Why Fukushima Propaganda Has Got To Make You Laugh

Stop being such a deliberate deceiver!
I never said (or indeed indicated) it’s funny that 5 workers have died –that’s not even propaganda. What is funny (as in suspect, to say the very least) is that for all Fukushima could be the end of the humane race (according to many on here like b]Cataka)

[2012 end of the world? Nope.

End of humanity? Possibly… www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not a single worker, has died so far from Fukushima radiation.

I’m sorry to clearly upset you, by challenging some of the most misinformed filth here –or is this filth your Belief system? But really… much appreciation should be in order (for directing you towards the truth).

reply to post by Liberal1984


All I see here from you are alot of reckless assumptions and speculation. How the hell do you know how many people have persihed from Fukushima thus far, did TEPCO tell you that? LMAO! The long term effects of radiation sickness takes time to show it's evil colors. You really seem to have bumped your head bro.

You fools really amaze me. You're being poisoned and you don't even realize it. The media black out of Fukushima is one of the many examples of proof that something is being covered up. Any idea how many products are exported from Japan? The fish products, the rice products, the electronics and autos ect? This is about one thing, money. Or is that some sort of hysteric fabrication as well, that money corrupts?

The fact is, Nobody knows just how bad this incident is, but make no mistake about it, it's really, really bad. Tell me something, why is it that I have not seen one single organization ask for donations for Japan, huh? Why not one commercial on tv or online asking for help from Americans or others abroad? Jeezus, After the earthquake in Haiti one couldn't turn the channel without someone begging for some donations. The Japanese are our allies, and we should be helping those people during their time of need. This is effecting the United States as we speak.

Do you have any idea how bad the damage over there alone is? Why no requests for help or donations? I'll tell you why, because they don't want anyone focusing any attention to Fukushima. Just as the question of where all that Oil in the gulf has gone has been buried as well. There would be too many nations seeking damages from BP, and the masters of puppets can't have that anymore than they can have Fukushima's reality effect their beloved economy. Oh no, they can't lose a dollar. It's profit over humanity as usual. Wake up.

Listen, Don't be such a yes man robot. Think with your own head and read between the lies. You're not convincing anyone otherwise. Atleast not anyone that can think for themselves anyway. ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation The fact is, Nobody knows just how bad this incident is, but make no mistake about it, it's really, really bad.

Isn’t that a major contradiction, in terms?

You fools really amaze me. You're being poisoned and you don't even realize it.

Oh I do I'm being poisoned. Every time I go down the street I fill my lungs with fresh semi-combusted fuel & carbon monoxide, if I go into the countryside I breeze fresh radioactivity from coal -but as it’s natural radioactivity; you guys somehow seem to think that’s ok. And wherever I go I will breath the products of CO2, and this will not change because a few people in the West can reject industrialisation all they like -the fact of the matter is that literally 80% of this world’s population cannot wait to experience more of it.

And I suppose you would tell me that a solar panel that (even with subsidies) takes around 5 years to pay back, and which work one 3rd of the summer, and even less of the winter, is the solution, or that wind is great idea too?
Get real! They’re all a waste of money (until they can outdo fossil fuel).

The media black out of Fukushima is one of the many examples of proof that something is being covered up. Any idea how many products are exported from Japan?

What media black out –I’ve heard heaps on Fukushima? How exactly does this blackout work?
Or is the fact nobody respectable will say 14000 in America has died (when not one TEPCO worker has been shown to be) is that what constitutes a "black out"? I.e. either the media reports your sides lies, or they arne't telling the truth?
Sorry but in my opinion bad nuclear news sells newspapers, just as reporting bull also damages newspaper credibility, and therefore in the long-run therefore hits sales.

Why not one commercial on tv or online asking for help from Americans or others abroad?

The Japanese are still a rich country -a culturally proud one at that.

I'll tell you why, because they don't want anyone focusing any attention to Fukushima. Just as the question of where all that Oil in the gulf has gone has been buried as well. There would be too many nations seeking damages from BP, and the masters of puppets can't have that anymore

I’ve heard of law firms that make their living out of no win, no fee. The oil is old news to anyone who is not a conservationist, because the fact is it hasen’t shut down the gulf stream, or brought about the end of the world either (gosh these claims get familiar on ATS!). It is however worth noting that the reason why we still use oil is (to no small extent) because people like yourself, oppose even the safest versions of nuclear, such as...
The Thorium Reactor…
www.youtube.com...
More Detail Here: www.youtube.com...
The best bit is 21 minutes into the video, where they explain the reasons why we don’t already have Thorium reactors. Unsurprisingly all the reasons are completely rotten.

Listen, Don't be such a yes man robot.

I’m not, I’m both an innovative engineer, with a different point of view. Some people may indeed be sheeple, but don’t let that make you think your God –the Sheppard to everyone you disagree with. Ultimately you’re just another individual, with your own view –but my thoughts are very much my own too.

reply to post by Liberal1984


What a load of mindless drivel and reckless assumptions. How the hell do you know what my opinion on fossil fuels are, you never even asked? Oh and uh, all that Oil that leaked into the gulf was good for it then. Ok, glad we cleared that up. Now I know what your problem is.

I am not here to herd you. I am here to give my opinion. Don't make the mistake of believing that I give a damn what you think about it either. You're a useful tool who seems to have an excuse for everything. You couldn't be more wrong about Fukushima as well as the Gulf oil leak. However, that's your problem, not mine. It's not personal either. ~$heopleNation

SheopleNation What a load of mindless drivel and reckless assumptions.

(If you’re not being personal) please be more specific.

How the hell do you know what my opinion on fossil fuels are, you never even asked?

Quote me where I said I did! All I said is one big reason why Deep Water happened (and other future disasters like it, will happen as world population becomes increasingly desperate for oil) is because people like yourself oppose even the best & safest versions of nuclear. This less opinion, and more fact given that (so far) only nuclear could possibly outcompete fossil fuels on cost terms. Even if (contrary to the history of human nature) The West somehow went through a less materialistic stage, you should forget all about the Indians -and particularly Chinese & Africans ect doing the same (for this century at least).

Oh and uh, all that Oil that leaked into the gulf was good for it then. Ok, glad we cleared that up.

No I think it’s a very bad thing (although it being bad, didn’t stop many people here lying & exaggerating about this too).
Although we both believe these things are bad (although Mountain Hilltop Removal Mining for coal annoys me even more en.wikipedia.org... ) whenever you see naturally radioactive coal going into smokestacks, gas flames coming out your neighbours kitchen tap water www.youtube.com...
Remember it’s all part of the price people like yourself make everyone pay, for opposing nuclear –no matter what version it might (or could be). PS: Does the anti-nuclear movement even have an honest name? “Environmentalists for Coal, Gas and Oil” is the most forthcoming one that springs to mind.

I know it works both ways, that when people die of cancer that could be (at least some of the time) because of nuclear. There’s good evidence saying fossil fuels kills far more. So (unless you can show good evidence contradicting this) I would suggest (that at least until fossil fuels are gone) you support (at least some versions of nuclear energy) too.

reply to post by Liberal1984


You are comparing apples to oranges. Honestly, I don't like any pollution, but your way of thinking is what has led us to where we are now. Nuclear power will be the death of this planet. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what more there is to say. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by Liberal1984


Source for quoted material below and rest of article link: www.nuclearreader.info...

CHAPTER FOUR: HEALTH DAMAGE

THIS CHAPTER CLARIFIES THAT THERE IS NO SAFE AMOUNT OF RADIATION. ANY DOSE IS AN OVERDOSE.

“Nuclear power is unacceptable because it unavoidably inflicts cancer and genetic injury on people. It is mass, random, premeditated murder.”

Dr. John Gofman MD, PhD
Professor Emeritus, Berkeley
Associate Director of Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory 1963-1969
Medical Physicist, author of 200 articles
co-discoverer of plutonium

“Health effects of low-level radiation include the induction of cancer, genetically determined ill health, developmental abnormalities, and some degenerative diseases.”

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Report, December 1989

“There is hope we can achieve a healthier future for ourselves...provided that we are willing to learn from our mistakes (i.e. nuclear power).”

Ernest J. Sternglass
Retired Professor Emeritus of
Radiological Physics
University of Pittsburgh
Author of Secret Fallout
(free download: www.radiation.org)

In high, short doses like the Hiroshima bomb blast, radiation primarily causes direct damage to the nucleus of cells where the genes that control the functioning of the cell are located. This high level radiation causes an alteration in the structure of the DNA, the chromosomes that carry the genetic blueprint, resulting in incorrect structure of new cells. Damaged DNA tends to reproduce new cells very rapidly – becoming what we call cancer. In contrast, low doses acting continuously over time produce their damage indirectly through the generation of free radicals that destroy cell-membranes, hundreds to thousands of times more efficiently than might be expected in calculations related to high-dose damage. So the everyday amount of radiation that is released as part of the normal operation of the world's 400 nuclear power plants is a very grave concern. Nuclear power plants must have releases in order to function, and these releases, even though they may be partially filtered, disperse radiation into our air and drinking water, onto farmland and into our food.

Since the work of Abram Petkau in 1972 (see ch. 3) it is known that low protracted doses of radiation cause physiological damage through the formation of free radicals. A free radical is a molecule with an imbalance in electrons which can destabilize other molecules resulting in cellular damage and disease.

All living and nonliving things are made up of units of matter called atoms. When atoms join together they are called molecules. Atoms are made up of two basic parts: a nucleus and pairs of electrons. The nucleus has a positive electric charge that balances the negative electric charge of the electrons. There is a dynamic balance both between the pairs of electrons and between the electrons and the nucleus.

When an electron is added or removed this balance is lost, and the atom or molecule seeks to regain this balance by taking an electron from another atom, which triggers a chain reaction.
Uncontrolled free radicals damage body cells either by breaking down the cell membrane, by attacking the internal working of the cell, or by going right to the nucleus to attack the genetic material. A fundamental way that free radicals cause their damage is by breaking down natural body fats. Since the cell membrane is composed of fatty tissue (called lipids), it is a target for free radical attack. They may destroy the cell membrane, so that it cannot take in nutrients or release wastes. This leads eventually to the collapse and death of the cell.

Free radicals can damage white blood cells and particularly the defender T cells, both of which are key to a strong immune system--and enable you to ward off bacteria and viruses. Free radicals may also weaken essential antibodies that are produced by the immune system to protect from disease, resulting in susceptibility to communicable diseases. Uncontrolled free radicals may disturb nerve chemicals, which can affect the brain and nervous system. They may slow or distort the transmission of messages by damaging neurotransmitters, resulting in memory loss and mental problems including senile dementia. Free radicals may also eat away at the protective myelin sheath around the nerves, limiting reflexes or causing multiple sclerosis.

Digestive enzymes are also vulnerable to free radical assault, reducing their ability to digest and utilize food and thus limiting the absorption of nutrients. Free radicals may injure the lubricating synovial fluid around the joints, causing inflammation and pain and resulting in arthritis, bursitis or gout. Free radicals cause what science calls 'cross-linking', a hooking together of cell structures that may be partly responsible for hardening of the arteries, stiffness of joints, and wrinkling of skin--many of the manifestations of aging. Cross-linking in the lungs causes emphysema.

Free radicals may damage genes, the DNA and RNA in the cell nucleus that mastermind the creation of new cells. When a cell with a damaged gene divides to make two cells, the new cell may be abnormal. When the DNA is damaged it tends to reproduce new cells very rapidly--the hallmark of cancer. Damaged DNA may produce cells that are not able to function as they were meant to, resulting in, for example, deterioration of tissue and organs and messenger hormones, among many other things.

Free radicals account for nearly all of the signs and symptoms we think of as normal (and inevitable) in aging. An article in the August 1992 issue of the journal Science centered on 'the importance of free radical damage to nucleic acids and lipids in age-related disease processes'. It explained what a difficult task the human body faces in counteracting free radicals, which some researchers believe are responsible for thousands of alterations to the DNA of each cell. The article concludes that a “fraction of such a massive amount of damage would escape repairs by even the most sophisticated mechanisms and the accumulation of unrepaired damage could account for the age related loss of physiological function."

Free radicals can also cause malformed molecules--which the immune system sees as foreign invaders. The immune system reacts to clear them out, eventually becoming worn down and exhausted in the process--and unable to fully combat the real enemies it faces. This allows disease to take hold. The weakest points start to go first. In one person it may be arthritis, in another it may be extreme fatigue, in another allergies and so on. Free radical damage to cells progresses to tissues and organs and results principally in heart disease, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, and diseases of immune suppression.

In brief, free radicals can damage any organ system of the body. When we see these effects as laypeople, we pass them off as aging, medical scientists call them 'degenerative diseases.'

RADIATION > FREE RADICAL > CELL DAMAGE > TISSUE DAMAGE > DISEASE

Again, I am a second generation "couple of zaps" done to my mother while I was a egg inside of her.

My sons (all 3) as well as my grand daughter were affected ADHD, Autistic, Autistic, ADHD.

I've spoken with a few authorities and even a small amount of radiation is dangerous.

You need to do more research.

Or, perhaps I wonder, who signs your paycheck?