posted on Feb, 2 2012 @ 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Observor
Frankly if it is as bad this implies or worse, what would the knowledge itself do to help other than create panic? How is the public becoming aware of
the radiation poisoning help them avoid it? Those who are seriously interested in it have the resources to find out what is possibly happening. The
rest are no better off for knowing about it. If they are actively suppressing the information, that is bad. But not actively spreading the information
through constant media updates about it is not bad in itself.
There are other things where the knowledge may help people change things and they tend to concentrate on them.
The knowledge would do a lot. For example when milk here started showing up contaminated I quit buying it and bought a 2 year supply of powdered
milk, and then they quit releasing test results I assume to prevent serious damage to the dairy industry. Dairy products concentrate the radiation,
unfortunately most people don't have a clue about it or other risks because the information was not spoon fed to them by MSM so they bee bop along as
if nothing ever happened. How does being aware help someone avoid it? Seriously? Don't stand in the rain, don't let your kids play in the rain &
snow. Missing some playtime in the rain & snow now is a small price to pay even if they don't realize it now.
This is really nothing new though. My wife lived about 250 miles from Chernobyl and they were not told to avoid dairy or breast feeding and that was
25 years ago. Naturally, she got cancer as have many of her friends. We were able to afford the best treatment available but it still took a very
heavy toll. Many are not so fortunate. The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986, many people don't even know the other 3 reactors kept producing
electricity and that the last reactor at Chernobyl went offline in 2000, 14 years later. All 4 at Fukushima were in varying degrees of trouble
immediately, 4 times the bad plus 30-40 years of spent fuel stored on site. Chernobyl on the other hand was new, no spent fuel involved. I'm no
scientist, and I and everyone else will acknowledge Chernobyl was very bad. But how do they compare?
Chernobyl: 1 reactor meltdown, 3 still functional, no spent fuel.
Fukushima: 4 reactor meltdowns, 0 still functional, 30-40 years of spent fuel.
Just looking at those few oversimplified facts it is pretty obvious how serious Fukushima is. Look at your map, there are still places in the UK they
are not allowed to farm, wild boars too radioactive to eat in Germany, I could go on but the point is obvious. As bad as Chernobyl was Fukushima is
almost incomprehensible, how would the general public react if they understood the extent of this disaster?
By the way, if you look at pictures of the reactor buildings at Fukushima 1-3 look like they blew up, explosion damage. 4 looks different, no
explosion damage. The huge steel beams curl downward like they got hot enough to bend down under their own weight and that takes some serious heat to