It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton's Unclassified Emails About Fukushima...(Why does anyone trust the US government?)

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I apologize if I came across more brusque than I usually am, this topic just happens to get to me and to see the lies daily told by our leaders.

Go here and search Fukushima.

You will then be given a list of different documents:



Choose the second one listed with the date o 03/11/2011 and you will have the government-issue .pdf of the email.




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

back to my original links.


the email you questioned....
C05780602


and all of them are searchable ....Clinton_email




posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Gothmog

Sure I remember Chernobyl I was around when it happened. However what has that to do with radiation on the west coasts or in Alaska or Hawaii? We have private companies that are keeping an eye out. I don't believe the people on the coast are relying on government info.
Anyway I'm not sure if the topic is emails or radiation that has infiltrated the country so I'm backing out of the thread.
Thanks for the info.


Remember you question ? "Shouldnt the radiation be gone by now"
Gave example and the the potential rate of how long radiation lasts . Radiation doesnt "go". It settles in water , dust , etc. The levels are the issue.

Last off-topic post.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: DJW001

There are a couple different "Martin Edelman"s that this might be:

Martin Edelman @ Academic Title: Professor
Primary Appointment: Medicine
Secondary Appointments: Radiation Oncology
Additional Title(s): Director, Medical Thoracic Oncology


or

Martin Edelman, Ph.D. (Collins Fellow)
University of California, Berkeley


One is an oncologist, the other is a political science professor. It could be either one of them and both would be in a position to know what they are talking about in regards to Fukushima radiation and what information the US government does not want shared.

What does this have to do with trusting the government?

When you have internal information being shared within the confines of said government and that information is contrary to what is being bandied about by the same government, we have major issues. It's not like this was strategic information of value to our enemies. This information could have reduced the exposure of American citizens to the deleterious effects of radioactive isotopes which have no business being outside of containment vessels.

Instead we were (and continue to be) fed a steady diet of, "nothing to see here, move along."

 


a reply to derfreebie

Other than one small detail in your post (it was reactor 3 that had the MOX fuel), you're dead on in your observations.



And for that gaffe I apologise. Let the record however show that the
Governments of Japan and The UNITED STATES: with a complicit media
apparatus, supressed the truth of a threat to the human race somehow
even more dangerous than anything elase in history.
That was not drama, nor intended to detract from science. In the con-
trary, science itself has been co-opted by politics... alway to the detriment
of the former.
edit on 6-2-2016 by derfreebie because: It's too late, mate.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum


Cancer kills just as effectively as Armageddon.

No one is afraid of fairy tale battles in Israel between the forces of good and evil. Cancer is what most educated individuals try to protect themselves from though.
edit on 6-2-2016 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you yes ! Now it's right.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Thank you very much.
As for being brusque that's ok. II got over it after a good cry so no worries lol.



posted on Feb, 6 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Actually my question was "after five years shouldn't it have reached us."
I didn't say anything about it being gone.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
All reactors should be "retired". The future is obvious on this issue.

It's not worth the inevitable, the risks are significant.

People are destructively selfish and care more about today's electricty than our great grand childrens ecosystem. The trade off isn't acceptable.


Excellent comment muzzle I agree 100%.

It's time to pass an international agreement to shut them all down asap.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth


Excellent comment muzzle I agree 100%.

It's time to pass an international agreement to shut them all down asap.


This is straying off topic, but there are now safer nuclear reactors which use thorium. They do not leave radioactive waste. Since you appear to enjoy using the internet, you need to realize that the servers which make the internet possible require much more juice than any alternative energy source can provide. Unless you want to continue to rely on natural gas, or go back to burning coal (which actually puts more radioactivity into the air than nuclear power plants), then nuclear power should be developed further, not outlawed.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie


And for that gaffe I apologise. Let the record however show that the
Governments of Japan and The UNITED STATES: with a complicit media
apparatus, supressed the truth of a threat to the human race somehow
even more dangerous than anything elase in history.


Pure hyperbole. The Black Plague reduced the population of Europe by about 80%. Now that was a threat. Meanwhile, it has been a few years for the radiation from Fukushima to be spread around the Earth and humanity is doing well. Also, our recollections of media coverage seem to vary: I recall a great deal of in depth reporting, including detailed drawings of the plant, maps of the spread of radioactive steam, and so forth.


That was not drama, nor intended to detract from science. In the con-
trary, science itself has been co-opted by politics... alway to the detriment
of the former.


That may be, but what does any of this have to do with Hillary Clinton or her emails?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Realtruth


Excellent comment muzzle I agree 100%.

It's time to pass an international agreement to shut them all down asap.


This is straying off topic, but there are now safer nuclear reactors which use thorium. They do not leave radioactive waste. Since you appear to enjoy using the internet, you need to realize that the servers which make the internet possible require much more juice than any alternative energy source can provide. Unless you want to continue to rely on natural gas, or go back to burning coal (which actually puts more radioactivity into the air than nuclear power plants), then nuclear power should be developed further, not outlawed.



I'm well aware of electricity involved in server farms I was a partner in one for years. We have a ass-backward power source that is full of incompetent greedy utilities and antiquated means of delivering electricity. Thorium reactors are fine, but they still need to shut done the current nightmares.

Did you know that more than 80% of the electricity generated at source is lost through service lines, before reaching consumers?

It's really stupid, and all based on greed from the power companies.

And now people that have been going green with solar and wind local/state governments are imposing 40% tax on the power they produce for themselves.

So it appears no matter how green or how independent people want to be TPTB want to fleece, and will fleece the masses.

I think that these emails that have gone public from Hillary's emails is actually going to be a positive thing.
edit on 7-2-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

"This is straying off topic, but there are now safer nuclear reactors which use thorium. They do not leave radioactive waste."

Totally false to state that thorium reactors do not leave radioactive waste. Might wanna revise that statement.
edit on R212016-02-07T10:21:30-06:00k212Vam by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Sorry, they leave [I]less[/I] radioactive waste.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I really don't see how hillary clinton has a shot at becoming president. Her scandals are very widely known. I believe the only way she'll become POTUS is by using her connections. I believe the "TPTB" much rather have hillary than sanders or trump.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
For the life of me, can someone answer for me, w/o making me feel like someone that is handicapped, WHY can't we just use liquid nitrogen/hydrogen to put this out? Something that reaches almost zero Kelvin?

Obviously, (I think) it would cause one hell of a reaction, but we can deal with that. This slow death has gone on for far too long.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: schadenfreude


Q:
If a nuclear reactor is going super critical or loses cooling why can't you freeze the uranium core with liquid nitrogen stopping the splitting of atoms???
- Will (age 32)
Indianapolis,in
A:
The processes inside the nuclei involve very high energies, much higher than those reached at normal temperatures. From the point of view of those radioactive nuclei, the temperature of liquid nitrogen or of liquid water are both effectively zero. The decays occur via quantum tunneling, not thermal activation. So you can't freeze the process to a halt.


link

Does that help?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

THANK YOU.

I have looked, but never found a decent explanation as to why this was never discussed, it was like an itch I couldn't scratch.

Much appreciated.




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
"Why does anyone trust the US government?". I don't...does anyone?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

so this is unsolicited " advice " from a 3rd party .

you are truelly scraping the bottom of the barrel




top topics



 
41
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join