific-rim/

            People used this drawing to elicit radiation fear to the masses.

            If there is no set dose for man made radiation and cancer, then everyone who handled Coleman lantern mantles back in the day should contract cancer? Correct? I am in trouble then.

            What about FiestaWare plates? We all ate off of those.

            You seem to be the type that believes in the "wrong place wrong time theory" of any radiation exposure, no matter how small. I am sure some people who contracted leukemia in Utah are somehow blaming it on man made nuclear radiation.

            Cancer and radiation exposure are correlated to a degree. This we have learned from the WWII atomic bomb victims. To me, those are the ones who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

            The rest of the world goes blithely along with existing since living is more important than…


            Report comment

            • Living is more important than…..accepting radiation and "health care"

              Now the lie of only atomic bomb victims have real cancer risk.

              socref, we don't like you, got it?


              Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              dying.

              If we believe that we go about our lives by the grace of God, not being exposed to the "killer cloud", then which clouds are safe? If people thought that, then flying through clouds would make us all basket cases.

              I would rather go about my life knowing that there is a probability I will contract a cancer, and that probability is a result of a whole host of possibilities.

              We can explore why you believe the 0.1% of the total radiation we receive, that from industrial sources, should constitute 99.9% of our fears.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia


              Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  What specifically to you, is it rubbish? Radiophobia is a real phobia.

                  http://www.healthimaging.com/topics/diagnostic-imaging/ajr-best-practices-curbing-radiophobia

                  In the current era of “media-driven social amplification” of radiation risk, authors of a clinical perspective published in the April edition of the American Journal of Roentgenology provided strategies for managing “radiophobia” and communicating the risks and benefits of diagnostic imaging to patients.

                  “As public awareness of medical radiation exposure has increased, there has been heightened awareness among patients, physicians and regulatory agencies of the importance and need for holistic benefit-and-risk discussion as the basis of informed consent in medicine,” wrote Lawrence T. Dauer, PhD, of the department of medical physics of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, and colleagues.


                  Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  Pitfalls and problems
                  Dauer and colleagues outlined challenges associated with typical radiation risk communication approaches. Specifically:

                  The traditional paternalistic approach of 'physician knows best' no longer suffices as the standard of care.
                  A strict focus on risk comparison, such as examples that correlate an x-ray with a specific number of plane trips, fails to adequately capture the elements of risk, explained the researchers.
                  Risk numerology, or complicated mathematical statements about risk, may be difficult for patients to understand or may confuse patients. The authors noted that statements can either magnify risk or emphasize the likelihood of a normal outcome depending on how they are framed. For example, one could express a scan as doubling the risk of cancer (from 0.3 percent to 0.6 percent) or point to nearly equivalent cancer risks among similar patients, one imaged with ionizing radiation and one not.
                  Quality assurance statements such as meeting specific organizational guidelines do not address risks in a quantifiable manner or present the overall risk perspective.


                  Report comment

              • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                There is no grace what so ever in dying from disease and cancer in any form if that disease and cancer that caused such death is caused by other human's behavior.

                Grace does not play a role in death and I would advise you take the red pill my friend.

                grace |grās|
                noun
                1 simple elegance or refinement of movement : she moved through the water with effortless grace.
                • courteous goodwill : at least he has the grace to admit his debt to her.
                • ( graces) an attractively polite manner of behaving : she has all the social graces.
                2 (in Christian belief) the free and unmerited favor of God, as manifested in the salvation of sinners and the bestowal of blessings.
                • a divinely given talent or blessing : the graces of the Holy Spirit.
                • the condition or fact of being favored by someone : he fell from grace because of drug use at the Olympics.
                3 (also grace period) a period officially allowed for payment of a sum due or for compliance with a law or condition, esp. an extended period granted as a special favor : another three days' grace.
                4 a short prayer of thanks said before or after a meal : before dinner the Reverend Newman said grace.
                5 ( His, Her, or Your Grace) used as forms of description or address for a duke, duchess, or archbishop : His Grace, the Duke of Atholl.


                Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  I am confused. You say "death caused by another's behavior". This I would interpret as premeditated murder.

                  Yet I do not believe physicians that administer a radiation cocktail to image a tumor are conducting premeditated murder.

                  Given that 0.1 % of our radiation exposure comes from man-made industrial sources, I do not believe those engaged in industry are engaging in premeditated murder as well.

                  Furthermore, I do not believe that those that manufacture and operate devices that produce radiation are engaging in premeditated murder.

                  Premeditated murder requires a specific act of malicious thought directed towards a specific party.

                  For that matter, then is all "war" premeditated murder?

                  The Grace of God touches all of us, even those that reject God and that Grace.


                  Report comment

              • hbjon hbjon

                The adults must look out for the children in a civilized society. Should we tell the children to look both ways before crossing a busy highway? Don't worry about drinking the stuff under the kitchen sink, it's good for them. A pack of smokes a day keeps the doctor away? The particles given off by strong radioactive emitters do cause damage and to suggest someone has a mental problem that acknowledges those dangers is something I lack the words for right now.


                Report comment

          • Troll is a troll is a troll.

            Facts are facts

            stock is stocky, lol


            Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              Stock, that is a circular argument.

              A troll is a troll? That doesn't answer my question to you what you believe is a troll?

              If we look at Urban Dictionary's definition of a troll:

              http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

              "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"

              This would not be my intent. I do not intend to post anything "provocative" since provocation usually elicits a defensive response. It is not my intention of causing "maximum disruption or argument".

              I post as ManBearPig because 1) I am a South Park fan 2) Manbearpig is a representation of our fear of radiation. Is it really the biggest threat to mankind?

              That is for each of us to decide.

              "Manbearpig is real" says Al Gore.

              from Urban Dictionary:

              http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=manbearpig

              the single biggest threat to our planet. something out there which threatens our very existence and may be the end to the human race as we know it. i'm talking of course, about… "manbearpig."


              Report comment

              • Jebus Jebus

                The biggest threat to man's existance, is man…

                Think how that could happen.

                And the easiest most convenient way.

                Cause that's what man does…


                Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  I thought the biggest threat to man's existence was woman.

                  Without woman, man would be engaged in a 24-7 frat party with empty beer bottles and pizza boxes strewn about his abode, while the dog licks his face to wake him up.

                  Ok that is my attempt at humor.

                  Man's biggest threat is himself. A man's (singular) biggest threat is himself.

                  We are our own worst enemy. Negative thinking causes so much ill and discontent in our psyche.


                  Report comment

                  • hbjon hbjon

                    ManBearPig says."Negative thinking causes so much ill and discontent in our psyche." MBP. We have identified your belief here as being "normalcy biased" and that it is not desirous when time is of the essence to protect ones community and family of a serious threat that is nipping at all of our behinds.


                    Report comment

          • name999 name999

            obewan speaks, that is funny…no waldo.


            Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    Check out what that crazy Veterns Administration says about Ionizing Radiation.

    Diseases Associated with Ionizing Radiation Exposure

    For Veterans who participated in a radiation-risk activity during service (including "Atomic Veterans"), VA assumes that certain cancers are related to their exposure. We call these "presumptive diseases."

    Cancers of the bile ducts, bone, brain, breast, colon, esophagus, gall bladder, liver (primary site, but not if cirrhosis or hepatitis B is indicated), lung (including bronchiolo-alveolar cancer), pancreas, pharynx, ovary, salivary gland, small intestine, stomach, thyroid, urinary tract (kidney/renal, pelvis, urinary bladder, and urethra)
    Leukemia (except chronic lymphocytic leukemia)
    Lymphomas (except Hodgkin’s disease)
    Multiple myeloma (cancer of plasma cells)

    These Veterans don't have to prove a connection between these diseases and their service to be eligible for disability compensation. Their survivors also may be eligible for survivors' benefits if the Veteran dies as the result of one of these diseases.

    (Why would they need to prove something thats true?)

    VA recognizes that the following diseases are possibly caused by exposure to ionizing radiation during service:

    All cancers
    Non-malignant thyroid nodular disease
    Parathyroid adenoma
    Posterior subcapsular cataracts
    Tumors of the brain and central nervous system

    http://www.publichealth.va


    Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    EPA knows the truth…

    Radiation and Health
    How does radiation cause health effects?

    Radioactive materials that decay spontaneously produce ionizing radiation, which has sufficient energy to strip away electrons from atoms (creating two charged ions) or to break some chemical bonds. Any living tissue in the human body can be damaged by ionizing radiation in a unique manner. The body attempts to repair the damage, but sometimes the damage is of a nature that cannot be repaired or it is too severe or widespread to be repaired. Also mistakes made in the natural repair process can lead to cancerous cells. The most common forms of ionizing radiation are alpha and beta particles, or gamma and X-rays.

    http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html


    Report comment

    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

      I read this with a careful eye. EPA says "but sometimes the damage is of a nature that cannot be repaired or it is too severe or widespread to be repaired." I believe this to be a very large radiation dose. Why would EPA also mention repair mechanisms?

      http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/assessment/low-dose-284-291.pdf

      The last paragraph on page 2 is interesting and sets the tone for the paper.

      Maybe people fear radiation because they believe that LNT implies there is no safe level, but that is not what I took away from reading the paper.

      Your thoughts?


      Report comment

      • Jebus Jebus

        No, those are your thoughts…


        Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          I asked for your take on the link I provided. That is all.


          Report comment

          • Jebus Jebus

            Look, ya really have to step back and look at this Garden of Eden that Nature has set up for us, against all odds, that it would not survive the radioactive hell hole, that is outer space.

            It's taken millions of years, but Nature chugs on and creates enough of a biological system that can repair itself gracefully enough to survive the backround levels that were last seen 70 years ago.

            Since then man has done his perilous best to reverse all that exponentially.

            There is no extra whole body burden, of anything that's ionizing radiation, thats safe.

            One decay has the potential to create a cancer or mutation in any biological cell at any given time or place…


            Report comment

        • name999 name999

          jebus, it becomes very obvious.


          Report comment

      • Your thoughts are incorrect. Any questions?
        Very few trolls have tired out their welcome as quickly as you.

        Please define troll per my previous request


        Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          I asked you to define troll. Since you did not comply, I provided the standard Urban Dictionary definition.

          I take it that anyone that does not believe as you do, or someone that challenges you on this forum is in your mind a troll.

          Is that accurate?

          That is dangerous thinking, to think one to be the king.

          Its good to be the king then, until the king is dethroned.


          Report comment

      • I do not fear radiation. I respect it.

        It's the RADIATION CONTAMINATION from ongoing FALLOUT that I am concerned about.

        The REAL issue is getting people to be AWARE of the Nuclear Industry's Talking Point Manual and why learning about mitigation NOW could protect their future offspring's DNA.

        Number 1: This level is of 'no concern'.
        (Hint: It never will be.)

        Number 2: Fear of radiation causes stress.
        (Then come the airplane, x-ray, banana comparisons)

        Number 3: The RISK is minimal.
        (That was the BIG LIE. :cry: -> Fukushima)


        Report comment

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Manbear I believe you new here and have you failed to read anything posted in these forums over the past 4 years?

    I would recommend you back track and spend about 3 days reading up on what has been shared on all these news aggregator links from enenews.com. Then I would ask that you read all the comments and follow the reading on all the supplied links to all the research concerning Nuclear Technology use on this planet. Then and only then can you compete with the knowledge shared on this site. It is about education after all isn't it?

    Cancer rates were 4% in 1900 and they are now reaching 50%+ in form in the year 2014.

    Around 1900 was when we started playing around with Nuclear Technology on this planet. :(


    Report comment

    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

      It probably does no good to "back track" and read from this site exclusively. I am reading a great many sites, pro nuclear and antinuclear. This in my opinion, based on the preponderance of replies here, would cover the latter. I do appreciate the thought though. No one site is more important that the other.

      In the end, we have our own thought processes to help us decide critical issues. We must be objective in our assessments.


      Report comment

    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

      Obewan, I understand where you are coming from. When any new technology starts, it is in an incubation stage. I would hazard (no pun) that the application of radiation (whether deliberate or not) started with the extraction of pitchblende in the Middle Ages.

      It wasn't until the late 1700s that uranium was extracted from pitchblende to specifically color glass. Henri Becquerel actually discovered uranium in 1896. The early dalliances with radium and uranium by Madame Curie (which eventually lead to her poisoning) were filed under "lessons learned" for eventual followers.

      I would also surmise that the nuclear industry really did not get going until after WWII ended. So the period between 1900 and say 1950 there were all kinds of new carcinogens introduced into our lives.

      Most likely pesticides, DDT, and drugs also contributed to early cancer rates during that time when the development of atomic power was in its infancy.

      Man made radiation (energy, medicine, industry) does have an impact on the radiation footprint of the planet, however all the data I have read shows it pales in comparison with other sources of radiation such as cosmic rays.

      We can argue internal versus external radiation contributions however when the "quality factor" of radiation is unity, it doesn't have a greater effect than if radiation was produced from alphas, protons, and neutrons.


      Report comment

      • Oh jeez, pales in comparison, obviously you haven't read the lies of nuke at the nukepro.

        Here is a simple graph that shows cosmic is a SMALL fraction of so called "background". Medical is huge compared to cosmic.

        Lying through ignorance is as bad as intentional lying.

        http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/baseline-is-just-one-of-lies.html


        Report comment

      • Jebus Jebus

        Man discovered long ago that he drowns under water.

        When he made boats he discovered that they sink with holes in them.

        So he now makes sure that boats do not have holes in them.

        So he doesn't drown.

        After sixty years, the nuclear industry is still trying to figure out how to plug the holes.

        While we are drowning…


        Report comment

        • they plug the holes with lies, and more lies.

          But still they sink as they should.


          Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          I will agree the nuclear industry has had its challenges. This one would think is not limited to one specific industry. In the early stages of driving, people were dying from all sorts of accidents. It wasn't until Robert MacNamara then Nixon's SecDef, joined GM and solved the problem of "packaging". And thus seat belts were born. It did not stop fatal automobile accidents.

          The nuclear industry seems to be learning from its mishaps. However still, there is a psychology present called "Risk Aversion".

          We can have a nice discussion regarding Risk Aversion. Its one of the irrational beliefs wired in us all. How we act out our own brand of RA depends pretty much on our specific situation.


          Report comment

    • name999 name999

      obewan, we need an enenews quiz. A very simple quiz.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    In 70 years humans have managed to raise the backround levels of manmade ionizing radiation, to levels that have not been seen on this planet Earth, for millions of years.

    I wonder if we will be able to top that…


    Report comment

    • Yes, yes we will, go team. ouch.

      in 1990 4% got cancer, now 50% to 66% get cancer. hmmmmmm.


      Report comment

      • ManBearPig ManBearPig

        I don't follow you stock. Where do you get your numbers? What is the breakdown of cancer to man made radiation. It doesn't jibe with
        what CDC says about nuclear reactor accidents.

        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/nuclear-power-accidents

        If 0.1% of radiation to man is from nuclear reactors, it doesn't make sense that 40-60% cancer comes from that source.

        http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html

        Here you can clearly see that 0.1% comes from industrial sources. You may believe that 0.1% has a different cancer contribution component due to internal doses from Iodine and Cesium. However when the unit of Sievert is used to describe doses, this factors internal radiation as well.

        The CDC published their data on Chernobyl and thyroid cancer:

        A study led by National Cancer Institute (NCI) researchers followed more than 12,500 people who were younger than age 18 at the time they were exposed to high doses of I-131 (0.65 Gy on average) from the Chernobyl accident. A total of 65 new cases of thyroid cancer were found in this population between 1998 and 2007. Roughly half of these new cases were attributed to I-131 exposure. The researchers found that the higher a person’s dose of I-131, the more likely they were to get thyroid cancer (with each Gy of exposure associated with a doubling of risk). They also found that this risk remained high for at least 20 years.

        A Gy of exposure is 100 rad absorbed in human tissue or organ…


        Report comment

        • Hmmm Fukushima raised radiation in Alaska as much as a direct NUke bomb test…..on Alaska. May we call that Baked Alaska?

          What can't you follow? Do you want to blame it all on Monsanto, or would your handlers not like that?


          Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          100 rad to a tissue or organ as an acute dose is very large and will result in very distinct effects on average.

          If 12,500 were in the cohort, the standard deviation would be the square root of this number or 111. Statistically that only represents 0.008 or 0.8% of the cohort. This follows the CDC risk factor.

          The total population was probably not exposed to 1 Gy so I would not expect a 0.8% cancer rate for the entire country.


          Report comment

  • I am running to be a board member of NRC how far do you think that will go? LOL


    Report comment

    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

      What are your specific qualifications in this regard? I think the NRC commission is appointed by the President.


      Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          Do you really believe the NRC would take you seriously?

          I think that you and I will agree that authoring a blog site might not cut the mustard with regard to their requirements for qualification.

          What are your other qualifications can you bring to the table for the position?


          Report comment

      • name999 name999

        manbear, NRC is a longstanding pro-nuclear weapons, energy board. They have let nuclear energy be contrstucted by the US for many decades. Deconstructing them is considered a National Security Administration emergency. But really that is what needs to be done.


        Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          I think the NRC as an agency is necessary. If the NRC did not exist, who do you think would regulate commercial nuclear energy? I do not see the link between NRC and NSA since NRC is an independent agency. How would that procedure take place? It would result in a giant regulatory vacuum and then the commercial nuclear industry would be free to do whatever they pleased. From what I read, the NRC does not give the industry a free pass because the NRC generates much of its operating fees from applications and enforcement actions.

          If the NRC gave the commercial nuclear industry a free pass, it would not generate the fees required for it to exist. Some fees come from taxpayer money but from what I know of the NRC, its a wholly independent agency from other federal agencies.


          Report comment

  • ManBearPig ManBearPig

    Jebus,

    From what I read, the largest contribution to background levels of radiation comes from natural cosmic rays.

    The EPA has this web page:

    http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html

    The contribution from industrial sources (which includes nuclear power plants) is 0.1 %.

    The majority of man made background comes from terrestrial, space, radon and thoron.

    I believe radon dose in our own homes is probably our greatest risk of cancer.

    The CDC publishes a fact sheet on radon and cancer risk.

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon

    "Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and is associated with 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer deaths each year."

    You are welcome to comment on these statistics. It is a concern over industrial sources of radiation (nuclear power).


    Report comment

      • ManBearPig ManBearPig

        Ok, you wrote:

        "THE LIE: "Background Radiation" is High, Therefore More Radiation Doesn't Matter Much"

        Lets explore the truth of that statement. Obviously if you live in Denver Colorado, you will receive a large background dose. If you have a radiation accident at work, say a CT machine malfunction, you would potentially receive a larger possibly fatal dose.

        So in truth, "THE LIE" isn't really in play here.

        I don't think they say "background is low so more is not bad". If you refer to the pie chart I showed Jebus, you will find that background radiation is a major component to industrial radiation sources.

        Could you include the pie chart in your blog? It might clear up some of the misunderstandings.

        http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/perspective.html

        http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/radon


        Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          I will clarify, background and medical sources are much more than industrial (nuclear power plant) sources.

          Even though nuclear power and other industrial sources contributes 0.1% to the average radiation exposure, it seems to receive a disproportional amount of scrutiny over say personal doses from medical and radon.


          Report comment

        • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

          Your graph confirms that man has increased background radiation sources by 100%+. :(

          This is not good and the disease/cancer rates mirror these increasing numbers. :(

          I doubt this graph includes all the Nuclear Core Meltdowns over the past 70 years.

          Most others were top secret actions, boat sinking, dumping of barrels that are now leaking into the oceans by all countries involved in this stupidity.

          We are all in serious trouble and once the food chain collapses.. so will we disappear.


          Report comment

    • Jebus Jebus

      Really, the logic in your brain tells you that?

      After all the above ground nuclear testing, sellafield, chernobyl, tmi, rocketdyne, the atmospheric experiments, the dumping at sea, and ALL the other nuclear known and unknown radiological releases in this last seventy years?

      Now you are on a blog at an energy site that is reporting on the largest radiological release, into the environment, in mankinds history, and you can't connect the dots?


      Report comment

      • dont forget the dumping of thousands of barrels into the oceans and seas.

        my bad….you got that already. Dilution is the solution, NOT


        Report comment

      • ManBearPig ManBearPig

        I think I can connect the dots pretty well Jebus.

        Grant it all the examples you brought forth contributes to man made industrial radiation, however the pie chart I showed you notes these sources are only 0.1%. So how could 0.1% be more important than 99.9% from other sources?

        I am grateful for this site and others because the dialog over "radiation fear" begins with information sources.

        I believe if we look at the root cause of our fear, or fears, we will find that radiation may not be the most pressing fear that is threatening the human race.

        For some people, their fear of radiation is so pervasive, that they would believe if they were walking down the street, to their doctor's office, and the doctor said they had contracted cancer, they would believe it to be from walking down the street, just then, breathing in the air on a nice sunny day.

        I think that if we all thought that way, we would work ourselves into a frenzy.


        Report comment

    • Radon is a big risk in homes, but it can be detected and resolved.

      The REAL issue here is the ongoing radioactive contamination from Fukushima's TRIPLE MELTDOWNS and what it's affect will be on every living thing.

      The number crunching, comparing lifestyles, etc… have nothing to do with the additional radiation contamination from the Nuclear Power Industry. These issues and topics are nothing more than a diversion. We've been through it at least a hundred times now over the last 3 1/2 years.

      @ManBearPig
      Since you're new here I'll repeat my favorite quote.

      "No degree of prosperity could justify the accumulation of large amounts of highly toxic substances which nobody knows how to make 'safe' and which remain an INCALCULABLE danger to the whole of creation for historical or even GEOLOGICAL AGES. To do such a thing is a transgression against life itself, a transgression infinitely more serious than any crime ever perpetrated by man. The idea that a civilization could sustain itself on the basis of such a transgression is an ethical, spiritual, and metaphysical monstrosity. It means conducting the economic affairs of man as if people (or all life forms) really did not matter at all."
      — E.F. Schumacher 1973
      Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered,
      (Chp. 4, Nuclear Energy–Salvation or Damnation? )


      Report comment

  • Folks, I am a student of waves and fractals.

    Oftentimes, before a change, a tipping point, things look their bleakest.

    We are at a tipping point, or close.

    Get active, call your political representatives. tell them to shut down nuclear and radiation.

    thanks

    stock out.

    TIPP it good.


    Report comment

    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

      Stock,

      I do not believe our politicians can shut down nuclear and radiation so much as they could shut down the sun. The sun is the largest source of cosmic rays on our planet.

      Now I too am fascinated by waves and fractals. I am interested in something called "wavelets".

      I started reading this paper because it was titled "Wavelets for kids"

      http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/ferguson2/

      What kind of kids are they teaching at Stanford? Yikes.

      What do you make of this paper?

      https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:42004132


      Report comment

      • Germany shut down nuke. Wakey Wakey, red pill

        got it?


        Report comment

        • name999 name999

          stock, you are a comic tonight.


          Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          Stock,

          Germany, as an independent state, chose its own path. Other countries will choose their paths. Its not up to us to look at Germany and apply their policies universally. Same for the US, for Russia, Israel, etc.

          If all countries followed the example of one country for better or worse, then they would abrogate their own freedoms. Its how the US came to bear. We do like to "enforce" our brand of democracy on a willing world, but China and Russia seem to hold us in check.

          Now with respect to the "red pill" reference. I understand the Matrix.

          How do we know you haven't taken the blue pill?

          One person's red pill can be another person's blue pill and vice versa.

          Maybe people do not want to wake up to another person's version of a world not for them.

          I like my world just fine the way it is. It is not perfect, but it is the only world we have.

          How about Eraserhead? Maybe we are all living in someone else's reality.


          Report comment

      • The cosmic ray comparison is lame.

        Cosmic rays cannot or should I say 'should not' be compared to an ingested alpha particle. Airplane flights and x-rays are not a comparison and if you honestly believe they are then… I don't know what to say… except… GET OVER IT!
        (you've been tricked by the lie)

        Politicians can shutdown nuclear, but their pockets are lined with contributions from utility companies, so they won't. Until such time as it becomes unpopular, then they will flip flop.


        Report comment

        • Ya tricked by the lie,

          Tammy at WIPP dose is dose, plutonium is same as bananas, wow


          Report comment

        • ManBearPig ManBearPig

          The radiation we receive can not be discounted. This includes the component from cosmic rays. At its very core, radiation is a quanta of energy. So it doesn't matter how that energy is delivered. If we ingest, inhale, absorb ionizing radiation, that is one pathway to potential damage. Given that the air we breathe is naturally radioactive, I would surmise that we receive an internal dose with every breath we take.

          There is no lie when it comes from radiation sources. We learned that we handled radiation and ingested radiation all our lives without really knowing about it. Some have died from handling radioactive sources without knowing they were extremely dangerous.

          When we really educate ourselves regarding all radiation sources then we can make informed decisions regarding our own risks, perceived real or not real.

          I would also surmise that the internal radiation you claim is killing us, is really an irrational fear given by mis-education and somewhat hysterical population that does not understand the topic in its entirety.


          Report comment

          • hbjon hbjon

            I think I know who you are. We chatted before with different identities. You graduated at the top of your class. You have a PHD. But you've taken in all the lies that industry has put out there.

            You're in unchartered territory here. Me thinks it best you get "caught up". See through the sarcasm and gallows humor and appreciate the insight and knowledge put down here on Enenews.com


            Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              I will not comment on my academic standing or credentials here. To do so would be disingenuous since I could not reproduce the required documents on this forum.

              I see the humor and sarcasm here, and there are knowledgeable people here. The discussion seems to be one sided at times.

              I am not here to provide balance or an opposing point of view. I will post links from what I have read to be legitimate resources from reputable people. I am observing an interesting human phenomenon here.

              The beliefs range the spectrum of attitudes, fears and psychologies. There are some people who have approached this subject rationally, and some irrationally. I have learned one can not argue with the latter. This is futile.

              Maybe one thing to take away is that no one site has all the answers. There is a tendency to cite links to this site as proof of an argument more so than to provide an independent link supporting the case. Its ironic since this site is supposed to be "independent" yet at the end of the day, its driving the bus it would seem.


              Report comment

          • danger kitty danger kitty

            Man Pig/ Mother and Child Killer,
            Of course it matters how dose is delivered, ingestion internally far worse.
            And then you spew this convenient lie : When we really educate ourselves regarding
            all radiation sources then we can make
            informed decisions regarding our own risks,
            perceived real or not real."
            We can make NO informed CHOICES when we are not given the data, nor the ability to avoid the radiation if that is our choice.
            You don't seem to see: IT IS RAPE.


            Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              Danger Kitty,

              Why do you resort to name calling? I have not done anything to you personally. You do realize when you resort to name calling, your case crumbles as a house of cards. I would really like to see you put forth a cogent argument. I would like to know why you believe I am a "child killer". I love all children, my own and others. I also love mothers. Everyone has a mother, and mother's love and protect their children.

              Is your defensive and somewhat offensive reply just a knee-jerk reaction? I would hope you compose yourself and then we can talk about what is really eating at you. Its not me. I do not know you from Adam, or Eve. I take it from your name you are female.


              Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              Thanks for the link. I agree that radiation affects us at the cellular level. The one aspect left off the link is that of cellular repair, and the levels of radiation where cellular repair in not possible.

              I like to use my Coleman lantern mantle example because I like camping. The lantern mantle has thorium in it, and thus produces alpha radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper, but if ingested, can cause harm. No one is saying "lets go eat a Coleman lantern". That would be ludicrous since thorium is also toxic.

              However how many times should be be exposed to Coleman lantern mantles for it to be a concern?

              The mantle kept in plastic should not be a concern. You can test your Geiger counters with it.

              http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=Thorium%20Lantern%20Mantle%20Geiger%20Counter%20Source%20Test%20Coleman%20Radioactive%20Check&_itemId=120963901123


              Report comment

              • hbjon hbjon

                Thorium is an ALPHA emitter. Alpha radiation is the most ionizing of all radiation. It has a mass of 4. Among physicists it is identified using the mass number over the number of protons it has 4/2He followed by the letter(s) that identify the element. An alpha particle travels at 10,000 to 20,000 miles per second and is able to transmute matter. No concern?


                Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  An alpha emitter can be stopped by paper and soft tissue. Do not eat old Coleman lantern mantles.


                  Report comment

                  • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                    “…However, if the particles are swallowed, inhaled or absorbed through open wounds, the effects of alpha radiation on humans can indeed be quite severe.
                    • Cancer: the biological damage that results from swallowing, inhaling or absorbing alpha particles increases the risk of cancer. Especially lung cancer, since most alpha emitters are inhaled and thus reside in the lungs. Drinking water that contains elevated levels of radium also increases the risk of bone cancer.
                    • Kidney damage: when drinking water that contains high levels of uranium, the risk of developing kidney problems increases.
                    • DNA damage: exposure of cells to alpha radiation leads to several forms of genetic damage. For example, sister chromatid exchange (SCE) may occur. This is the exchange of genetic material between two identical sister chromatids. Elevated levels of SCE may be related to the formation of tumors. Another form of genetic damage is known as the ‘bystander effect’. This means that the cells surrounding an exposed cell also suffer from DNA damage as a consequence of extra nuclear or extracellular effects.
                    • Acute radiation syndrome (ARS): an acute illness caused by exposure to large doses of radiation of the entire body, or large parts of it. ARS has four stages: the prodormal stage characterized by nausea, vomiting and diarrhea occurring minutes to days after exposure; the latent stage where the patient feels and looks good, lasting up to several weeks; the manifest illness stage where the…


                    Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                All ionizing radiation causes double strand breakage which can't be repaired. A tiny particle of plutonium inhaled will exert a huge amount of radiation to a single cell in the lungs, liver or bone. All doses should discriminate whether the radiation is internal or external, ingested or inhaled.

                There are hundreds of scientific articles showing that very small amounts of radiation destroy the circulatory system or cause cancer or severely compromise the immune system or destroy the reproductive DNA.

                Please look at the many, recent as well as not recent scientific and medical studies listed in the forum for effects of low dose radiation.

                Unscientific conjecture cannot stand against all the researchers conducting scientific research. Their results cannot be contested.

                Over the last 3.5 years, I've heard all the irrational arguments repeated over and over like a cult mantra: for example, I heard Dr. Sternglass speak many years ago, and he seemed not credible.

                That says nothing about his research which has been verified many times over by many different researchers since that time.

                The mistakes of history are repeated over and over again if there is no knowledge of those mistakes.

                Researchers on this website are trying to keep the mistakes of the past, present and planned future from overwhelming all life systems.

                Double strand breakage cannot be repaired.


                Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation High-Level Cover-Up Paperback – April 1, 1991
                by Jay M. Gould (Author), Benjamin A. Goldman (Author)
                http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Deceit-Low-Level-Radiation-High-Level/dp/0941423565


                Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science. 2009.

                Paul Zimmerman
                http://www.amazon.com/Primer-Art-Deception-Paul-Zimmerman/dp/061523416X
                778 pages.


                Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Powerful Lies – The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
                And The Radioactive Effects On Human Health
                By Richard Wilcox PhD
                2-22-13
                "…'Even one atom of uranium undergoing alpha decay has the potential for creating a fatal cancer.' – Paul Zimmerman, A Primer in the Art of Deception (1; p. 53)…"
                http://rense.com/general95/powerful-lies.html


                Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Depleted Uranium and the Medical Mismanagement of Gulf War Veterans

                by Paul Zimmerman
                “…This form of uranium has an affinity for DNA and binds strongly to it [25]. This fact alone is should be sufficient to halt the scattering of DU aerosols amidst populations. Internalized uranium targets human genetic material! Needless to say, this fact is totally ignored by the International Commission on Radiological Protection and related organizations when determining safe levels of exposure to uranium and assessing the risk posed by uranium for inducing birth defects….”
                http://www.dudeceptions.com/article3.html


                Report comment

          • "I would also surmise that the internal radiation you claim is killing us, is really an irrational fear given by mis-education and somewhat hysterical population that does not understand the topic in its entirety." – MBP

            I would say your summation is absolutely wrong!!!

            Sounds like you have an irrational fear of people who you think have an irrational fear. ;)

            The topic of Fukushima's ongoing TRIPLE MELTDOWNS and how it's FALLOUT is contaminating the globe is not mis-education. It a lesson that we're all never going to forget.

            Claiming that people don't understand the topic, meaning they are not as smart as you, is pure poppycock. We all know it. * IMO – What seems to be lacking by the majority is common sense.


            Report comment

            • ManBearPig ManBearPig

              No one likes to be around irrational people. That is a given.

              No one is denying Fukushima suffered meltdowns and there was a radiation release.

              The physical evidence suggests the radiation released was not as bad as irrational people want us to believe.

              You choose to believe if Fukushima is contaminating the planet. You know contamination means "unwanted". This being the case, there are many contaminants we can not control. Chemical pollutants in the air are from a much wider and more prevalent source. Care to comment?


              Report comment

              • hbjon hbjon

                Chemical pollutants are "mothers milk" in comparison to the substances that have been released in the worst manmade industrial disaster this planet has ever seen. 1 gram of matter has the heat potential as 6000 tons of coal. That heat will manifest over a certain period of time. Increased incidents of weather extremes is one side effect.


                Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  I do not believe you can compare carcinogens on that basis. We know from chemical accidents such as Bhopal, that 20,000 plus were killed overnight. We do not know the definitive radiation effects from Fukushima and there has been no anecdotal evidence presented to suggest that there will be large scale casualties. I do understand the nature of long term "chance" effects from low radiation doses. This the science shows us. There is controversy that there may not be any detectable or discernible effects. It has to do with how you present the data relative to existing models, which defaults to LNT. There has been some work lately on this issue.

                  http://lowdose.energy.gov/

                  Until the scientific community has come together for a consensus, and that means the established community and those not in that circle, then people could default to the Precautionary Principle as a matter of addressing the unknown for the sake of establishing protective controls. However using the Precaution Principle to establish estimates of long term cancer deaths and promote fear are way off base in my opinion.

                  "Those who advocate precaution urge action on the basis of vague fears, regardless of whether there is scientific evidence to support their fears."

                  http://environmentalcommons.org/precaution-debating.pdf

                  "All decisions about technology, positive and negative, should be temporary – that is, open toreview and revision based on new knowledge and experience. A precautionary approach…


                  Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  "All decisions about technology, positive and negative, should be temporary – that is, open to review and revision based on new knowledge and experience. A precautionary approach has many feedback loops. As uncertainty is reduced, we may say "yes" to some things to which we previously said "no, " and vice versa. This implies that all stakeholders should have access to relevant information. But sometimes the judicious decision will be to turn away from technologies that pose too many uncertainties and offer too few benefits. It will not always make sense to invest limited government resources into continuing research into those technologies."


                  Report comment

                  • Sickputer

                    Hard at work today euthanizing some poor plutonium-dosed beagles? Be sure to ship the remains to Hanford. There's more room in the trenches there. WIPP is closer, but they seem to be wearing thick suits lately and aren't accepting new packages.

                    Blogging with the pro-radiation savants….just another manic monday…(or Thursday).

                    Great song by the way (Manic Monday written by Prince and a hit record for The Bangles). Came out three months before Chernobyl blew the USSR into oblivion and killed and maimed millions of carbon forms. Lucky us, huh?


                    Report comment

              • mutante mutante

                You disrespectful piece of radioactive excrement, you have nerve to come on to this post regarding thousands of our US servicemen being exposed to radiation because spineless, psychopathic twits, like you can't get enough of that worthless fiat money that is backed by a 17 trillion dollar debt


                Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Scientists in Europe have found the signature of radioactive substances from Fukushima.

                Japanese scientists have found the radioactive substances circling the globe every 40 days.


                Report comment

                • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                  Yes they have found signatures. Yet what does it mean? What are the long term health consequences from that data? We would expect Fukushima fallout to circle the globe, since that is how the jet stream behaves with particulate. I remember Mt. St. Helens ash also circled the globe. Yet some will opine that is not radioactive. Granted. Yet still, given that all of it circles the globe, can we really make the blanket statement that the particulate from Fukushima poses a planet-wide health threat? You would say yes, others say no. And thus the debate rages on. You can cite the Precautionary Principle, yet as I have already stated, there are many uncertainties that do not tip the scales in your favor.

                  The burden of proof when considering the application of the Precautionary Principle lies with those making the claims and so far, the evidence does not favor their side.The principle does not work when safeguards hinder technological progress that will in the end reduce overall risk.

                  We have to ask ourselves if it is rational to expect a zero risk society.

                  Those that favor the application of the Precautionary Principle to eliminate nuclear technology with regard to trace presence of radiation in the atmosphere are exercising fear of radiation to the point that other options may prove more harmful.

                  http://www.ve.org.za/index.php/VE/article/download/736/1039


                  Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Fukushima nuclear fuel fragments found in Europe — 10,000+ km from reactors — Plume came directly from N. America — Hot particles a “significant part” radioactive release — Quickly spread over entire hemisphere — Film shows core material on Norway air filter (PHOTO)
                http://enenews.com/professors-nuclear-fuel-fragments-fukushima-found-europe-study-significant-part-fukushimas-radioactivity-hot-particles-film-air-filter-norway-photo


                Report comment

                  • Sickputer

                    No need to point my tri-animal poster… Ann and I read ten times faster than the late dearly departed Evelyn Wood…wonderful Utah downwinder lady.

                    Saw her interviewed once in Tucson. Might have hit 100 except for the 2000 plus Russian, Chinese, and American bomb blasts. My grandfather died two years before Evelyn at age 59 from the same medical malady.


                    Report comment

                    • ManBearPig ManBearPig

                      May we all be so lucky to live to be 100.

                      There are many Utah centenarians. Some have lived where Ms Wood has lived. They have wise words for us to live by.

                      http://daas.utah.gov/centenarians/

                      In a very large population the distribution of lifespans follows a bell curve or Normal Distribution. This means there will be infant mortality, and those that live well over 100. These extremes are considered "outliers" of the distribution.


                      Report comment

              • PraisingJesus(Eashoa’ M’sheekha) VanneV

                Fukushima Radiation Cycles Globe in 40 Days & Update 5/28/12
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvWarWvMojs


                Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        political pressure that exposed their lies and malfeasance eventually shutdown SONGS

        YES,
        and for the next few DECADES we are left with approx 11,000 spent fuel rods in several cooling pools throughout the site.

        btw,
        no songs+no blackouts in socal=nuclear was never needed.

        is there any nuklear left in Cali?


        Report comment

    • name999 name999

      stock, I hope you are right.


      Report comment

  • Jebus Jebus

    An Anomaly.

    My recent data is an anomaly. It does not follow my baseline data.

    Science dictates that all anomalies be investigated.

    Fukushima is an anomaly.
    US crewmembers illnesses are an anomaly.
    Starfish dying are an anomaly.
    Decreasing bird counts are an anomaly.
    Mass creature die off's are an anomaly.
    Radionuclides in our food chain is an anomaly.

    Baseline data is for averaging.

    Anomalies are what happened…


    Report comment

  • MaidenHeaven MaidenHeaven

    Have you noticed that our newest member is keeping you chatting on this article rather on the newest one where everyone should be..they don't want you bringing the viewing numbers up on that post, need you wonder why?
    ..Professors: Fukushima has emerged as global threat — Major health concerns along west coast — Bioaccumulation expected to keep rising for decades — Gov’t failing to inform public of looming long-term radioactive hazard… Instead, official gives tips on how to disguise radiation levels from public (PHOTO) http://enenews.com/professors-fukushima-emerged-global-threat-major-concerns-public-health-along-west-coast-canada-doctor-contamination-pacific-spurring-worldwide-attention-govt-failing-deal-looming-hazard-radioac


    Report comment

  • hbjon hbjon

    I understand your concern. Best to get a good grip on the information so that you know right from wrong. Start with the nuclear explosion of reactor Unit 3 and ask yourself if it can be a "cold shutdown" like the Tepco authorities have declared.


    Report comment

  • Alan Reid Alan Reid

    Logs are out there. Records are always kept. Who and what are all recorded. I await the day the log tells all and reveals just who in fact socref,factchecker,manbearpig,aunavoz..etc really are and just where it is they do their shabby little work. The ease we have in seeing the paid disinformation shill and calling him out will become a very funny topic of amusement as we work through all this garbage spouted by them. Don't go anywhere. Do as you will. The longer you are here messing your diapers the more ammo we will have in defeating your purpose and it's masters. We are not going to allow the shill or troll to stop our work to defeat the industry nuclear. Conviction to help even at great cost to us will always defeat a shill or troll and their paycheque. Absolutely nothing a liar has to say can defeat truth in any form at all. So blather on. We will get to you soon enough.


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.