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.

 

Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

page: 21
139
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Greetings:

Meanwhile, back to the Fukushima World-Killer Nuke Meltdowns and the [color=limegreen]continuing radiation poising of our land, food and children - 24/7/365.

zorgon, what is your take on this?


Well, I spent three weeks following that Fukushima story doggedly... then in the end I found out three things...

1) Except for a handful of people and those that live in the area... NO ONE CARES...

2) We are still here... 1000's of nuke tests (especially near my home town) medical radiation, space radiation, CME's, cell tower radiation, microwave radiation... etc etc.. and we are STILL HERE.. and world population is increasing exponentially

3) Radiation is good for you


Greetings:

Thank you for your insightful and timely response.

1) We have been attempting to sound the alarm in the many nuke-related threads in our signature, and have come to the same conclusion: NO ONE CARES...

However, having spent the last six weeks on the road in the Hurricane Irene-ravaged areas of North Carolina, we were amazed - no, dumfounded - that [color=limegreen]NOT ONE PERSON we spoke with (including fellow First Responder Volunteer Firepersons) had any clue about Fukushima 24/7/365.

The Captain of the local department said that "there is no problem, or the USGOV/EPA would alert us, and it would be on television, right? (!???!)

Revised Conclusion: The people have been denied the basic information to make informed decisions as to how best "handle" the radiation poisoning nightmare.

2) Never thought that you would not be (there) "here" - after all, who would want to leave that pool? And whatever happens in "here" (there) stays in "here," (there), right mate?

3) You and Ann Coulter make such a great pair...

Glad to be back.

As we have been attempting to bring to light for over six months (!), there exists a world-wide conspiracy in the MSM to deprive the public of the facts regarding the dire consequences of the melt-throughs of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi.

Please listen up, people.

Your life and the lives of your loved ones may very well depend on your access to and use thereof of potentially life-saving information being kept from you by the EPA/USGOV.

The total number of days between Friday, March 11th, 2011 and Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 is 214 days.

The radiation poisoning of our people, food and land has continued unabated - 24/7/365 - for exactly 7 months.

For your edification and enjoyment (bewilderment), a few 'notable' stories that seemed to miss mass circulation and perhaps a peek at what might have been missed on the 6:00 o'clock news...:

Three days into the disaster, this FOR EYES ONLY memo circulated at the NRC.

14 March 2011
NRC ONLY Update – All 3 Reactor Cores Likely Damaged

15 March 2011
Fukushima Daiichi Units Degrading – Zirconium Fire at Reactor 4 SFP – Reactor 2 Possible Reactor Vessel Breach & Ex-Vessel Core Reaction

My goodness gracious! And we thought they (TEPCO/JAPGOV) said they had this "stabilized..." and presumably under control...

At least, that is what they (and the EPA/USGOV) would have you believe.

Fast-forward about six months to more headlines you may have missed in your local media:

21 August 2011
Fukushima Officials Worry New Discovery of Radioactive Beef Will Harm Reputation More After Farmer Confirms Cattle Not Fed Contaminated Rice Straw


21 August 2011
4,000 Potentially Radioactive Cows Without Radioactive Rice Hay May Have Been Shipped from One Farm in Namie-Machi, Fukushima

29 August 2011
Why the Fukushima Disaster Is Worse Than Chernobyl

31 August 2011
France Releases Map of Cesium-137 Deposition Across the Pacific – Shows the US More Contaminated Than Western Japan



[color=limegreen]Will this insanity ever end?


In Peace, Love & Light

tfw




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
thats the whole problem everyone thinks there was nothing to do to stop it. what about encasing whole structure in a giant bowl ans filling it with molten lead and graphite then seal it inside concrete yes it would be expensive but i think the whole world could afford to pay for price better than the millions or billions they will have to pay in long term damage



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

As we have been attempting to bring to light for over six months (!), there exists a world-wide conspiracy in the MSM to deprive the public of the facts regarding the dire consequences of the melt-throughs of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi.

Still no evidence for that (especially if you check epa air test data :@@
.

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

Your life and the lives of your loved ones may very well depend on your access to and use thereof of potentially life-saving information being kept from you by the EPA/USGOV.

The total number of days between Friday, March 11th, 2011 and Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 is 214 days.

The radiation poisoning of our people, food and land has continued unabated - 24/7/365 - for exactly 7 months.

So, you can confirm, then, an increase in cancer, death, or other illness rates? Surely someone would have noticed that we are being poisoned.


Originally posted by thorfourwinds
31 August 2011
France Releases Map of Cesium-137 Deposition Across the Pacific – Shows the US More Contaminated Than Western Japan

You keep bringing up these "radiation maps." Did you read your own source? It's a simulation.


The simulation was performed with a specific version of the numerical atmospheric chemistry and transport model Polyphemus/Polair3D. The parametrisations used for the transport and physical removal of the radionuclides are described in [1,2,3,4].


And this bit:


The magnitude of the deposition field is uncertain and the simulated values of deposited radionuclides could be significantly different from the actual deposition. In particular, the source term remains uncertain. Therefore, these results should be seen as preliminary and they are likely to be revised as new information become available to better constrain the source term and when radionuclides data can be used to evaluate the model simulation results.




Seriously, it has been 7 months. Why are you still fear mongering?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

snip

Seriously, it has been 7 months. Why are you still fear mongering?


Seriously, you do realize that the effects of nuclear contamination take years/decades to manifest?

Why are you still wallowing in ignorance?

ETA: As a matter of fact, have a read of this post and educate yourself for a change rather than spewing unfounded assumptions.
edit on 12-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: so there



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


An interview is no substitute for actual air/water sample data. Where is the data showing that we are at risk of any kind of radiation, I seem to have missed it since Thorfourwinds has been posting simulation data claiming that it is an accurate representation of what is going on (if you would actually check air sample data, it's not what is happening). It's academically dishonest, and yet the "open minded" (those who accept anything a poster says, without question, as fact) are continuously being tricked by it. Fearmongering is unacceptable.
edit on 10/12/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


You mean monitoring and testing as performed by these people?



Of the 51 labs responding to the All-Hazard survey, 27% said they had the ability to measure radionuclides in clinical specimens. None of the labs reported having more than three full-time analysts -- radiochemists or chemists -- and some had none; just 45% reported holding a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

Of the 50 labs responding to the radiation survey, 26% stated that they had the ability to test human urine for radionuclides and 14% said they could test nonhuman samples for the same.


I feel better already, don't you?

You do understand that simulations are used to model real world events and present the information in a way not otherwise visible? And that most modern, advanced simulations utilize real world data to improve both accuracy and precision, do you not?

Ignoring the fact that our government lies and omits data on a daily basis is merely poor mental performance.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by adeclerk
 


You mean monitoring and testing as performed by these people?

The people who can't handle a disaster have nothing to do with the air sensing equipment the EPA uses to measure radiation levels (radiation levels are monitored at unmanned stations, refer to my previous posts for the link to the data).

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical

Of the 51 labs responding to the All-Hazard survey, 27% said they had the ability to measure radionuclides in clinical specimens. None of the labs reported having more than three full-time analysts -- radiochemists or chemists -- and some had none; just 45% reported holding a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

Of the 50 labs responding to the radiation survey, 26% stated that they had the ability to test human urine for radionuclides and 14% said they could test nonhuman samples for the same.


I feel better already, don't you?

Relevance?


Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by adeclerk
 

You do understand that simulations are used to model real world events and present the information in a way not otherwise visible? And that most modern, advanced simulations utilize real world data to improve both accuracy and precision, do you not?

Yes, but I also understand that the simulation data does not match the actual air sample data.

Check your simulation again, there are still no increased levels of radiation being detected in our air.
edit on 10/13/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


From the EPA



Looks like no air testing data since 3/24/2011 which explains perfectly why there hasn't been any increase detected.

TESTING IS NOT BEING PERFORMED

The relevance of the linked article can be summarized by this paragraph.


The "serious gaps in U.S. radiological preparedness," include a shortage of appropriate personnel and a lack of federal certification to conduct sample testing, wrote Megan Weil Latshaw, PhD, and colleagues, from the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) in Silver Spring, Md., in Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness.


Dig that hole in the sand deeper and put your whole self in, rather than only your head.

Another post for you to ignore


edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: format fix and yet another attempt to educate the unwilling
 


ETA

The EPA has a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the NRC that:


By this MOU, EPA agrees to a deferral policy regarding NRC decision-making without the need for consultation except in certain limited circumstances as specified in paragraphs V.C.2 and V.C.3


The NRC which is in a serious conflict of interest as seen here:


Originally posted by rbrtj
and here is the topper that proves that clear back in 1980 the Energy Dept. that use to be called the Atomic Energy Commission was "conflicted" like that they are now, 31 years later!!!!




Rbrtj speechless near Seattle

edit on 12-10-2011 by rbrtj because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: don't know why I keep trying, but I do



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Somebody is doing testing. They would tell us if we were in danger. Everyone is not out to fool us. There are many who are just like us, they care. The sky is not falling.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Since you didn't look at any data from any station, I'll provide you a graph from the link.


Relevant:

This site contains information and data from March 11, 2011 to June 30, 2011. EPA has returned to routine RadNet operations. This site will continue to be available for historical and informative purposes.


What's the cover up? Why with the fearmongering?

edit on 10/13/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Somebody is doing testing. They would tell us if we were in danger. Everyone is not out to fool us. There are many who are just like us, they care. The sky is not falling.



The one thing the truthers forgot is that the "radiation cloud" that the EPA is "covering up" would be equally affecting the people and the supposed "EPA disinfo cover-up men/ NWO / illuminati, etc."



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Somebody is doing testing. They would tell us if we were in danger. Everyone is not out to fool us. There are many who are just like us, they care. The sky is not falling.



Who?

Links?

A host of reasons information would be kept from the public:


This policy directive was issued by National Security Adviser John Poindexter on October 29, 1986, and five months later rescinded by National Security Adviser Frank Carlucci. According to the House Committee considering legislation that later became the Computer Security Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-235), this directive is significant because it “added a new ‘sensitive but unclassified’ category of Federal information, setting new classification criteria for information formerly unclassified. It would not only have affected managers, users, and programmers of information systems within the Federal Government, but there was concern that it could have been extended to private sector contractors of the Federal Government as well, potentially restricting the type of information and data released.”
emphasis mine


On October 12, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum to the heads of all federal departments and agencies, providing a new statement of Administration policy on the Freedom of Information Act. It confirms the Administration’s commitment to protecting fundamental values –“ safeguarding our national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information, and preserving personal privacy.” Agencies are encouraged to “carefully consider the protection” of the values and interests enumerated in this memorandum “when making disclosure determinations under the FOIA.” Decisions to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made in consultation with the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy. If any agency decides to withhold records, in whole or in part, Justice will defend this decision “unless it lacks a sound legal basis or presents an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other agencies to protect other important records.
emphasis mine


Although this is an internal directive, it is significant in that it imposes new access controls on Sensitive But Unclassified information, defined as “unclassified information of a sensitive nature, not otherwise categorized by statute or regulation, the unauthorized disclosure of which could adversely impact a person’s privacy or welfare, the conduct of Federal programs, or other programs or operations essential to the national interest.” This SBU information is identified using the term For Official Use Only (FOUO). The directive enumerates 11 types of information that will be treated as FOUO information, access to which is based on “need-to-know” as determined by the holder of the information.
emphasis mine


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Topic: Definition
Document Title: Safeguards and Security Glossary of Terms. December 18, 1995
Source Organization: Department of Energy

Description/Summary: Provides a definition of Sensitive Unclassified Information. The definition is as follows: “Information for which disclosure, loss, misuse, alteration, or destruction could adversely affect national security or governmental interests. National security interests are those unclassified matters that relate to the national defense or foreign relations of the U.S. Government. Governmental interests are those related, but not limited to the wide range of government or government-derived economic, human, financial, industrial, agriculture, technological, and law-enforcement information, as well as the privacy or confidentially of personal or commercial proprietary information provided the U.S. Government by its citizens.”

Source: United States, Department of Energy
Link to Document: www.directives.doe.gov...


Do you honestly believe that the government (which is in the pocket of corporations) would release information damaging to those same interests?

If so, I have a bridge for sale at a substantial discount.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


The graph shows Gross Gamma Count,however:


Caesium-137 (137/55Cs, Cs-137) is a radioactive isotope of caesium which is formed as a fission product by nuclear fission.

It has a half-life of about 30.17 years, and decays by beta emission to a metastable nuclear isomer of barium-137: barium-137m (137mBa, Ba-137m). (About 95 percent of the nuclear decay leads to this isomer.
emphasis mine

More on how information is kept from the public:


Reasons given for the consortium review delay by Frank Marcinowski of DOE Environmental Management were: a change in DOE management, funding issues and a lawsuit filed against the EPA. The lawsuit was filed under the Freedom of Information Act by Citizen Action to obtain secret documents written by EPA Region 6 showing concern for the groundwater-monitoring network at the Mixed Waste Landfill. DOE refused Citizen Action’s repeated requests that the DOE obtain the documents from the EPA.


And just why would this be the case?


The DOE saves hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs by delaying the investigation of toxic waste leaking into Albuquerque’s aquifer. At the same time, the DOE is reducing funding for radioactive and hazardous waste cleanup at the national laboratories to free up money for more nuclear weapons development.


And the outcome would be:


With the delay, no investigation will be made, the report will not circulate and the information contained in the report will continue to be held secret by the regulatory agencies.


But by all means, you're welcome to continue trusting the government...

edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: format fix and yet another attempt to educate the unwilling
 


Here is yet another supported post regarding contamination spread which you will, no doubt, ignore as well.
edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: fuel for the fire



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a website where you can read the monthly "Event" reports.

Where nuclear mishaps/leakage/accidents are reported.

Would you believe in July they finally found out there were workers at a nuclear power plant in America who were dumping 5 gallon buckets of radioactive Tritium down the Plants sewer?....for YEARS!

America's nuclear power industry is ran by idiots. Go ahead, find the website and read the reports. It's COMICAL!

Seems like every few months they catch someone drunk at work....in nuclear power plants in America.

And you think Fukushima is bad.....



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Here is a link to sampling done by U.C. Berkeley. Still no evidence of an EPA cover up.


Can we stop making claims of "coverup" without providing any substantial sources (other than cherry picked examples of what you think might allow the EPA to not inform us, lolz)?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 


Cherry picked from the site you linked



I will grant that the amounts are declining, however, they are non-zero. In other words, radionuclides are still being detected in US milk.

And I again direct you to think about (perhaps a foreign concept) bioaccumulation and what it means that contaminants are being release 24/7/365 without a foreseeable end any time soon.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by adeclerk
 

I will grant that the amounts are declining, however, they are non-zero. In other words, radionuclides are still being detected in US milk.

From that sample, they detected 0.076±0.013 Bq/ Litre (source). The researchers have also been kind enough to include how many liters of milk one would need to drink in order to get an effective dose of radiation equivalent to flying on an airplane from San Francisco to Washington D.C. The amount of milk you would have to drink to get that dose (from this sample, keep in mind this didn't have the highest detected levels out of all of the data...) is 36,000 liters.

Still worried?




And I again direct you to think about (perhaps a foreign concept) bioaccumulation and what it means that contaminants are being release 24/7/365 without a foreseeable end any time soon.

Given that it only happens to have a half-life within the body of 70 days, bio accumulation would never be an issue from milk, food, or even breathing air Stateside. Worst case, prussian blue can treat cesium 137 poisoning (really unlikely to happen anyways).

Additionally, the CDC has a stockpile of prussian blue.

Is there any more reason to fear monger?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by adeclerk
 

Documented manipulation of data by Berkeley

More regarding the shenanigans

More still

In summary:

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by 00nunya00
 


I love this part:

I am going to ask my students and colleagues to refrain from answering such questions in the future because it really takes away from our valuable time that can be spent in the lab and making sure our methods and numbers are sound

Source

What's not being said:

We're infallible and it should not occur to you to question what we say, even if we change what's been said,


No, no cover ups, no changing data, no nothing but honest, up front monitoring. And of course, no conflicts of interest, ever.

All testing is done by UC Berkeley Nuclear Science Division


A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Operated by the University of California


The DOE mission is:


The primary mission of the Office of Nuclear Energy, is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the Nation's energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers through research, development, and demonstration as appropriate.

In addition to its primary mission, the Office of Nuclear Energy performs several mission-related functions including providing:

International engagement in support of the safe, secure, and peaceful use of nuclear energy as well as support to other Department offices and other federal agencies on issues related to the international use of civilian nuclear energy
The capability to develop and furnish nuclear power systems for use in national security and space exploration missions
Oversight for specifically assigned front-end fuel cycle responsibilities
Stewardship of the DOE Idaho Site
emphasis mine

Yep, I'm fully confident you are correct and we have absolutely nothing to worry about and should trust everything we're told without question.

Thank you, I feel so much better now...
edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: can't spell

edit on 13-10-2011 by jadedANDcynical because: gotta own what I've highlighted



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by earthdude
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 

Somebody is doing testing. They would tell us if we were in danger. Everyone is not out to fool us. There are many who are just like us, they care. The sky is not falling.



The one thing the truthers forgot is that the "radiation cloud" that the EPA is "covering up" would be equally affecting the people and the supposed "EPA disinfo cover-up men/ NWO / illuminati, etc."


Greetings:

IT IS...

Ironic, isn't it?


BTW, look up who actually runs the "service" for the EPA that had 55% of the monitors off-line in California during the largest industrial accident in history... the supposed "EPA disinfo cover-up men/ ..." is a "she."

Do you really want us to dig that stuff up again?

The EPA went back to "routine" sampling (every 3 months) on May 3rd.

This is the same EPA that claims to be able to track a single fish so as to keep we, the people, safe.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


You think Japan is dumb for build a nuclear plant on the beach, check out this nuclear plant and where its located:
San Onofre Plant Oceanside

On the beach, tsunami zone, and earthquake zone!
USGS fault



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
139
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join