Fukushima Reactor 4 Could Unleash 85 times Cesium-137 Radiation; Human Civilization on the Brink

reply to post by unityemissions


If that were the case why was the initial disaster at the nuke plant covered? Or 9/11? Or Chernobyl? Initially the media had to clue as to how any of these events were going to affect the world. Yet they covered all of them. Sorry, I agree the media is biased but they are also very self serving, and this would be the story of the year, decade, lifetime for a reporter.

The reactors or radiation tanks or whatever they are called will NOT blow up or cause any harm to the human civilization .....Consider that as certain!

Originally posted by Ben81
Chernobyl Legacy ... Need to See

Warning .. Graphic Images
Discretion Advise

In Japan the population is enormous for the land they have
There is no where to run

God Bless Japan and the Chernobyl victims
the contaminated land will affect all futur generations

Five Hundred Years will not be enought
The radioactive stuff will stay there for a long time

They though this energy was clean .. they knew the risk of this so called clean energy
the risk was for the entire planet and the 6 billions of humans

HA ! False !

The damages from the radiation from Chernobly involve thyroid cancers and lukemias in people who were children at the time.I just looked it up. None of the list of damages attributed to the chernoble disaster involve any kind of deformities. Where are you getting your information from Homer Simpson??? No three eyed fish in Lithuania. Not only that but of the 2000 cases of thyroid cancer from the Chernoble victims 99% of those cancers have been cured and there have been no new cases in many many years.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by amongus

 

I don't get your point. The media loves disasters, it's how they boost their rating etc. I really don't understand the benefit to them for not reporting it.

I'm of the belief that although the corporation loves their ratings to go up preying on peoples fears, there's a point that things get "too real" for them to be able to report. At some point, enough panic stirring the people would likely be deemed a matter of "national security". I believe that media blackouts, or brownouts happen from time to time.

Absolutely! That's my point.....

reply to post by amongus


Do you really consider this site to be a totally reliable source of news?

reply to post by Ben81


Over forty years and billions upon billions spent on alternative energy and neither wind nor solar is ready for use yet. Your jumping the gun here unless you want to see massive suffering and starvation on a global scale that is.

This kind of fear mongering and false reporting won't work on people who are alert to the truth around them.

There is no reason at all to not believe the real time monitoring along our coast or to think that "Human Civilization" is "on the Brink".

Give us some credible sources? Certainly you can if your this certain your right?

While i dont subscribe to the op's title,i do however believe at the rate of which clean-up is taking place,there is a high probability we are in for another distaster,tho i dont own a crystal ball,i would love to offer a solution

reply to post by unityemissions


I think the billions-figure might link to the release of large amounts of plutonium from the MOX fuel in reactor 3's pond. If 4 blows or collapses, the plant would be abandoned, so you have a situation then where no-one is around to DO anything and it won't be long before the rods in R3 pool start burning (and of course everywhere else continues to go to $hit). What is released there is completely deadly to humans, even in small amounts.

I know how alarmist the figures sound , but the people who started talk about numbers "ought" to know what they are talking about ? I don't really know what to think. I am not naive, but at the same time ask myself why would sober-headed experts in the field be coming out with numbers like this - there has to be some reasoning behind such bold, frightening statements ? Maybe we just don't fully understand as we are not scientists

Originally posted by wwwchronos
reply to post by amongus

 

1 im nota troll
2 i dont know what is glp
3 that info it pop in my head so i consider to write it here.
If that bother you please disregard this. And continue with life as is never happeneed

"notta" troll.

Continue with your life as you obviously can't put a proper sentence together.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by amongus

 

I don't get your point. The media loves disasters, it's how they boost their rating etc. I really don't understand the benefit to them for not reporting it.

I'm of the belief that although the corporation loves their ratings to go up preying on peoples fears, there's a point that things get "too real" for them to be able to report. At some point, enough panic stirring the people would likely be deemed a matter of "national security". I believe that media blackouts, or brownouts happen from time to time.

Fair enough. So then cite an example of an event so ground breaking as this that was covered up in the past. Please, keep it to events that could occur everyday, not Roswell etc.

reply to post by Ben81


I would gladly take a family from Japan and offer them my home. This is a human being problem and the people of Japan are my fellow human beings. I would have no problem giving them a roof over their head and a chance at a new life. I'm sure I am not alone in feeling this way. If only a few would step up we would have no problem moving 120 million people.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by amongus

 

Do you really consider this site to be a totally reliable source of news?

Why are you here?

I'm sure CNN could use your viewership these days.

Originally posted by amongus

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by amongus

 

Do you really consider this site to be a totally reliable source of news?

Why are you here?

I'm sure CNN could use your viewership these days.

To broaden my view of the world. I do not take things at face value. Including stories on this site and on MSM sites.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by unityemissions

 

If that were the case why was the initial disaster at the nuke plant covered? Or 9/11? Or Chernobyl?

Multiple reasons. First off, it's too damned big not to report. Secondly, if you act as the source of information to the people, you can shape the version of the truth you wish to be displayed. It's basic conditioning. Notice how the attention spans have shrunk over the years? I wonder why? We are overloaded with mindless "news" and sprinkled with bits of truth here and there. It works to all of the powerful interests benefit, from the corporations, to the governments. Just think about it.

Initially the media had to clue as to how any of these events were going to affect the world. Yet they covered all of them. Sorry, I agree the media is biased but they are also very self serving, and this would be the story of the year, decade, lifetime for a reporter.

Yes, they are very self-serving, but everyone in the media is someone else's bitch, and the corporation's bitch as a whole is the government. Reporter?? I'm sure you don't mean a true investigative journalist, do you?? They are a dying breed, let me tell ya. I see very little real investigative journalism these days. Those people are mostly retired, jobless, or in the alternative field, in my assessment.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by amongus

 

I don't get your point. The media loves disasters, it's how they boost their rating etc. I really don't understand the benefit to them for not reporting it.

I'm of the belief that although the corporation loves their ratings to go up preying on peoples fears, there's a point that things get "too real" for them to be able to report. At some point, enough panic stirring the people would likely be deemed a matter of "national security". I believe that media blackouts, or brownouts happen from time to time.

Fair enough. So then cite an example of an event so ground breaking as this that was covered up in the past. Please, keep it to events that could occur everyday, not Roswell etc.

September 11, 2001

reply to post by amongus


Why that words.
Man... English is not my native language
I learned english recently, still learning.
Anyway. How u havea valid argument.
Learn. Sentence..blahblah
Bye bye poopypants

reply to post by cosmicpixie


It's just not enough plutonium to be even close to billions. Try to find actual data on this...you won't outside of fear-mongering websites that want something from you. These people are preying on our fears, and we're helping them out by spreading this nonsense around.

reply to post by amongus


I saw quite a bit of coverage dealing with 9/11. If you mean the conspiracy, no they did not do a behind the scenes if there really was one.

reply to post by unityemissions


I am thinking about it. I haven't made my mind up about this story yet. I however don't take blog sites, and off the path news sites as reliable, sorry. I don't take MSM as reliable either. The truth is usually muddled somewhere in between what you hear. My experience.

reply to post by Covertblack


Agreed. I try to take in as many perspectives as possible, and use my intuition and analytical skills to come up with the most probable bits of truth in each. This allows me to form a bigger picture truth larger than any one source. I then test these pictures on forums like these, with other people to see where there may be gaps in my reasoning, and understandings.