It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by nighthawk1954
I wonder if the Japanese government that is in bed with Tepco truly understands how pissed off people will be when they finally figure this out.
The Japanese are so filled with pride it blinds them. Instead of pride they should start looking at legacy. What will people be saying 20 years from now about how the Japanese handled this.
Tepco officials and anyone in the government who helped them should be tried for crimes against humanity. This will leave a stain against the Japanese culture no amount of pride will wash away.
Why do you suppose you FEEL this way?
There's NOT A CHANCE IN HELL Fuku alone can lead to an ELE.
We don't know all the facts, and those claiming to know in absolutes are LIARS!!
reply to post by webedoomed
Some people are hyper-sensitive to intuitive feelings. I am one of them. I am an intuitive thinker and I knew from the start this was a bad thing without having to be a nuclear physicist.
You can NOT possibly know this. To make such a claim without having any involvement other than reading your morning news is careless. So careless, in fact, it makes me question your integrity. No offense.
ehe, funny you said that. That's exactly why I questioned your integrity.
If it isn't Fukishima that's causing it, then what else could it be I wonder?
Don't you think there's a HUGE difference, between this being BAD, and an ELE?? Perspective, perhaps? Sheesh.
I spent MONTHS going through reports on chernobyl, fukushima, and researching everything related to radiation in general. There is NO WAY the estimated SUM TOTAL of EACH isotope on site is CAPABLE of bringing about an ELE. NOT A CHANCE IN HELL.
Out of interest, how many hundreds of nuclear bombs do you think it would take to put as much radiation into the Pacific Ocean as Fukushima?
And how many hundreds of nuclear bombs have been denotated in the Pacific in the past 50 years?
What a horribly misleading article. Based in part on a National Geographic article that does not even mention radiation due to a random poster in comments. The idea radiation is involved is plucked out of thin air.
I'll remember to avoid that Blog.