Why would the President would be there if there was danger?
Good Emailed Question:
Date: Sep 13, 2005 3:06 AM
this is certainly some interesting information..and if there were leaks, it may be a major reason why they held people out, but there are at least a
few things it wouldnt leave justified..
-if they knew it was a nuclear danger in the making, they NEEDED to make sure every single person was evacuated before the hurricane hit. the call the
govenor made to the prez asking for such help two days before the storm hit is proof that they could have assisted in getting those poor people out of
-they should have still air lifted food/water to those people, as well.
-they should have never taken the money away from the levees the past few years, even more so(if thats possible to be more crucial then it already
was) if they knew there was a nuclear danger.
-FEMA shouldnt have continued the Sexual Harrassment training course in La. with the firefighters from around the nation(which would just leave them
exposed too) while this was going on.
thats just a few ways in which they still conciously failed and allowed for innocent people to die, even with a potential nuclear waste leak. i think
you'll agree with me on those things.
oh..this just dawned on me after i wrote all this..lol..has the president visited those areas? i know hes gone somewhere down there. if he has visited
places with the "nuclear spectrum", i would say they know for sure there wasnt a dangerous leak(unless they want him dead, which i doubt seriously).
as a matter of fact, hes been around people like brown who i believe did a walk thru of some of those areas at some point, so i'm guessing they had
to have known there wasnt a leak(or else they'd be playing radiation hot potato with the prez..lol). whats your thoughts on that? let me know ok.
and thats another thing they should have done...no matter what..immediately sent people in to test for leaks.
ok i look foward to hearing back from you on this. thanks..
i hope all is well with you down where you are. and no contaminated water has gotten in your area. it might be best to drink bottled water for a
while..stuff from up north i would say. no matter whats in the water down there its not good. take care and be safe ok.
I think every point you added are all great ones and things I've thought about. When this is all said and done this entire thing would be the
responsibility of the federal government from history and years and years of neglect of safety in light of technology.
The issue at hand is that this isn't so much radiation in the sense of a nuclear bomb being dropped, it is the sense that it was low level waste dump
that has been used for so many years on top of the "leak" information.
See so many are confused because they can only grasp the idea of radiation leaking into society, which I do believe we have an issue of here but the
overall issue being the entire contamination from air and water.
So many will blow this off and think "radiation" in the sense that they can think of past occurrence's with, this time it is a completely new issue
To answer your question once the problem was fully known, the president had no other options but to go down as per the people of the united states
were in complete up uproar, he had no choice if he wanted to spend another day in office.
But I believe at the point they knew the full range of the damage done in this situation. It would mean it was too late for everyone- so in the matter
of the president going down- he did it to ease the people although either way it would effect him in Texas in DC and he couldn't (just as everyone)
run from it per say because it will be the poisoning of our entire country.
There is no going somewhere else or running away from this, it will effect this whole place sooner or later so by him going down it really didn't
mean a thing. You also didn't see him swimming in the flood waters either, as for where he went specifically I don't know but the answer to your
question is below....
The gas leaks are just a tiny bit of the trouble here there was never any real information about what kind of damage a flood could bring upon a
nuclear plant. If you go back to FEMA handbooks about nuclear
threats, and go all the way to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Flooding" is known as a "way if" and possible "worst case scenario".
However the answer can be found finally, a bit too late. One week before Hurricane Katrina hit the leaders in the world of nuclear atomic energy
called for a "recall" per say of the worlds scientists to discuss their new findings.
The International Atomic Energy Agency called for a world meeting to discuss the new found dangers of what they found flood waters can do to a nuclear
plant and surrounding environment based on Tsunami.
Unfortunately for us, this meeting was not held before all of the Nuclear plants along the Gulf Coast were hit. It was called for just prior to
Hurricane Katrina's landfall.
So in a big way you can say we got the information too late or maybe you can put it "we've ignored the information too long."
You can also look to a small flooding of a nuclear plant in France called Le Blayais in December of 1999. They made some mistakes and that was a very
isolated incident, our new situation is no where near what they were dealing with and even they realized what a ultimately devastating thing this was.
The United States ignored them back then.
Put it this way, this time...not even the President could be saved. He would never be able to step foot on US soil again without being effected, so he
may as well have just gone in.
Everyone that lives in this country is screwed. It just depends on how many days, weeks, months, etc. it will take to effect them. We just killed all
of our natural resources and that will kill us all over our lifespan.
I do believe we shall begin to see nuclear contamination deaths within the next few weeks so hang on tight.
If people don't take this serious now, we will die, if we ignore it, we will die. Start doing intense research, it's bad....very bad.
From the International Atomic Energy Agency
Risks to Nuclear Reactors Scrutinized in Tsunami´s Wake 16 August 2005