‘Unbelievable!’: Scientists stunned as 3 rare giant oarfish found dead off Los Angeles in recent weeks — Flesh falling apart while still alive, body parts missing — Biologist: “Of course I’m very concerned… for some reason they’re dying… it’s very strange” — Being tested for toxins (VIDEO)

Published: August 20th, 2015 at 10:23 am ET


Los Angeles Times, Aug 17, 2015 (emphasis added): Biggest oarfish seen at Catalina Island in years washes ashore… marking a rare sighting of the deep-sea creature… [It] was 24 feet long when it was alive, said Annie MacAulay, a marine biologist… its tail [was] severed off — which oarfish have been known to do to shed weight and save energy, she said… The one found Monday had an empty pocket in its stomach, which MacAulay said could mean it recently stopped eating, a potential sign of distress or sickness… a handful of oarfish [have] washed up on California’s coasts in recent years.

New York Daily News, Aug 17, 2015: Stunned scientists fished for clues Monday to explain the origin of the giant oarfish that washed up on the shores of Catalina — the third massive marine oarfish found on the island in two years’ time [see articles below for additional finds]… The sleek silver fish was missing its pectoral fins and tailperplexed researchers are looking for a reason why. Dr. Misty Paig-Tran from California State University Fullerton collected tissue samples… to determine whether it had any toxins in its system. But questions still remain as to why these fish are dying… The conservationist also speculated that water pollution could be to blame.

OC Register, Aug 19, 2015: This is the third oarfish to be documented on the island [since] 2013… MacAulay said the animal didn’t come to shore because of an illness or shark attack. When she dissected the fish, she discovered a belly full of krill… “It’s very strange, and the other one in June was the same,” she said.

Gazettes (Long Beach), Aug 19, 2015: MacAulay said this is the third such creature to wash up on the island in the past two years…. Before then, MacAulay said she isn’t aware of any others… … Sightings are extremely rare. Those that come near the shore are usually distressed.

AP, Aug 19, 2015: Residents of Santa Catalina Island have found a second sea monster on their shores in just three months… {MacAulay] says to see two in a three-month period after never seeing one her entire career is incredibly exciting.

Mountain and Sea Educational Adventures, Aug 17, 2015: Unbelievable! The second oarfish that we found washed up on the shores of Catalina Island.

  • MacAulay: “You’re lucky to see one oarfish in your lifetime, so to see 2 within 3 months… I’ve been working on this island for 17 years and I had never seen any until June.”
  • MacAulay: “I’ve been working here for more than 20 years out on the water and I’ve never seen one… three have been found so recently… it is sad.”
  • MacAulay: “It’s so unusual that all these years I don’t see any oarfish, and then have seen two in the last few months.”
  • MacAulay: “To see two of them in a three-month period when I’ve been working on the island for 20 years and in marine biology for almost 30 years… of course (I’m) very concerned because… for some reason they’re dying.”

San Diego Reader, Jun 30, 2015: First-ever oarfish caught on rod… That it was in shallow water for an oarfish gives the implication that it was unhealthy… crew tried to gaff and raise the 20-foot fish to the boat. The soft flesh only tore, and they had to give up…

Pete Thomas Outdoors, Jul 8, 2015: The bizarre catch… was snagged and barely alive… a crewman attempted to collect it with a gaff, but the flesh was too soft for the gaff to holdfor some reason Catalina has become a hot spot for sightings.

Bruce Smith, captain of sport fishing boat, Jun 29, 2015: “We caught an oarfish… at Catalina… in shallow water like 5 fathoms [30 feet]… It was pretty much dead… I know they washed up on the beach here a couple times… It was very surprising, it’s a once in lifetime thing.”

Los Angeles Times, Jun 3, 2015: Rare oarfish found dead on Catalina… The first sighting of a live oarfish was only recorded 2001, when one was caught on film by the U.S. Navy…

Los Angeles Times, Oct 10, 2013: 2 giant oarfish wash onto California coast, making scientists curious — It’s been the week of the oarfish along the Southern California coast. A 14-foot oarfish carcass was discovered Friday by a snorkeler off the beach in Oceanside. Earlier in the week, an 18-foot oarfish was found dead off Catalina Island.

Watch the LA Times’ video here | Full report from Cpt. Smith here

Published: August 20th, 2015 at 10:23 am ET


Related Posts

  1. Mutilated dolphins found along Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Florida — Missing body parts, screwdriver wounds (VIDEOS) November 30, 2012
  2. Vancouver Aquarium Blog: Area with ‘rivers’ of body parts from sea stars — ‘Strange behavior’ reported in sea otters (VIDEO) October 9, 2013
  3. CNN: Scientists puzzled as rare ‘sea monsters’ wash ashore in Southern California — Expert: 2 giant oarfish and saber-toothed whale in a week… “What is going on?” (VIDEO) October 19, 2013
  4. Federal gov’t declares rare Unusual Mortality Event in So. California — 70% of all newborn sea lions may be dying — Testing for toxins, infectious agents (VIDEO) March 28, 2013
  5. New data shows spike in babies born missing parts of brain around leaking US nuclear site — Official: We’re really concerned it remains so high, we hoped it would go away — NBC: Many locals say Hanford to blame — CDC Expert: Cases “not focused near Hanford” (VIDEO) April 24, 2014

888 comments to ‘Unbelievable!’: Scientists stunned as 3 rare giant oarfish found dead off Los Angeles in recent weeks — Flesh falling apart while still alive, body parts missing — Biologist: “Of course I’m very concerned… for some reason they’re dying… it’s very strange” — Being tested for toxins (VIDEO)

  • DeadAhead

    Ya bo I agree with you I posted this article a couple of weeks ago? leading with- “the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often in our minds.” Fricken sick I guess wait until everyone has rad effects to stop nonsense like this.

    • bo bo

      I'm fuming because this article and Ian Fairlie is getting around like ice cream with poison folded into it.
      I really would just be 'annoyed' if it was Newsweek but this gets posted on 'Counterpunch' 'The Ecologist' 'globalresearch' & gets passed around like hot potato
      Who the f*ck is Fairlie ?
      Looks like Yuri Hiranuma's part of this too if I'm not mistaken, name listed in 'with thanks to'

      Thanks cannotdo1 too, I saw your response in last page just now

      Yeah & the biggest sly disinfo – thousands more will die – that number already such a lowball, but aside from that – thousands more will die IN JAPAN AND ONLY IN JAPAN

      pfffffffffffftttttttttttttt bleahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

      Unspoken Death Toll of Fukushima: Nuclear Disaster Killing Japanese Slowly

      “The Japanese government is still in denial and refuses to recognize the disastrous consequences of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, London-based independent consultant on radioactivity Dr. Ian Fairlie states, adding that while thousands of victims have already died, thousands more will soon pass away.

      “According to London-based independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment Dr. Ian Fairlie, the health toll from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe is horrific: about 12,000 workers have been exposed to high levels of radiation (some up to 250 mSv); between 2011 and 2015, about 2,000 died from the effects of evacuations, ill-health and suicide related to the disaster; furthermore, an estimated 5,000 will most likely face lethal cancer in the future, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
      “’What makes matters even worse, the nuclear disaster and subsequent radiation exposure lies at the root of the longer term health effects, such as cancers, strokes, CVS (cyclic vomiting syndrome) diseases, hereditary effects and many more.
      “Embarrassingly, ‘[t]he Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honorable exceptions) minimize the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable,’Dr. Fairlie pointed out.

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

        “The Japanese government even goes so far as to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year, while its scientists are making efforts to convince the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to accept this enormous increase.
        "’This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable,’ Dr. Fairlie stressed, adding that ‘there is never a safe dose, except zero dose.’
        “However, while the Japanese government is turning a blind eye to radiogenic late effects, the evidence ‘is solid’: the RERF Foundation which is based in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is observing the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and still registering nuclear radiation's long-term effects.
        "’From the UNSCEAR estimate of 48,000 person Sv [the collective dose to the Japanese population from Fukushima], it can be reliably estimated (using a fatal cancer risk factor of 10% per Sv) that about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in the future from Fukushima's fallout,’ he noted.

        “Dr. Fairlie added that in addition to radiation-related problems, former inhabitants of Fukushima Prefecture suffer Post-Trauma Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorders that apparently cause increased suicide.
        “The expert also pointed to the 15 percent drop in the number of live births in the prefecture in 2011, as well as higher rates of early spontaneous abortions and a 20 percent rise in the infant mortality rate in 2012.

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          "’It is impossible not to be moved by the scale of Fukushima's toll in terms of deaths, suicides, mental ill-health and human suffering,’ the expert said.

          • bo bo

            Yes I noticed that Sputnik article which makes Fairlie sound nicer and legit. So I second guessed myself at first.

            But if you read this Sputnik version closely.. you realize the article was written by someone else, picking and choosing info from what Fairlie said in the ORIGINAL article, and what the writer's assumes of what Fairlie 'must have meant' ?
            Even 'stroke' is added in instead of just cancer which is even nicer & legit. ( although not clear if that was added in because Fairlie said so or if writer just added it in, very vague )

            Please read through at the original Counterpunch article, which *seems* to be the original source of this Sputnik article, as they were released simultaneously, and the Counterpunch article is the article fully penned by Fairlie, with his name under the title.

            Please read this article through – to me he seems to say: so far 60 people died from radiation in fukushima, and the rest died from 'evacuation induced by radiation'
            That's what I saw, but of course I could be wrong – hard to be sure, as it seems there's a lot of wordsmitjing here. So I would love to have confirmation.

            But thank u for the link where Fairlie says in 2011 'Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl' that's interesting, I wonder what Sickputer & majia were referring to then ? Will wait & see if they read & respond.

              • bo bo

                And oh well.. u started wallpapering again.. only way is to wallpaper back

                Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die


                Official data from Fukushimashow that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations necessary to avoid high radiation exposures from the disaster.The uprooting to unfamiliar areas, cutting of family ties, loss of social support networks, disruption, exhaustion, poor physical conditions and disorientation can and do result in many people, in particular older people, dying.

                Increased suicide has occurred among younger and older people following the Fukushima evacuations, but the trends are unclear.A Japanese Cabinet Office report stated that, between March 2011 and July 2014, 56 suicides in Fukushima Prefecture were linked to the nuclear accident. This should be taken as a minimum, rather than a maximum, figure.

                Mental health consequences

                It is necessary to include the mental health consequences of radiation exposures and evacuations. For example, Becky Martin has stated her PhD research at Southampton University in the UK shows that “the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are OFTEN IN OUR MINDS'

                • bo bo

                  All I care right now is about this counterpunch article, which Fairlie FULLY PENNED. And I have only ONE question:

                  In this counterpunch article, does Fairlie say 'so far 60 people died from radiation in fukushima, and the rest died from stress from evacuation'

                  That's what I saw, but of course I could be wrong – hard to be sure, as it seems there's a lot of wordsmitjing here. So I would love to have confirmation.

                  That is the only one question I have today.
                  Thank you.

                  • bo bo

                    Again this is the counterpunch article I referenced. http://t.co/dlUpllGga1

                  • He is somewhat vague about it. He only details the 60 deaths, plus…

                    "An increased infant mortality rate in 2012 and a decreased number of live births in December 2011"

                    Plus several thousand cancer deaths in the future..

                    • bo bo

                      Plus the assumption.. 'thousands more will die IN JAPAN'
                      Phew. Lucky us, we don't live in Japan!

                    • bo bo

                      Plus even putting aside whether he attributes those deaths to 'radiation induced evacuation' lol the numbers themselves are totally lowballed – just in the U.S. – at least according to this study – there was an increase of excess 14000 deaths in the first 14 weeks post fukushima. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article–14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      The numbers are a lie simply based on for every 3 people that die 1 dies from cancer.

                      128,000,000 population x 25% low ball = 32,000.000 deaths by cancer before Fukushima.

                      Average life span next 80 years if baby born today means all others are older or 32,000,000 deaths by cancer divided by 80 years = how many deaths per year in Japan from nuclear induced cancers?

                      400,000 per year death by/from nuclear induced cancers.

                      Now which ones are from Fukushima in a cancer epidemic?

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    Fair Lie concludes only 5000 will die from fukushima, the rest from psychological effects.

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      He is a liar..simple!

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      He never says ONLY 5,000 will die.

                      If someone says 10 will die and 20 die, that person has not lied, because 10 did die.

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Sorry PT, Ive got an unfair advantage on this one. I actually went to FairLies website. Its unambiguous; "about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in future from Fukushima’s fallout."
                      Anyway, your logic is goofy. So if I ask a scientist how many people will die from Fukushima and he says 5, and 50 million die, he wasnt lying because 5 did indeed die? Like the boy who said he took a dollar from his dads wallet. One of 5000 dollars but he wasnt lying!

                      Fair Lie;
                      "About 60 people died immediately during the actual evacuations in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011. Between 2011 and 2015, an additional 1,867 people 2 in Fukushima Prefecture died as a result of the evacuations following the nuclear disaster 3. These deaths were from ill health and suicides.
                      From the UNSCEAR estimate of 48,000 person Sv,it can be reliably estimated (using a fatal cancer risk factor of 10% per Sv) that about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in future from Fukushima’s fallout. This estimate from official data agrees with my own personal estimate using a different methodology"

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Stroke is caused by exposure to radiation.

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

      Ian Fairlie Fukushima Speech
      Chernobyl Congress (IPPNW conference) Berlin. 9 April 2011, Ian Fairlie speech
      “…’I think that Fukushima is already more serious than Chernobyl, already. And it's going to last for a long time. Already IAEA and Japanese Tepco officials are saying that we have to look to the long term on this they said. 3 to 4 years that the accident is going to continue. Their words not mine. 3 to 4 years. [feigned laughter] That's crazy. Chernobyl was over and done with in 10 days in terms of emissions from the reactor. 10 days. Well here we are and we're all of 35 days in and counting….’”

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

      Recent evidence on the risks of very low-level radiation
      January 17, 2013
      By Dr. Ian Fairlie
      “I’ve previously shown that a great deal of evidence supports the LNT hypothesis and indicates radiation effects well below 100 mSv.
      “But in recent months, a flurry of epidemiological studies go further than merely refuting ill-informed articles. They indicate adverse effects to people exposed to very low doses from medical CT scans and other clinical procedures; to infants living near nuclear power stations; and to Chernobyl clean-up workers. They even reveal adverse effects from background radiation to which all of us are exposed.
      “Together they reveal a pattern of higher-than-expected risks from very low exposures to radiation.
      “1. Background Radiation
      “Perhaps the most eye-opening of the recent studies concern background radiation. Most people think that background radiation levels (typically 2 to 3 mSv per year) are very low and are of little concern. But recent authoritative studies clearly indicate that background radiation is not harmless.
      background radiation (Wakeford et al, 2009) – se

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

        – see references at end.

        “This surprising result was first refined to 15% of GB childhood leukaemias (Little et al, 2009) (Kendall et al, 2011), then the team predicted the risk rate from background gamma radiation. After conducting a large record-based case–control study with 27,000 cases and 37,000 controls to test associations between childhood cancer and natural background radiation, the authors estimated that the excess risk of childhood leukaemia was 12% per millisievert of cumulative red bone marrow dose from background gamma radiation (Kendall et al, 2012). The most recent comprehensive review (Wakeford, 2013) confirms these estimates.

        “Just to make sure the point gets across, these studies mean that all children will receive about 1 mSv of gamma radiation from background radiation each year and this results in their leukemia risk being increased by 12%.

        “It’s well known that leukemia is closely associated with radiation exposures and that children are more sensitive to radiation than adults. But the new evidence is not just from childhood leukemias, it comes from radon studies as well.

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          “In Canada, following a survey of 14,000 homes with a geometric mean radon concentration of 42 Bq/m^³, Chen et al (2010) from the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada estimated that 16% of lung cancer deaths in Canada were attributable to indoor radon. However this fits slightly awkwardly with another large (7,000 cases and 14,000 controls) risk assessment of radon exposures (Darby et al, 2006) which estimated an excess relative risk of lung cancer of 16% (95% CI 0.05-0.31) at an average radon concentration of 100 Bq/m³. Whichever of these scientific teams turn out to be correct, the cancer risks from background radon exposures are still higher than were expected even just a few years ago.

          “Another very large Canadian study by Turner et al (2012) of over 800,000 Americans found that indoor radon was significantly associated with deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ie chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema. The hazard ratio was 1.13 per 100 Bq•m?3 (95% CI = 1.05–1.21). There was a significant positive linear trend in deaths with increasing categories of radon concentrations (p<0.05). For comparison, the UK HPA’s recommended Action Level for radon is 200 Bq•m?3: indoor concentrations above this level require remediation.
          mmunology, physiology, mutation and disea

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

            “And in areas with high levels of natural background radiation (usually from monazite sands), Møller and Mousseau (2012) studied radiation effects in local peoples and found increased risks in immunology, physiology, mutation and disease. They stated “.. if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for … intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports”.

            “2. Medical Exposures

            “Most exposures from medical diagnostic procedures are relatively low, and although their collective doses are increasing in most developed countries, in almost all cases they are justified by their clinical benefits. Nevertheless there have been a score or so of articles in scientific journals in recent years expressing concern about the risks of increased doses from CT scans, especially to children. Even the WHO has issued a draft report expressing the need for more vigilance.

            “In order to investigate these concerns, Pearce et al (2012) conducted a massive UK retrospective cohort study of computed tomography (CT) scans among 178,000 patients. The team estimated absorbed brain and red bone marrow doses per CT scan and assessed the excess incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours cancer with Poisson relative risk models.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              They observed a positive association between radiation dose from CT scans and leukaemia (excess relative risk [ERR] per mGy = 0•036, 95% CI 0•005–0•120; p=0•0097); and a positive association with brain tumours (0•023, 0•010–0•049; p<0•0001). They found CT scans caused statistically significant increases in cancer risks in under three-year olds: three head scans tripled their risk of brain cancer and five to ten scans tripled their risk of leukemia. Although the authors did not comment on these risks, there is no doubt that these are large risk increases from relatively small doses.
              “I shall be writing more on this matter in due course.
              “In Canada, similar risk increases were observed by Eisenberg et al (2011) after low-dose exposures from cardiac imaging in adult patients with acute myocardial infarction. For every 10 mSv from cardiac imaging, a 3% increase in cancer risk (RR= 1.03 per 10 mSv, 95% CI = 1.02–1.04) was observed. The authors stated “These results call into question whether our current enthusiasm for imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction should be tempered.”

              “3. Leukemias in Chernobyl Clean-up Workers

              “Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, several studies have attempted to find increased leukemia risks among the tens of thousands of clean-up workers most of whom received relatively low doses, to little avail.

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                This was due to the smallness of the studies and their lack of statistical power. However the latest study, (Zablotska et al, 2013) is very large (over 110,000 workers) and succeeded in finding statistically significant leukemia increases, even at the relatively low doses experienced by most of these adult workers (average dose = 92 mSv). The authors found a significant linear dose response for all leukemias with an ERR/Gy of 2.38 (95% CI: 0.49, 5.87).

                “4. Leukemias near Nuclear Power Stations

                “The final area is exposures from nuclear power stations.

                “Readers will be aware of my lectures showing that about 40 studies worldwide indicate increased leukemia risks among children within 5 km of nuclear power plants (NPPs). In particular, the important 2008 KiKK case-control study (discussed in Fairlie, 2009), which was commissioned by the German Government, found large increases in the risks of child leukemias and embryonal cancers near all German NPPs. This authoritative report led to geographical studies sponsored by the governments of France, UK, Switzerland and Germany. These have now been published and all four had similar findings, ie 30% to 40% increases in child leukemias near NPPs – see table from Körblein and Fairlie (2012) which contains the references to these four government studies.”

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          The only way to make this background radiation danger assessment is to raise children completely shielded from background radiation, including removing all k-40 from their bodies. Who wants to bet they would be healthier in completely shielded non radioactive environments?

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            The low dose no threshold model is deeply flawed. Why? for some isotopes there is no low dose, only if unfairly averaged over whole body exposure. Then it invites comparison to background radiation. Is 5000 becquerels a low dose or a dangerous dose? Nobody will answer this question, I wonder why. Theyre not sure, or what? If we embrace the low dose no threshold model at least we should have some idea of what a low dose is, right?

            • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

              Not really anything manmade has a no dose low threshold..meaning do not expose your self to any of it. 🙂

              Or become become one of the 2.9 billion cancer deaths by 2100. 🙁

              • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                Here are some of your low dose results.. 🙁

                This is considered a U.S. cancer epidemic and or a black plague that grows daily with all Nuclear Technology Applications on this planet. 🙁

                Fukushima will guarantee another world wide spike and soon 100% of all life will soon be cancerous in some form..

                Are charts showing the results and the future really that hard to understand?

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  What was it that started this worldwide cancer nightmare? 🙁

                  Low dose manmade and here is how it was done, and then when people searched all areas where these radioactive mining/application sites were located, they found more cancers, and then they checked the radioactive waste areas, and they found more cancers, and then they checked around Nuclear Power Plants/hospitals/bases and they found more cancers, and then governments started paying out billions for the low dose cancer damage done to humans who were exposed silently and quietly. 🙁

                  Massive lawsuits were required to get any compensation like 9-11.

                  You government is doing you no favors and they will always favor themselves first in all situations.. 🙁

                  We have all been lied to for the making of the stinking dollar bill…

                  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                    This video along with increasing cancer numbers worldwide prove that the concept of Nuclear Hormesis is a false premise.

                    1900 little to no worldwide cancer = discovery application of Nuclear
                    2015 Billions slotted for cancer death = Nuclear Hormesis is False

                    Occam's Razor! 🙂

                    • Obi, the force is strong within you, but you still have not convinced me it is Nuclear causing the worldwide increase.

                      Early 20th century radio systems transmitted messages by continuous wave code only. Early attempts at developing a system of amplitude modulation for voice and music were demonstrated in 1900 and 1906, but had little success. World War I accelerated the development of radio for military communications, and in this era the first vacuum tubes were applied to radio transmitters and receivers

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Another simple chart and see the spike 1990 after Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster? How it cancer continued to increase? 🙁

                      My, my, truth is in the eye of the beholder of the information supplied. 🙂

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Dark you do know I like your thinking and your passion for correcting what is wrong in this bat~shit crazy insane world. 🙂

                      I did look at your Newport NY information, but have not perused/studied your site as of yet. Yes I am aware the military care little for anything but themselves.

                      Very Dark Energy all over the worldwide military practice at all times. 🙁

                      Now if you can somehow convince me and others that these images of cancers, deformities and mutations were created by your technology applications and not Nuclear Technology applications..then I am in. 🙂

                      Here is your visual proof to my argument and charts presented. I asked you to study these links awhile ago.

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      All cancers require certain things for them to occur.. 🙁
                      Cellular Mutations..

                      Cancer is not a natural function which you already know..

                    • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                      Here is a look after TMI and did your technology do this or did the TMI Nuclear Disaster do this?

                      It appears Nuclear Radioactivity releases did all of this damage. Once again disproving any Nuclear Hormesis Theory. 🙁

                    • Obe,

                      I am in the camp that believes no amount of ionizing radiation for any period of time is good for you.

                      I am in the camp that believes limited amount of electromagnetic radiation is good for you, ie.a little sunlight, a little radio. I do not believe it is healthy to live near transmission towers, especially high power high gain antennas of any type.

                      I would expect cancer rates to increase around nuclear sites and places like Fukushima and Chernobyl and effect all biology in the area.

                      Your pictures from Iraq, since they did not to my knowledge have or use Nuclear weapons may be attributable to excessive electromagnetic radiation as they did use a lot of radars and high power transmitters.

                      Many of the dolphins, manatees, sharks and reef fish we have been finding dead have full stomachs and do not appear highly diseased although some appear to have excessive skin and flipper damage, not necessarily tumors (although some do) so to me it does not appear many of them were sick for long but suddenly died in a specific area.

                      Once somebody explains how ionizing radiation could make this happen in clustered areas along all of our coastlines without being detectable I am all ears.

                      I did not start out my research thinking high power, high gain antennas were shocking marine mammals, my maps and statistics have led me to that conclusion.

                      May the force be with you…

                    • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

                      Not detectable Ha ha ha. The bait for hook then the passive aggressive sinker to show casual and other vis8tors to this site that since beusseler and the gov dont measures rads it does not exist. Now he will saybthat bob nichols and radnet readings do not measure for ionizing radiation and that anything anyone sees on their inspector is there because you are misreading it or because you are crazy or because inspectors are unreliable. He is saying all of mvbs work and bobby1s work is unreliable. he is bullying us the same way the rest of them have been bullying and lying since 3 11. He even calls jebus lap dog over and ovrr like mf aunavoz socref metalbeard. please hit report comment several times and move on. sexually harrassed ann beck. bullied her

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      There were lots of sources to the birth defects in Iraq. They had a nuclear reactor which was bombed in 1981, the Iraqis manufactured biological and chemical weapons which they used against the Iranians for 8 years and which Saddam Husein used against his own people. The Americans used depleted uranium weapons, Saddam Husein destroyed the land south of Baghdad after the first Gulf War, etc. All of there weapons were carcinogenic and mutagenic.

                    • For whatever reason, I see no reply button on Dark Energy's comments, so will just reply best I can.
                      Dark wrote:"Your pictures from Iraq, since they did not to my knowledge have or use Nuclear weapons may be attributable to excessive electromagnetic radiation as they did use a lot of radars and high power transmitters."

                      Does depleted uranium count?
                      There was plenty of that in Iraq, still is.


                      Certain birth rare birth defects are definitely showing up in offspring of military vets, which studies have addressed.

                      Similar, tho' larger amounts of such are common in Iraq and many have sued for compensation while international health organizations have filed complaints against America for knowingly leaving the DU behind.

                      "Many of the dolphins, manatees, sharks and reef fish we have been finding dead have full stomachs and do not appear highly diseased"

                      Perhaps you missed the Canadian and Alaskan reports since 2011 Re: uncommon emaciation in marine mammals like the seals, sea lions, walruses, and several species of fish and birds?
                      There are many more reports of starvation, possible collapse of the food chain than there are for "healthy animals" being found dead.

              • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                Now to really put things into perspective and how this is really a Nuclear Numbers game now. I have presented the world jet stream worldwide circulation patterns and have found that most of all cancers will be found below these air streams were the manmade radioactivity falls to the ground once it is airborne and why all Nuclear Testing on Planet Earth was stopped.

                The reasons are simple why they stopped it all the fallout caused cancers and diseases.

                Now the entire population of the world of 7 billion can all live inside the State of Texas with a 1000 square feet each. Yet many scream we have an over population problem. Pretty sure we actually have a consumption problem, but that is another topic. So, if such a small space of Planet Earth can fit everybody then when you spread them all out on the Earth nobody is here.

                70% of the planet is covered with water and we humans do not live on the water yet. So 70% of the Nuclear fallout can land in water leaving 30% for land fallout. This means the Earth is very large and the open space is huge and there is a good chance you can miss eating, breathing, and wearing these Nuclear Poisons. But the more we create the slimmer the prospects of not being hit by these Nuclear Poisons. Bioaccumulation and the long live released manmade radioactive isotopes will eventually find there way up the food chains and on to our dinner tables and inside all our homes.

                This damage is only 70 years in and growing bigger by the year! 🙁

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  The smartness thing to do at this point is to Ban the Nuclear Technology and shut down all Nuclear Power Plants, since we already know more will blow up and more swaths of land will become dead zones and uninhabitable for humans.

                  Guess that is one way to shrink your own planet…simply trash your own planet with Nuclear Radioactive Poisons. Once we have trashed all our natural resources in/through the Nuclear Process we will all move back in time and begin to eat each other again.

                  Some people here on Earth actually call this Nuclear Nightmare progress! 🙂

                • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

                  Waninahi1, Excellent links! 🙂

                  There is no doubt about what is killing everything out here.. 🙁

                  Ban it and ban it all now!

                  • I'm the new kid here, I know so little, but being a product of the late 1950s, early 1960s, I saw what seemed to work. When people took to the streets, things changed. I don't know how many of us there are here on this site, but I do know thousands have agreed on my old website. That may seem like few, just thousands, but when thousands start roaring and demanding change, we HAVE seen change. I've knocked on politicians' doors, made more phone calls and written more letters than I care to recall, but that face-to-face encounter always seems to be what they react MOST to. We have voices, some of you are quite eloquent. Raise those voices in face-to-face encounters and see what happens. I believe in action, action backed by TRUTH over everything. For my grandkids and great-grandkids, I'll keep hammering on those doors. But what if we ALL did that? Like I said, I know little, but I know Tecumseh was right…bundled arrows have much strength. We just gotta aim them in the right direction. ~I;-)

                    • from a distance from a distance

                      @Waninahi1 – Glad you're aboard. You're already a welcome addition to Enenews, imo.

                      (P.S. – Do you think you can get some of the thousands from your old website to sign this petition 🙂 🙂


                    • I dunno what's up with the reply buttons, but I'm muddling along… I certainly DID post a link to that & I think I stole some of Collins' material again to do so. No way to contact the lad to get his permission so I just raid him when the spirit moves. I did chide people to NOT comment anonymously. What's the point of making a comment and NOT leaving your calling card? Given that time is running out, I should have thought to post the link at the end of each blog & will do so from now on, thanks to you, From A Distance. Sorry, I don't know any of you great folks by name & many of us prefer that, yes? Been reading you since Fuku blew, have a deep respect for this group. Any time I step on toes, just tell me. I can get a little obnoxious, or so I'm (often) told, but I'm not intentionally so. [Never listen to vicious rumors] TRUTH, I do TRUTH and I spend a LOT of time finding it. Just glad I found a considerable amount right here. Hey, any other insomniacs aboard? And are the forums 'fair game'? I try not to raid other folks' hunting grounds. Mostly…

                    • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog


                      search: "ornithine, insomnia"

                      And thanks for keepin' watch.

            • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog

              Code, Is it a dose of K40 or plutonium? Or some other Fukush concoction? If I say "K40" is a radioactice isotope and has a hormetic effect.", Then, can I also say "Plutonium also has a hormetic effect, because it is also a radioactive isotope."? Banana/MOX- same thing.
              A separate threshhold would have to be set for every isotope measured in background…all kinds I hear now…Background is also a lazy interpretation in it's own right. Background of what? The isotopes measured in background have changed, but that just get's interpreted with "background". Using this rule, hormesis is then applied to include all isotopes, all background. When in fact, hormesis is limited in it's application and isotopes. Using the same rule, they apply threshhold proven for one radioactive isotope- to all other isotopes, despite evidence to the contrary. The new rules and threshholds are just a taste of what's to come. Glad they're planning ahead.
              Fukushima on a plate. Enjoy. Tip the nuke industry on your way out.

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                thats right HillBilly, you cant apply hormesis to man-made isotopes, and probably not all natural isotopes either. Changing the internal and external balance of nature is not very wise, especially when the change is a radioactive poison.

              • Thanks much, Hillbilly. I do the liquid aminos thing, but insomnia has been a lifesaver since I was born. I can honestly say I appreciate it. Who called sleep "the small death"?
                Coming off a day of helping a neighbor dip animals with sulfur/lime, so glad you all can't get a whif. Showers don't help. Baa haa. Reading with much interest the latest, hoping to catch up after the 2 hounds are fed. Looks like somebody has filled the proverbial handbasket & we're headed deep in a hurry. Missed an entire day of reading news sources, here, everywhere. Deep appreciation for all the current posts, folks. This website SHOULD get several million hits a day.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Code's argument is the same as that of socref, Rod Adams, and is the nuclear cabal's playbook to confuse everyone.

              In the first place, it doesn't matter if 5,000 becquerels is low dose or not. The dose scam is still the dose scam.

              one becquerel can damage the DNA of one cell which can cause cancer. This is proven epidemiologically.

              If you take all the studies of the atomic bomb survivors from both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the leukemia rates from the lowest doses is a supra linear curve. This is not a theoretical model but an epidemiological model derived from actual data.

              Also the 5,000 Becquerels of K-40 for an 80 kg man is again not based upon actual figures which is from real data only 4-5,000 Becquerels of K-40 for an 80 kg man.

              It has been proven from many, many studies that any dose of any kind of radiation can cause cancer. These are actual studies of real people and real animals.

              The thing that is flawed is the religious, cult mentality of the nuclear cabal who value money over human life, who value power over preserving any life on the planet.

              Advertising and propaganda do not equal reality and the truth.

  • bo bo

    Sickputer or majia, if either of u are reading this, will u please let me know which 'symposium' this Sickputer comment is referring to ?
    I want to nail down this FairLIE he makes me so mad

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

      Ian Fairlie publications:

      • Hypothesis to Explain Childhood Cancer near Nuclear Power Plants. Int J Occup Environ Health 16:341–350 (2010)
      • Childhood Cancer Near German Nuclear Power Stations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C. 28:1–21 (2010)
      • Chernobyl: Consequences Of The Catastrophe For People And The Environment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. Book Review. 141(1): 97-101. (2010)
      • Commentary on J. F. Bithell, et al Childhood Leukaemia near British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Jan;138(1):87-8; author reply 89-91. Epub 2009 Oct 19. (with Alfred Körblein)
      • Commentary on UNSCEAR 2006 Report: Annex C–the new effects of radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Feb;138(2):190-3.
      • Review of epidemiology studies of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on Laurier et al. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Feb;138(2):194-5; author reply 195-7. (with Alfred Körblein)
      • Commentary: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations Environmental Health 2009, 8:43. 12 pages. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-8-43.pdf
      • Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear Power Stations: the ongoing debate. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 197–205.
      • Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear Power Stations: hypothesis to explain the cancer increases. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 206–220.

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

        Ian Fairlie publications cont.
        • Depleted uranium: properties, military use and health risks. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. Vol 25:1. 2008 pp 41-64
        • The health effects of depleted uranium. Disarmament Forum. UNIDIR (2008) Vol 3. pp. 3 – 16. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2756.pdf
        • The hazards of tritium – revisited. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. Vol 24:4. October 2008. pp 306 -319. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a904743144~db=all~order=page
        • New evidence of childhood leukaemias near nuclear power stations. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 24:3, pp 219 – 227. August 2008. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a794966247~db=all~order=page
        • Reasonable doubt. (Child Leukemias near German Nuclear Power Stations) New Scientist. 26 April 2008. Page 19. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826535.300-comment-lets-take-cancer-clusters-seriously-this-time.html
        • Dispersal, deposition and collective doses after the Chernobyl disaster. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 23:1, pp 10 –30. June 2007. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a770375304~db=all~order=page
        • RBE and wR values of Auger emitters and low-range beta emitters with particular reference to tritium. Journal of Radiological Protection. Vol 27 pp 157-168. (2007) http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/27/2/003/

        • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

          Dr. Ian Fairlie publications cont.
          • Global warming: is nuclear power the answer? Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 23:3, pp 228 – 233. June 2007. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673482
          • Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities. Published by Greenpeace Canada. June 2007. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/tritium-hazard-report-pollu.pdf
          • Tritium Hazard Report on Cernavoda 3 and 4: Environment Impact Analysis: Report for Greenpeace Romania. Published by Greenpeace CentralEurope. November 2007. http://www.greenpeace.ro/uploads/articole/Cernavoda%20Report%20for%20GP%20Central%20Europe.pdf
          • The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH). An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with critical analyses of recent IAEA/WHO reports. Ian Fairlie and David Sumner. Commissioned by Rebecca Harms, MEP, Published by Greens/EFA in the European Parliament. April 2006. http://www.chernobylreport.org
          • New Information on Radiation Health Hazards. In “Nuclear or Not. Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?” Editor David Elliott. Palgrave Macmillan. London. May 2006. http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0230507646


          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

            Dr. Ian Fairlie's publications cont.
            • Uncertainties in Doses and Risks from Internal Radiation. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 21:2. pp 111 – 126. (2005) http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714004320~db=all~order=page
            • New Information on Radiation Health Hazards. Energy and Environment. Vol 23. October 2005.
            • Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (UK) and Cap de La Hague (France). Report published by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel of the European Parliament. Xavier Coeytaux, Yacine Faid, Ian Fairlie, David Lowry, Yves Marignac, Emmanuel Rouy, Mycle Schneider and Gordon Thompson. April 2001. Commissioned by European Parliament, Directorate General for Research.
            • Transfer of radioactivity to fruit: significant radionuclides and speciation. Ould-Dada Z, Fairlie I and Read C. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. Vol 52 pp 159-174 (2001)
            • In Defence of Collective Dose. Fairlie I and Sumner D. Journal of Radiological Protection Vol 20 pp 1–10. (2000)
            • A Nuclear Waste. How Ending Reprocessing Can Benefit Public Health, Protect the Environment and Save up to £6 Billion.SERA Publication. Socialist Environment and Resources Association. June 1997.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Dr. Ian Fairlie's publications cont.
              • Radioactive Waste: International Examination Of Storage And Reprocessing Of Spent Fuel. PhD Thesis. Centre for Environmental Technology. ImperialCollege ofScience, Technology and Medicine.London. September 1997.
              • No Dose Too Low. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ian Fairlie and Marvin Resnikoff. Nov/Dec 1997 pp 52-56.
              • Spent Fuel Storage Visited. CEES Working Paper No 137. Centre for Energy and Environment.PrincetonUniversity.PrincetonNJUnited States. December 1997.
              • Radiation and Health. In “Health and the Environment”. Published by SERA and SHA.
              • Government forces NRPB to Back Down Safe Energy. Vol 102. Autumn 1994. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se102-Fairlie.pdf
              • Magnox Gamma Shine Safe Energy. Vol 95. June-July 1993. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se95-Fairlie.pdf
              • Tritium: The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard. The Ecologist. Vol 22 No 5. 228-232 (1992)
              • Tritium – the cause of leukemias? Safe Energy. Vol 91. Oct-Nov 1992. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se91-Fairlie.pdf
              • Estimation of Radiation Doses to Critical Groups near Dungeness Nuclear Power Station. MSC Thesis.MedicalCollege of St Bartholomew’s Hospital.London (1992)

        • bo bo

          But stop before you wallpaper this to oblivion – will u please wait to hear from Sickputer & majia ? The question I had was about that specific comment regarding 'a symposium' where Fairlie seems to have said Chernobyl was worse than Fukushima.
          However if you do happen to know which symposium they are referring to, please do share.

            • from a distance from a distance

              Dr. Ian Fairlie's presentation at the symposium, click on his name:


              • Sickputer

                +311 fad 🙂

                SP: Thanks for answering bo… I have been busy with family today (5 puppies 4 weeks old needing supervision, but more importantly my wife and I celebrated our wedding anniversary today. 🙂

                That NYC confab was the symposium and I didn't get to view a lot of the speakers (my presence was virtual from Texas, not in person which I believe majia may have been in physical attendance. Not sure though… My memory has some gaps…I think I lost 5% of my brain memories during my five hour vascular surgery several months ago.

                My favorite speaker I listened to at that March 2013 symposium was the Soviet scientist who was savaged by the nucleoapes pre-Fukushima for his work on the Royal Academy book disowned by the Big Brother suckups here and abroad. I forget his name, but he was awesome in his presentation.

                Don't remember much about Fairlie other than the comments I made on Enenews which in reviewing I do claim as my honest opinion at that time. I remember the map part really well, just didn't sit right with me. To be fair (pun) to Fairlie, I don't know if he was Internet savvy enough to understand the truth being told about Fukushima in that time frame (2011-2013). So was he honestly representing what he had learned by traditional sources of information? Maybe. And maybe he has a better grasp on the magnitude now. The diehard nuclear energy supporters are fairly shellshocked by the long string of bad news from Fukuhell, but they hide it well. 🙂

          • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

            I wonder what Busby has to say about Fairly.

          • Shaker1

            "About 60 people died immediately during the actual evacuations in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011."

            Is this the sentence you're asking about, Bo?

            It clearly states "during the actual evacuattions". I read it as direct deaths plainly attributable to evacuation process.

            What the arrticle is about is evacuation effects. I might challenge numbers, too, and his psychological stuff is layman's conjecture and BS that should make one mad. He's neither qualified or can even conjecturally point to any case but suicide. He didn't define the numbers outside of a MSM article cited in the original PDF, the offical numbers without criticism of his own. A fluff piece. Maybe he's trying to make his point within the official numbers to have some credibility with those who accept them? It's a half-assed method of getting what might be necessary out of it.

            I've seen or-well's post (thank you or-well, always exceptionally reliable) and am not saying that he's not a gatekeeper of sorts.

            Might it also say something of Counterpunch and all these other aggregators who aren't too critical themselves?

            As Sickputer said, Fairlie has been iffy regarding what we might have him focus upon. I found his tritium papers good, which is all I've cared to read from him.

            I guess the point is (and has always been) trust no one at any one time. All propaganda and misdirection holds some truth and one can never know another's momentary motives.

            I, for one, will be more…

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

            Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die
            by Ian Fairlie
            August 20, 2015

            “…Cancer and other late effects from radioactive fallout

            “Finally, we have to consider the longer term health effects of the radiation exposures from the radioactive fallouts after the four explosions and three meltdowns at Fukushima in March 2011. Large differences of view exist on this issue in Japan. These make it difficult for lay people and journalists to understand what the real situation is.

            “The Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honourable exceptions) minimise the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable.

            “For example, the Japanese Government is attempting to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Its scientists are trying to force the ICRP to accept this large increase. This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable….”

    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

      Dr. Fairlie is not building nuclear power plants and did not cause the Fukushima disaster.

      Please focus on those who are causing all the death and suffering on the planet. Those who are keeping nuclear technology alive should be the focus of anger, not someone who has proven with studies many times over that low dose radiation is killing people and is destroying the human genome.

      • bo bo

        You know.. each person is free to make their own opinion about Fairlie, like Sickputer and 'From a Distance' has.

        & I totally hear you, 'from a distance'- I did listen to Fairlie stand firmly against hormesis on Libbe's show ( I listened it through full segment carefully )
        It kind of almost swayed me ( just as each time I read Hiranuma's sincere sounding expose of Dr. Yamashita's lies, I am still swayed )

        Personally, though – when I read those first few paragraphs on counterpunch articles, knowing that each word was fully penned by Fairlie ( with drafting assistance by his friend Hiranuma and some others ) – I am not able to accept him as being 'on our side'

        • bo bo

          For example I do not always agree with Gundersen ( bobby1 once called him 'fukushima lite') , but I accept him as on 'our side' even if we don't agree if there was fuel in SFP 4 or if 3/11 tsunami/ quake was induced artificially – it's a big issue, but actually, this difference is not important in the bigger scheme of things – more important to me is knowing Arnie would NEVER in a million years personally pen an article that opens with the following, exact words ( from counterpunch) :

          'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS.'

          • bo bo

            I'm sorry, but to bring 'radiation-induced evacuation' as cause of death as main talking point/opener when given a chance to reach readers in 'counterpunch' is criminal to me.
            This is not Newsweek, it's 'counterpunch' – it carries more clout.

            For example I saw some nonJapanese nonFukushima bloggers who normally focus on geo-political stuff but they all took a moment to think about Fukushima last week just because it was on counterpunch. Since they don't spend 24/7 thinking about Fukushima like us and the minute details of radiation, I think many of these otherwise intelligent people swallowed this whole, pits and all. To them, it will make no difference the good academic work Fairlie has done on tritium – this is the only thing they'll ever read from him.

            • bo bo

              And to the rest of the world who read this counterpunch article (because influential tweeters/bloggers pointed to it ) – guess what. Most people in this day and age only skim articles and grab info from THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS ( where all that mumbo jumbo about 'mental health' is placed), holding a bag of popcorn in the other hand. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if the writer says some fairly legit-ish things several scrolls down the article. And there's no way Fairlie and Hiranuma were not aware of this fast, on-the-go readership when submitting to 'counterpunch' – I almost am inclined to think that order, that placement was strategic.

              I view this move by Fairlie combined with finding by or-well & Jebus as criminal & unforgivable – nothing can make up to it, and is beyond just 'disagreeing views' – I sense a sinister force. It makes it even more clear knowing Hiranuma (who has made nasty attacks to Busby* & Mangano ) is on his side.
              But that's all just a personal view with a whole lot of sixth sense thrown in, so.. don't mind me…

              • bo bo

                * I understand not all people agree with Busby or Mangano. It was the style of attack against Busby that caught my attention – an attack citing his 'mental instability' or.. has Busby really turned into a psycho recently or something ?

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  Do you have a link for these terrible accusations? Where is your link?

                  • bo bo

                    I left a link last time we discussed about Hiranuma. You accused me then of being a shill for questioning an activist ( 'You must be pronuke, to question intention of an avtivist doing good things!') , then later, you accused me of being pronuke for being 'unsure where Hiranuma stands' ( 'Anybody who attacks Busby is pronuke! Hiranuma is obviously pronuke! To not be sure about that shows you are pronuke !' )
                    That was the gist of it…

                    I'm sure you can find the thread with your amazing research skills. My fingers are tired and chemical plants are blowing up in Japan.. I'll leave that job up to you.
                    I think RobG, or-well, & maybe Sickputer remembers.. I supplied a very solid link then. Not repeating it here. Good day.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      bo, you just said this: "has Busby really turned into a psycho "

                      Why are you just making character assassination statements?

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      bo, the accusations you are making against me are not in the discussion of Hiranuma. I said nothing against this because I know nothing about Hiranuma.

                      June 20, 2015 at 3:28 am
                      CSD: why didnt OJP publish Yuri Hiranuma's objection..
                      We may never know without asking the editor.
                      Rhetorical Q's sometimes require restatement of what appears to be the obvious:
                      “…by then it was obvious that she had royally fucked up in her approach.”
                      Doubtful it was sanctioned by PSR.
                      Publish a document by someone distancing themselves from their own objections by virtue of the fact they are refusing to substantiate their underlying analysis in writing?
                      “The exposures from Fukushima clearly affected an objectively measured bio-indicator the frequency distribution of TSH scored in newborns.”
                      The cutoff would not change the conclusion.
                      “..utterly stupid assertion about mechanisms, and the only effect of radiation being lagged cancer increases…
                      There are many epidemiological indications that increased death rates immediately following low level exposures and plenty of mechanisms.
                      However, a mechanism identification is not necessary for causality…this was stated by Sir Austen Bradford Hill in his Principles of Medical Statistics…”
                      Hiranuma can respond at any time to the invitation to put papers into the peer review process. Goddard, irrelevant.
                      By the time this happens, Japan will be in the midst of a radiation caused death and disease epidemic originating at point and…

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      You can't use quotation marks unless you have a link and those are the exact words from the citation.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      In that discussion I did say this:

                      Here is the link to Dr. Busby's comment:

                    • bo bo

                      PraisingTruth said –
                      August 24, 2015 at 10:35 am

                      'bo, you just said this: "has Busby really turned into a psycho recently"
                      Why are you just making character assassination statements?'

                      Why did you just say 'assasination' PT?
                      Did u assassinate somebody ? I'm so confused !!

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      bo, why don't you Google the definition. It means pretty much the same as slander. Calling an antiNuke scientists a psycho is a trick of proNukers.

                      char•ac•ter as•sas•si•na•tion
                      noun: character assassination; plural noun: character assassinations
                      1. the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      If you don't know the definitions of "false" (in the definition of slander) and "unjustified" (in the definition of character assassination) you can look them up.

                      Are you now accusing me of assassinating someone? This is again vicious slander. If I had the money I would sue you. Maybe someone else will sue you. Free speech doesn't mean that you can slander someone on engage in character assassination.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      I'm going to start my own website. It will be academic without any comment section. I'm going to be too busy to comment here to people who are vicious trolls.

            • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

              Please criticize the Japanese government for hiding the truth. Please criticize the Japanese government for incinerating nuclear waste all across Japan to prevent the epidemiological studies to show cause of death.

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                Please criticize the Japanese government for hiding the number of infants born with horrible mutations and killed at birth.

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                Please criticize the Japanese government for adding MOX fuel to 2 reactors at Fukushima. Please criticize the Japanese government for not decommissioning Fukushima long before the accidents. Please critize the Japanese government for restarting their nuclear reactors and for still using MOX fuel in reactors at the present time.

          • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

            Where is your link? 'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS

            All you offer is just propaganda, innuendo, and classic mind washing techniques.

            Substantiate your claims with actual links with actual quotes linked or continue you as you said, slandering everyone. Slander is malicious, FALSE, statements.

            • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

              hope you start that academic website soon.

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                TY, cannotdo1. I already have a website on pesticides, and I just need to add to it. I had another website on cell phones and cell towers that was on a university website, but it got deleted when they updated that link, and I just need to upload it from a disc.

                I will start with just citations on low level radiation.

                I am getting an add on hard drive so I can update to Windows 10, but it will be a couple of weeks because I need to wait until my pension deposit comes at the end of the month before I can order that hard drive.

                • Think twice before "updating" to Windows 10 and consider their "privacy policy"


                  This is not a joke
                  We collect data on everyone you know, including all their information that you have in your computer or phone.

                  We collect all your financial information, that is online, even your Quickbooks files if emailed or posted on OneDrive, your tax filings, anything and everything.

                  We also collect (and buy from others precise information) on where you have been, what hot spots you have come close to even if you didn't log in. This can be very specific information and basically tracks your every step while your phone is turned on.

                  We collect everything you have searched for
                  We take all the contents of all your computer files. …….

                  • DUDe DisasterInterpretationDissorder

                    Hi stock and all , for win7 users , if you want to get rid of GWX.exe , the popup nazi Win10 installer, tutorial here..


                  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                    TY, stock. Right now I just have Windows Vista, and will be updating to Windows 7. My son says that as Microsoft abandons a program, more and more holes appear so more malware is able to take hold because Microsoft is no longer offering updates and patches.

                    I already don't have the fastest processor in the world. I think it is rated at 593, and Intel Core i7 is rated at 10,000.

                    Anyway, I think I will be better with Windows 7 when I take an online free class that is using C## for engineering and physics problems. The class doesn't start until October.

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      is 5000 bq internal dose that does no harm a low or high? Is two bq per larva LD50 a low or high dose?

                      Is the 30 bq/kg that causes heart problems a low dose? Does the k-40 in the ocean give a low or high dose to the animals in the sea? If Im going to embrace the low dose,…especially the low no threshold linear theory, first I need to know what a low dose is. I need a benchmark…say for example the background radiation. Is background low or high? If background is low, then anything less than that…can it be a high dose?

                      would everyone be healthier if we could filter out our native k-40? Not one of you experts will answer. I think this is the answer, in part;

                      The low dose idea is flawed. The stochastic model is flawed. The hormesis theory, both the promotion of it and the denial of it is flawed.

                      The only sure way is to try to return to pre nuclear industrial age levels, whether you call them high or low. The only way to judge radiation is to get specific about the isotope and how, when and where the exposure takes place. Anything less results in the above conundrum. The easy way is to assume life was flourishing before man made nuclear fallout and not after.

                      The low dose model leads to comparisons with background. This leads to erroneous conclusions, and the ability of companies to release rad poison claiming it will dilute to low levels.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      Why don't you write to Dr. Buessler or Dr.Fairlie or Dr. Busby and publish the answer here?

            • bo bo

              Oh.. wow.. this entire thread, beginning with my initial post has been about this ONE Counterpunch article (and I even left the link over and over through out thread ) and – you haven't even read it.
              Ok.. well.. here it goes again for the millionths time…
              This is the article that has been penned fully under Ian Fairlie's name, which we have been discussing.

              You will see those exact words within the first few paragraphs.

              & to be clear-
              these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS'
              is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
              (He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)

              The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.

              I thank you for taking the time to read this article which this entire discussion was about. I appreciate it.

              • bo bo

                ↑ This above post is in response to PT saying that I am slandering Fairley by saying that he said these preposterous words – 'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS'

                Well.. he said these words.

                PT says to bo :
                All you offer is just propaganda, innuendo, and classic mind washing techniques.
                Substantiate your claims with actual links with actual quotes linked or continue you as you said, slandering everyone. Slander is malicious, FALSE, statements.

                Huh. It almost seems she agrees with bo, that those words penned by Fairley in the Counterpunch article are preposterous. She's really mad I claimed Fairley uttered such nonsense.

                • bo bo

                  But yes, Fairley said those exact words, he did utter such nonsense.

                  For the millionths time-


                  • bo bo

                    Yes – I actually did use the term 'slander' there incorrectly. I do apologize about that misleading comment.

                    What I really I meant was :
                    'yes, I have intentions of exposing the negative sides of Dr. Fairley and I have no intentions of treating him with kid gloves here, since I personally found his writing, his wording in this Counterpunch article to be unforgiveable.'

                    So I did not mean 'slander' – which refers to 'making up false accusations.'
                    All I meant was to expose negative sides of Fairley that I saw and believed to be real. However as I make clear in the post, I also kept that rather open-ended.

                    • bo bo

                      These were my exact words from which you cherrypicked just one rude phrase→

                      'Sorry.. that counterpunch article is enough for me to be furious at Fairlie, so yes, I'm slandering him but I really don't care. If you'd like to fight back about it please do so AFTER answering my one and only question here..
                      Because I'm actually still open to the possibility that my reading on this counterpunch article written by Fairlie is wrong – the sly wordsmithing is confusing.'

                      But.. there's no way to prove my intention of the word slander, so I guess yes, you can sue me and throw me in jail, as you have expressed your wish to be. Lol what nice Christian lady.

                  • PT, bo has a sense of humour, which is useful. she was joking, telling the truth is not slander.

                    All joking aside though, even telling the truth, if the only purpose is to create undue harm can be called defamation. I guess that means you need to have a reason for telling the truth.

                • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                  Fairlie never said these words: "the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often in our minds". So please don't take me to task for not reading the article. This is a quote of Becky Martin said.

                  • bo bo

                    Yes – I spelled out that part about Becky Martin very clearly, to be fair to Fairley.
                    Please see my comments here:

                    I clearly said:

                    '& to be clear-these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS' is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
                    (He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)
                    The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.'

                    • bo bo

                      I made sure to spell that out, as it would be unfair to quote that as Fairley's own words, if it had been a quote from an article where he is criticizing Becky Martin's position.

                      But.. reading the article it must be clear to you as it is to others, that Fairley and Martin are in complete sync here, their views are blended and melted together like butter – it's not an unfair quote at all – very much in contrast to your accusation that I said 'Chris Busby is a psycho!' (really hard to believe that someone has that bad of a reading comprehension to grasp context.. but ok, I give u the benefit of the doubt that your reading comprehension is really that bad)

                    • bo bo

                      & Yes PT I read through that part of the article where he takes a stand against ICRP & it *almost* made me teary too. You're free to clutch onto that piece Fairley tosses out in the last half (several scrolls down the article, after most hurried readers had already stopped reading) and hug it to sleep at night.
                      I personally cannot stomach what he utters in the beginning of this article, and nothing can make up for it – but that's just my personal view and values – we just happen to disagree about that.
                      It's ok & permitted for us to not always agree, I think ?

              • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                I already quoted from this article, and, yes, I did read it:


                Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die
                by Ian Fairlie
                August 20, 2015
                “…Cancer and other late effects from radioactive fallout
                “Finally, we have to consider the longer term health effects of the radiation exposures from the radioactive fallouts after the four explosions and three meltdowns at Fukushima in March 2011. Large differences of view exist on this issue in Japan. These make it difficult for lay people and journalists to understand what the real situation is.
                “The Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honourable exceptions) minimise the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable.
                “For example, the Japanese Government is attempting to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Its scientists are trying to force the ICRP to accept this large increase. This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable….”

                • bo bo

                  Copying and pasting and an article .. actually does not mean.. reading an article, PT.
                  I'm no better, I often do slippery reads myself.. but one thing I'm proud of is I'm always very honest about what I have and have not read. What I can and cannot understand.

                  • bo bo

                    The fact that u did not even recognize those preposterous words uttered by Fairlie in the very first paragraphs ( actually, the very first sentence!) in the counterpunch article to me suggests that you essentially did not read the article. Your cursor read it, but not u. But that's just a hunch.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      Sorry, you are totally wrong and didn't read the article and didn't copy and paste it correctly. Becky Martin said those words.
                      And you falsely attributed those words to Dr. Fairlie.


                      Didn't he say that the people did need to be evacuated, and that they needed to be cared for more adequately in evacuation? It was the nuclear cabal said that these people shouldn't have been evacuated. It is not correct to claim that Dr. Fairlie said that or that he was the equivalent of WHO or any other agency that disparages the effects of radiation.

                      Again, you are twisting the information and accusing me falsely, which is a character assassination. Calling Dr. Busby a psycho is a character assassination. Intimating that I have assassinated someone which without the word character assasination is accusing me of murdering someone.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      In addition, Becky Martin added these words: "She adds: 'Imagine that you’ve been informed that your land, your water, the air that you have breathed may have been polluted by a deadly and invisible contaminant. Something with the capacity to take away your fertility, or affect your unborn children.'`"

                      Of course, if someone commits suicide before the radiation effects kill the person, the person should have been offered support and counseling and money and clean food and a permanent home and shouldn't have to keep paying off a mortgage for a house that will never be habitable, and their children shouldn't be forced to eat radioactive food or clean up radioactive debris and they shouldn't be shunned by the society because they have become radioactively contaminated.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      The is the first sentence, "Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations necessary to avoid high radiation exposures from the disaster." I still don't see what is wrong with this. They did die from the evacuation. Have even more died from radiation poisoning or will millions die eventually from the radiation? Undoubtedly yes.

                      I have said many times that billions will die from the radiation from Fukushima. How many are you saying are going to die?

                      I've seen even on this website people whose mental health is less than what it would be if Fukushima had never happened, if all the radiation everyone has been subjected to the last 75 years had never occurred. I've seen my own family dying of radiation poisoning, and depression because of that poisoning, and autism because of that poisoning, and ADHD because of that poisoning.

                      And I've read about the people in Belarus who are depressed because everyone is contaminated and the land and water is contaminated.

                      Should those people be helped? Or should they just be abandoned?

                      Everyone in the whole world is now contaminated with 2,000 radionuclides. What should we do?

                      I don't think we should just blow up the whole earth, but should try to help everyone we see. And we should be grateful for all the help we get and not judge people and devalue that help. When we help others we actually are helping ourselves as a result. It is a blessing to give,…

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      more than the blessing to receive. And we love because He first loved us.

                      I want to have my own website, because then I can help people and post what I think will help without having to be constantly criticized. In my own website, I won't have to waste all my time justifying myself gainst false accusations and I won't have to face the almost daily hatred that expressed towards me.

                      I have never been for nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and any other nuclear technology.

                      I refuse to be vilified for trying to save the lives of others and especially the children. I refuse to be vilified for loving my children and my family and my friends.

                    • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

                      If you want the truth, I cried yesterday when or-well told me to fuck off. And I am crying now when I write this. I tried to explain why people are so unreasonable and intolerant on this website. And maybe I didn't know how to say the words properly, but anytime I am sincere and try to say something positive, some individuals are so hateful and mean to me.

                      In my own website, I will post Bible verses and I won't have to face hatred because no one else will get to say anything but the people I quote, and the only people who will read it will be people who want to hear something positive. And I won't have ads or be making money, I will just get to be a loving person, and I won't have to be constantly sticking up for the scientists who are helping us and who want a radiation and toxic free future as much as I want it.

                      My son runs my website for me and he tells me all the trafic I get from all around the world.

                    • bo bo

                      Repost –
                      Yes – I spelled out that part about Becky Martin very clearly, to be fair to Fairley.
                      Please see my comments here:

                      I clearly said:

                      '& to be clear-these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS' is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
                      (He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)
                      The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.'

    • Dr. Ian Fairlie – Fukushima: Mega Nuclear Disaster, Spent Fuel Pool Fires, Criticality Explosion, Health Effects From Fukushima Fallout Are Global, Like Reverse Lottery Ticket

  • 1986 – Pripiat, Ukraine, Russia – Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Melts Out And Blows Up; Denial Of 1.5 Million + Casualties; via @AGreenRoad

  • IPPNW – Global Health Effects And Number Of Deaths Caused By Chernobyl Nuclear Planet Meltdown – 69 Million Victims; via @AGreenRoad

  • At Fukushima MULTIPLE corium 100 ton ACTIVE FISSIONING radioactive lava blobs left containment and are now connected to the ocean compared to just ONE at Chernobyl.

    Multiple fuel pools had fires and #3 exploded, releasing MOX into the air.

    Even a fool or anyone with common sense can add up the death toll, and it will be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN CHERNOBYL.

    The only question is how much higher..

    The future will answer that question, but humanity will have to wait until 30 years down the road to count the total number, just like humanity had to wait for 30 plus years after Chernobyl to count those casualties.

    • invisible ELEphant in the room

      "The future will answer that question, but humanity will have to wait until 30 years down the road to count the total number"

      I'm surprised you made such a basic mistake.

      Risk Expert: “High risk” of nuclear holocaust at Fukushima — Plant to keep emitting radioactive materials “for a thousand years or so” (AUDIO)

      There's a very high probability of a huge earthquake near Fukushima in the next several years. My theory is that if Fukushima Daiichi is ever permanently evacuated (for whatever reason), the totally unmitigated radiation coming from there will make a larger and larger chunk of land uninhabitable in Japan. And that will eventually spread to Fukushima Daiini which will eventually have to be permanently evacuated. The resulting radiation contamination will spread throughout the rest of Japan, taking out all the nuclear reactors in the whole country (over 50) like dominoes and eventually they'll ALL melt down.

      Any thoughts on that theory?

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    And in the meantime.. the buildings are crumbling and sinking.

    Fukushima site becoming even less stable as crumbling buildings sink into ground around nuclear reactors
    Aug. 21 2015


    Thanks Natural News ..nice bring around to the physical realities.

  • from a distance from a distance


    – In 1963 background radiation per year = 193.2 mrem

    – In 2002 background radiation per year = 360 mrem


    – “the world Inventory of radioactive materials >>>prior to World War II<<< both in the environment and in the laboratory, >>> was
    confined to those which occurred in nature" <<<

    "Construction of large nuclear reactors during the war and the associated operations for extracting plutonium from irradiated
    uranium >>>resulted in the first extensive occasions for contaminating the environment with radioactive substances<<<”


  • unincredulous unincredulous

    Just found out there is some discussion of ecological happenings on


    Login and look for the
    "eco" section. Links to articles and comments appear on right when you click a thread.

    first link that I found :


    And people asking what's killing whales and birds.

    • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

      "Flesh falling apart while still alive, body parts missing —"

      The Effect of Ionizing Radiations on Connective Tissue


      Unbelievable? ..the gapping mouths of the scientists.
      So unremarkable.

      • unincredulous unincredulous

        Those oarfish's relatives need to call Bonner and Bonner.

        The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan's sailor's attorneys representing them in their lawsuit against the nuclear power plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company

        The lawsuit PDF:


        • unincredulous unincredulous

          The lawsuit itself references ENENEWS, but misspelled it.

          […] was considered by outside experts after March 11, 2011, does the public, including
          the Plaintiffs herein, now not have to rely upon the glib and technically
          inaccessible reports from DEFENDANT herein.
          Web sites such as “enews.com”; “fukushima-diary.com” and “rense.com” have operated as information clearing houses for mainstream news, academic studies and independent sources of publication about the nuclear crisis in Japan

      • unincredulous unincredulous

        gapping mouths of the scientists: "The presence of radiation exposure symptoms can by no means be proven to have been caused by radioactive material, even when present. Radiation poisoning is so rare, that we do not expect to find it, and do not test for it. Radiation poisoning may actually be good for you. The only testing we recommend is for nutritional deficiency, that is to say, one may benefit from some added dose to the natural background radiation levels. There is no definite proof of this, but if there may be a possible benefit from radiation, we accept the theory as dogma. On the other hand, if there is possible harm from low doses of radiation, you can just be happy and ignore it, so we do. And so should you. Want some candy little girl? Come closer. Just a little syphilis shot…"

  • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

    Its related i oarfish an eartquake 3 a radioactve ocean

  • or-well

    This Ian Fairlie?


    Read the last section.
    I can't get the text to copy.

    • Jebus Jebus

      Truth realized…

      The appointment of Sarah Darby as a neutral raised a few eyebrows but the most extraordinary development was the control exercised by Ian Fairlie over the direction of the committee and its deliberations. Fairlie, who admitted to being a great friend of Richard Wakeford, BNFL’s Health Effects Rottweiler, even withheld papers which had been submitted for the Committee’s consideration. The deliberations became so altered by the time the minutes of the early meetings appeared that LLRC had to bring a DAT tape recorder to each session to ensure accuracy. Paul Dorfman was routinely excluded from decisions, paperwork and access to meeting transcripts. Finally, when Marion Hill (about whom we were at first the most concerned in terms of possible bias) began to be excluded from the secretariat loop, she resigned in a letter that accused Fairlie and Goodhead of collusion resulting in a bias to the intention of the committee. She further complained that Fairlie’s invoices would soon amount to £100,000 – four times as much as other Secretariat members – when unsalaried members of the committee like Richard Bramhall (who spent days transcribing the tape recordings) and Chris Busby (writing copious papers for the committee) received nothing. This bombshell letter has been followed by a major re-allocation of work in the secretariat. More in the next issue. For some further information check out http://www.cerrie.org

  • or-well

    Read where Bramhall of LLRC criticises a Fairlie/Sumner report.

    It's in the one comment.

    here's a link to a fuller look


  • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

    I see fairlie as a fence sitter. He did offer to help w nrc. Perhaps because he could not stomach the psychopathy and psychosis of rod adams and his ilk. thanks owrell jebus bo from a distance!

  • from a distance from a distance

    Just my opinion, but I like Dr. Fairlie. He didn't have to get involved in the NRC hormesis thing, but he did. He didn't get paid for that. I heard the sincerity in his voice in the interview with Libbe. He sounded genuinely concerned about the hormesis thing, and he sincerely encouraged people to get comments in and to make phone calls to the EPA, CDC, NRC, etc., telling them NOT to adopt this.

    • from a distance from a distance

      Also, he CRITICIZED the WHO's Fukushima report and said that the WHO, UNSCEAR, and IAEA are all trying to downplay collective doses.

      Also, as a scientist, he is limited to what he can say based on what facts are available to him.

      How many deaths have the Japanese gov't admitted are from Fukushima radiation? Zero!

      So how can Dr. Fairlie go beyond that and say thousands have died when even the Japanese refuse to do that and the information is hidden?

      Here at Enenews there are second-hand accounts of firemen, policemen, nuclear workers, etc. dying of Fukushima radiation and I believe that fully, and a scientist may believe those, too, but can't state it unequivocally.

  • from a distance from a distance

    Say N☢ to Nuclear

    • unincredulous unincredulous

      Well, if nuclear power promised energy too-cheap-to-meter, it was a bad business model from day -1. Now they say that the cost of running the plants demands a certain minimum charge. So, it never was or could be "too-cheap-to-meter" in the first place. So shut them all down, and maybe we can deal with the too-expensive-to-meter spent fuel disposal in a few thousand years!

  • from a distance from a distance

    BREAKING news:

    "Huge explosions at US army base in Japan as warehouse burns and emergency services rush to scene"

    Credit to Radchick on twitter:

  • Jebus Jebus

    2015 Large Whale Unusual Mortality Event in the Western Gulf of Alaska

    Since May 2015, elevated large whale mortalities have occurred in the Western Gulf of Alaska, encompassing the areas around Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, Chirikof Island, the Semidi Islands, and the southern shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula.

    This event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME).

    Most whale carcasses have been floating and were not retrievable. Also, the majority of carcasses were in moderate to severe decomposition with only one whale sampled to date.

    Why are whales stranding?

    Currently only one whale has been able to be sampled and there no was no definitive cause of death identified for that whale at this time. As part of the UME investigation process, an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) is being assembled to coordinate with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample future whales that strand and to determine the next steps for the investigation.


  • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

    I do no think so from a distance. Thanks for posting that jebus. I have friends in japan who read about tge whales in ak and emailed me. Things are piling up now. My friend in seattle wh is barely surviving there is giving me reports of dead wildlife. She can barely talk about fukushima because it is hard enough to just survive in this cutthroat economy. Her kid is autistic. She tries to stay positive by getting away from the city into nature and living a day at a time but even that is not working any more.

  • HillbillyHoundDog HillbillyHoundDog


    02/12/15 – Corals At Kaneohe Bay Now Impacted By Disease
    News Release
    …Acute Montipora White Syndrome (aMWS)

  • As reality gets worse, just expect more lies from more parties.


    A $184,000 study in Hawaii to study shark attacks comes up with "more people in the water" as the only cause, and that "sharks are acting normally"

    Shark apologists are saying ——-Let's get it straight: a shark bite is not an "attack." It's usually a nibble, they back off, then see if they'll have some carrion to feed on in a while. Do you "attack" the food on your plate, other than metaphorically? Is this linguistic invertebratophobia? Microaggression? Drop the "attack' rhetoric. Predators need to eat just like you and I do.

    ——————————–stock here
    Really? Done several hundred dives off Makena, including quite a bit of night diving, I would say saw sharks on 20% of dives and that percent increased over a period of 20 years. Mostly they were white tip, some black tip, a bull shark, a galapagos shark, and I was in the water when the 2 old codger kayakers were rescued by a dive boat at a large white was following them. The amount of sharks coming in close is obviously increasing.

    Anyone saying its just because of more people in the water, is flat out lying. We got reefs dying, far less fish, mass species dieoffs throughout the Pacific, algae blooms, and radiation and heavy metals from Fukushima. And a 500% increase in shark attacks, especially that more…

  • SadieDog

    Every time I watch this I worry a little less… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg

  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    And the government agreed and promises they won't send in a swat team and do a cavity search if you hurt their feelings. Honest. Scouts honor…they crossed their hearts.

  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    This is what scares me. Add to this pyrophoric dustified uranium, mox and methane and well I could go on an on…2 seperate airshow disasters…chemical plants in China, US military base in Japan. Soon we might be launching nukes at each other because of this..

  • Hey, its a Sunday. No one is supposed to die, kill, burn or blow things up today, correct?

    Oh well, go ahead. What is the use of making rules? Rules are meant to be broken.


  • melting mermaid melting mermaid

    http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/honest-cop-charged-with-misconduct/ I mean really?,??? I hope the public rallys around this poor guy.

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

    Radiation Use in Colorado
    They use radiation to kill people in Colorado. There are Intercontinental Ballistic Missile silos here.(1) The composition of the warheads is classified. In 1967 they bombed a place near Parachute with a nuclear bomb for natural gas, but the gas was too radioactive to use, and three bombs in western Colorado's Piceance Basin in 1973.(2) There are over 2,000 uranium mines, and a uranium processing mill near Grand Junction and they used the uranium tailings to landscape the yards where people live.(3) Our only nuclear power plant was a helium-cooled thermal power reactor using fissile uranium and fertile thorium , and was a failure, Fort St Vrain Nuclear Power Station, and has been decommissioned, but the live fuel is still being stored near the site there. (4) There was a huge uranium oxide, yellowcake, spill near Lamar, Colorado.(5)
    The worst place is where Rocky Flats used to be. There is still just as much plutonium (Pu-239) and curium (Cm 250) and other actinides in the soil as before the clean up. (6) They built plutonium pits from plutonium-239 for nuclear weapons:
    “Plutonium … is essentially a man-made element discovered in 1940 after uranium-238 was bombarded with neutrons in a device called a cyclotron. Plutonium-239, as well as uranium-235 and uranium-233, are among the few materials whose atoms can be split (or ‘fissioned’) to create a nuclear explosion, which releases massive amounts of energy instantly. …”(7)
    Here is a…

  • DeadAhead

    Asian stocks swooned further on Monday, touching multi-year lows, as the meltdown in China's equity markets accelerated in early trade.
    "We are going to see a fearful Asia today, as risk selling activity is expected to blanket the regional markets. Geopolitical tensions in the Korean peninsula are going to add to the weak sentiments," IG's market strategist Bernard Aw wrote in a note released early Monday. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/23/asia-braces-for-selloff-on-tanking-us-markets.html As we countinue our deflationary cycle not to end anytime soon. Hold onto your hat,going down!!

  • Heart of the Rose Heart of the Rose

    The Human mentality is deeply flawed.
    I'm not even sure the future generations want to hear it (truth).
    It might be out of their comfort zone.

    The Coddling of the American Mind

    In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.


  • DeadAhead

    China on Sunday allowed pension funds managed by local governments to invest in the stock market for the first time, potentially channeling hundreds of billions of yuan into the country's struggling equity market.An investor looks at an electronic board showing stock information in Hangzhou, China, on Aug. 18, 2015.
    China Daily | Reuters
    An investor looks at an electronic board showing stock information in Hangzhou, China, on Aug. 18, 2015.
    China on Sunday allowed pension funds managed by local governments to invest in the stock market for the first time, potentially channeling hundreds of billions of yuan into the country's struggling equity market.

    China published a draft rule on the move for public consultation on June 30, at the height of a recent stock market rout. The State Council, or cabinet, published the finalized rules on Sunday after shares slumped nearly 12 percent last week, the worst weekly performance since June. What a better time to invest peoples' pensions but when cash infusion is needed! http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/23/china-gives-pension-funds-access-to-stock-market.html

    The Wall Street Journal also reported Sunday that the People's Bank of China is preparing to add liquidity to its banking system, adding that the move could come before the end of the month.

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Things are pretty strange already.. 🙂

  • DeadAhead

    obewan I graduated high school in 73 after watching your 1973 and remembering what was going on nuke plants start up, gas lines, hard to get a job, know wonder I became a dead head for the next 20 years. Seems like he nailed it and the world is simply out of control with with no leaders or plan to fix our situation!!

    • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

      n 1973 I was in high school and we joked around about how fucked up the government is and how they are probably behind drug smuggling etc. then proved correct (Iran Contra fiasco). I did very well out of school I cut my long hair and started working as a machinist…making ball screws for nuclear power plants! Peace man!

    • Down The River Down The River

      I graduated high school in 73 too. Worked in the woods a couple of years, 4 more in the air farce. Didn’t really start yelling and screaming till I got out in 79. I get the feeling there’s a lot of us screamers here from the 60s 70s 80s.

      Dead Head, so sad but correct, “ the world is simply out of control with no leaders or plan to fix our situation!! “

      We could sure use a plan.

      • There is a plan, but very few are listening.

        • Down The River Down The River

          Seems to me Doc, the plan is to have no plan, and go there as fast as we can. Few notice indeed.

          To be honest, I haven’t yelled much in 10 years. I stumbled on Enenews two years after Fuku went boomx4 (b3+B1 ?). Now, I’m about to stop talking about the ocean, pink sky and chemtrails too, no one wants to hear/seems to care about … anything.

          • arbol1989

            There are people out there on this planet who do want to hear the truth. One might think this info would sell itself, but those who desire to know aren't roaming around in droves as some may think. Pick your places and find the times there will be some who desire to hear that will cross paths with you sometime. Keep yelling, a few want to know the truth.

  • DeadAhead

    Black Monday: China stocks slide most since 2007 The Shanghai composite has closed 8.5 percent in the red, as Beijing’s measures have failed to ease investor's concerns about the slowdown of the world's second-largest economy.
    Asian markets followed China with a broad selloff.

    Japan's Nikkei has closed 4.6 percent down.

    http://www.rt.com/business/313180-china-market-crash-monday/ Hong Kong's Hang Seng is 5.21 percent in deficit.

    Mumbai's Sensex is down over 4 percent in late trading.

    The ripple effects are being felt on the European markets.

    London's FTSE is down 2.5 percent in early trading.

    Germany’s DAX is losing over three percent, sliding below the 10,000-point mark for the first time since January. In a few hours it will be US tern already down 350+-

  • DeadAhead

    Two quakes 4.5, 4.8 near fuk nothing to get willy nilly about but the week is young by the end of this week the world will be changing faster than ever for the worst.

  • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

    I think that trashing any scientist who is helping the anti-Nuke movement is only helping to build more nuclear power plants around the earth. The voice of non-scientists will never shout out the voice of scientists.

    Fukushima along with all the other sources of radiation contamination is undoubtedly an ELE. Arguing whether 5,000 will die or 63,000,000 will die from Fukushima is just the pot calling the kettle black.

    There will be many billions who will die from radiation exposure. The number will depend solely on how fast this ELE will unfold.

    So far, I only see today Dr. Scampa and Dr. Caldicott stating anything near the terrible consequences of all the nuclear disasters. But then the consequences were predicted in the 1940s also. And so-called civilization is still rushing toward the end like a train speeding ever faster even after it has left the rails.

    Trashing the scientists who are working from the data present (which the Japanese government and the nuclear cabal are hiding) is not focussing on anything positive.

    Calling me a zealot and a wallpaperer are also evidence that those who trash the scientists who support the anti-Nuke movement use name-calling as the most effective method to keep the nuclear cabal in power.

    Until people unite to save the children and ban all nuclear technology there is no hope for the future. This is being realistic, not being a zealot.

    • We need to shame these scientists who are but grant whores.

    • Shaker1

      PT, the problem with that is in deals with the devil. Controlled opposition or people who use expediency as the basic tenet of their philosophy is not a modern phenomena.

      I'm not admonishing you. But we have to be aware of this at all times and not fall prey to cults of personality. Considering this portion of the thread I feel that I fell for something of that nature with Failie. I like his tritium pieces through Gordon Edwards. Honestly, I read nothing more than that of his that I remember, though his name's been tossed around. Just that cursory acquaintance had me interested and doubting whether the angry reaction was warranted that. The article was terribly written. I saw the original PDF (4 pages w/citations) that pointed to those numbers cited in the paper published by the Japan Times.

      I didn't do dilligence regarding Fairlie at any time. Seeing that background above, doesn't it make you wonder? I certainly did. BS numbers re deaths appear all the time, so I brushed them off, as usual. As for what I believe, it's quite inconsequential, though I hardly agree with those in the paper. I saw another purpose to it than defining numbers.

      Considering the background, though, one has to admit there's a problem with personal principles, which is where we should be interested. That should be the guide, don't you think?

      I've generally tried to be of that principled persuasion. It doesn't often make friends, and one needs to be forgiving and be forgiven at…

      • Shaker1

        …all times until it's too sure to question. We here pride ourselves with being on the principled end. While there are some that we will naturally implicity trust and have proven themselves to be worthy of it, one should never generally defend another beyond single instances without that surity. Whatever went before may hardly be indication of motives.

        At times it's those (remember this phrase?) cults of personality that confuse and lead to much pain. Many of us have been here long enough to have a good glimpse into the devil. He/she/it is a trickster by nature, right? Maybe we shouldn't be so confident that we're infallible with our impressions. I'm guilty of that in this case, but this instance also helped to keep the point in the foreground, which I hadn't. Staying on that track is important not only for information but our own personal credibility, don't you think? I don't think mplicit trust should come cheaply.

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth

        TY, Shaker1. Right now I am trying to compile all the studies on low dose radiation for my own website. I'm trying to organize all the information I have so I can find these studies when I think of them.

      • Dr. Anne Lee Tomlinson Maziar PraisingTruth


        Nuclear Information and Resource Service supports Dr. Ian Fairlie:

        April 29, 2015. Powerpoint presentation by the U.K.'s Dr. Ian Fairlie to U.S. EPA officials, April 27, 2015 on causes and effects of increased childhood leukemia within 5 kilometers (3 miles) of European nuclear reactors. Presentation in pdf.

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Correct and it is all much worse than any of these people can imagine..including our scientists.

    The results are playing out in real time worldwide…

  • tinfoilhatbrian tinfoilhatbrian

    Yeah with nukes it's not a matter of if but when and how much, nothing less! There is no reason for them to exist other than to make more bombs. United States should ban them and every other country should be banned from it I'm all for our military going to war to make that happen! Shut them down or face your maker!

  • obewanspeaks obewanspeaks

    Yes, it appears to be the only internet site that covers real news properly… 🙂

  • cannotdo1 cannotdo1

    i kinda like the daily mail. ken addeco hates daily mail so it must be alright

You must be logged in to post a comment.