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.

 

50 Reasons We Should Fear the Worst from Fukushima

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I hope this hasn't already been posted, I did search - but not knowing when a thread was posted makes for a very ineffecient search.

Rant about search aside, I wanted to post this list. I'll post only a few of the 50 factual reasons. Most items have links to source documentation and those that don't mostly refer to one that does.

It is a serious problem and deserves serious discussion and action however, big business, doesn't want us to know what is happening at Fukushia in specific and whole 'nuclear' cycle as a whole:

All the below from: www.commondreams.org...



Japan’s harsh dictatorial censorship has been matched by a global corporate media blackout aimed—successfully—at keeping Fukushima out of the public eye.

But that doesn’t keep the actual radiation out of our ecosystem, our markets … or our bodies.




This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the Bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.

Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves.




3. During and after the Bomb Tests (1946-63), downwinders in the South Pacific and American west, along with thousands of U.S. “atomic vets,” were told their radiation-induced health problems were imaginary … until they proved utterly irrefutable.




9. By refusing to compile long-term emission assessments, the industry systematically hides health impacts at Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc., forcing victims to rely on isolated independent studies which it automatically deems “discredited.”




22. Soon after Chernobyl blew up (1986), Dr. Gofman predicted its fallout would kill at least 400,000 people worldwide.

23. Three Russian scientists who compiled more than 5,000 studies concluded in 2005 that Chernobyl had already killed nearly a million people worldwide.



12. When the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) Chief Medical Officer, Dr. John Gofman, urged that reactor dose levels be lowered by 90 percent, he was forced out of the AEC and publicly attacked, despite his status a founder of the industry.

13. A member of the Manhattan Project, and a medical doctor responsible for pioneer research into LDL cholesterol, Gofman later called the reactor industry an instrument of “premeditated mass murder.”



39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret, with independent measurement or public speculation punishable by up to ten years in prison.




49. Hyman Rickover, father of the nuclear navy, warned that it is a form of suicide to raise radiation levels within Earth’s vital envelope, and that if he could, he would “sink” all the reactors he helped develop.

50. “Now when we go back to using nuclear power,” he said in 1982, “I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”



I'd be sure to bookmark this list for future reference.




posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 

All I can do is agree with your post and the seriousness of the situation, but much like the frog either going into the hot water or the slowly warming water, we are in the slowly heating water (the hot water frog struggles and croaks while the slowly heating water he simply abides in and dies) through the control of our wide spread media and lack of information or reaction to this devastating problem. I have personally contacted my congresswoman and senators only to be met with indifference and ignorance. Making our governments look foolish, especially when they truly are, upsets them as they prefer to sweep problems under the rug. And so they will pretend there is no problem even when it is readily apparent to anyone taking a closer look at the facts. So here we are, amid the generally uneducated and ignorant masses willing to go along with the psychobabble our government prefers to spout rather than hard truths.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Many of this Points are legit but some are simple Misinterpretations
or plain Lies like:




39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities
and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret,
with independent measurement or public speculation punishable
by up to ten years in prison.


This is not true or must be happening behind our Horizonte!



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I would be happy to accept my position as a member in the ignorant masses and uneducated group, at least in the analysis of nuclear power risks, and recent improved safety conditions. I don't know, and I won't pretend to. Now to my ignorant questions. It seems as if the clips you provide are basically calling for the shutting down of nuclear reactors. I assume that's around the world? I don't know how that would go over with places like France that gets half it's power from nuclear, or Iran which insists it is only using the enriched Uranium for power generation, but never mind, say it can be done.

We already know how dangerous fossil fuels are, we really have to eliminate those. So, what are we supposed to do? How may we generate sufficient power for the world's desires? Or are fossil fuels safer than nuclear, and more environment-friendly?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Reason 51.

Fukushima has no solution. Our technology is way too far behind to clean up the mess.

That is the simple truth.

The same applies to every reactor on the planet.

There are many, many more reactors siting on fault lines just waiting for the inevitable to happen as it inevitably will.

We have no way to deal with the waste from all the Earth's reactors and yet we still keep producing and 'storing' the waste.

Big business at it's most destructive best.

P



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





We already know how dangerous fossil fuels are, we really have to eliminate those. So, what are we supposed to do? How may we generate sufficient power for the world's desires? Or are fossil fuels safer than nuclear, and more environment-friendly?


We have the tech right now to switch to a hydrogen based power system, but, sadly, there is no money in it. We have had the tech for a very long time. Harness the suns energy via solar panels, use the electrical energy to release hydrogen from water, burn the hydrogen with oxygen to produce power with water the only by product and start the cycle over again.

It is simple, it is clean and it can be done. Now watch all the big oil supporters come and dispute the facts.

The one thing that stops the human race from real progress is pure greed.

P

edit on 4/2/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Human0815
Many of this Points are legit but some are simple Misinterpretations
or plain Lies like:




39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities
and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret,
with independent measurement or public speculation punishable
by up to ten years in prison.


This is not true or must be happening behind our Horizonte!


This is very, very factual and serious...

www.theverge.com...

www.npr.org...

japandailypress.com...

Please don't call facts lies - it puts you in bad light.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:10 AM
link   

charles1952
I would be happy to accept my position as a member in the ignorant masses and uneducated group, at least in the analysis of nuclear power risks, and recent improved safety conditions. I don't know, and I won't pretend to. Now to my ignorant questions. It seems as if the clips you provide are basically calling for the shutting down of nuclear reactors. I assume that's around the world? I don't know how that would go over with places like France that gets half it's power from nuclear, or Iran which insists it is only using the enriched Uranium for power generation, but never mind, say it can be done.

We already know how dangerous fossil fuels are, we really have to eliminate those. So, what are we supposed to do? How may we generate sufficient power for the world's desires? Or are fossil fuels safer than nuclear, and more environment-friendly?


Hi Charles,

Take a look at the 50 reasons - follow-up with the source materials - make up your own mind.

It will not be easy - but coming back from extinction would be harder, methinks.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:58 AM
link   

FyreByrd

Human0815
Many of this Points are legit but some are simple Misinterpretations
or plain Lies like:




39. To the extent they can be known, the quantities
and make-up of radiation pouring out of Fukushima are also now a state secret,
with independent measurement or public speculation punishable
by up to ten years in prison.


This is not true or must be happening behind our Horizonte!


This is very, very factual and serious...

www.theverge.com...

www.npr.org...

japandailypress.com...

Please don't call facts lies - it puts you in bad light.



We studied this Law very well and see the Danger
but we see also that it is not Fukushima related.

Fukushima is not a "State Secret"
(the Island Dispute with China and how many SDF moved there
is a State Secret)

This is a Fact but maybe you don't know this before



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Opinions on the subject vary greatly.


deepseanews.com...


deepseanews.com...


I'm not hitting eBay for a lead raincoat myself.
Who are you gunna believe?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Unfortunately I agree with all of those points. But what can we do about it?

Our leaders are so hell bent on profit and power over a green, sustainable and affordable future that they will lead us all to our deaths as long as we keep paying top dollar for it



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Silicis n Volvo
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Unfortunately I agree with all of those points. But what can we do about it?

Our leaders are so hell bent on profit and power over a green, sustainable and affordable future that they will lead us all to our deaths as long as we keep paying top dollar for it



There is nothing affordable about green energy. Oil is very cheap that's why it is used so much. I completely agree with you that we should look for cleaner alternative energy sources. But don't get the idea that someone's not going to get rich doing it.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

charles1952
We already know how dangerous fossil fuels are, we really have to eliminate those. So, what are we supposed to do? How may we generate sufficient power for the world's desires? Or are fossil fuels safer than nuclear, and more environment-friendly?


the Sun provides enough energy in 1 hour to power the entire planet for a year. And the technology to harness it already exists. Earth doesn't need anything other than the sun for an energy source.

Yes fossil fuels are bad for the environment, and so is nuclear fuel. What do you think happens to all that nuclear waste that is produced? where do we plan on keeping it all for the next 10,000 years? Then there is the obvious risks highlighted by events such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Still think its a safe source of energy?

So why don't we just use solar energy?

It's simple!; Greed, money, power.

There is billions and billions of profit still to be made from fossil fuels. When the world is powered by the sun and we have an endless, free supply of energy people wont want to pay the kind of prices they are paying right now to keep their homes warm or their TV's turned on. Once we go green and the technology is commercially accessible our leaders know that they are going to lose out on all that money. People would be able to sustain themselves and the government cant have that. While they have control over the energy that we use they hold all the cards.

Nuclear fuel is another way they can keep us away from free, renewable energy and keep us paying big money for our energy and keep us relying on them.

They do not care about the risks. The UK plan to build several nuclear power plants soon but do you think our prime minister will be the one to suffer when one of them blows up? No. We will be, but the government can live with that.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Solutions to it, the same as the weapon used against us, Haarp, or Microwave/Hz/Sine.

REVERSE SINE.

I'm going to say it again, REVERSE SINE.

Again, because all of our lives are indeed at risk as is all of nature, REVERSE SINE.

Remember the article of reverse microwaves chilling wine.

Their bad technology can heal and stop the reactors from further melting, can freeze them so they can be dealt with, AND like reverse sine knocks out sound frequencies, it can do the same with individual isotopes, toxins and even disease!!!!!

But they don't want to do this, they are conducting this on purpose, it takes people waking up and forcing it. REVERSE SINE!

Oh don't hire governments that work for the Bildenburgs ever again. Elect your own people only. Elect your own people only. Elect your own people only and then kick some ass. Throw them in jail.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Hoosierdaddy71

Silicis n Volvo
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Unfortunately I agree with all of those points. But what can we do about it?

Our leaders are so hell bent on profit and power over a green, sustainable and affordable future that they will lead us all to our deaths as long as we keep paying top dollar for it



There is nothing affordable about green energy. Oil is very cheap that's why it is used so much. I completely agree with you that we should look for cleaner alternative energy sources. But don't get the idea that someone's not going to get rich doing it.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)


Yes but we are not just still using oil because its cheap to get hold of. we all know petrol prices are not cheap. When the cost of a barrel of oil goes down the cost of petrol doesn't always go down with it. It's cheap for them, not for us.

greed, power, money

And energy companies constantly extorting more and more money from the people but its not because their costs have gone up that much. It's because they can. and only because they can.

greed, power, money

When we can sustain ourselves they wont be able to do this. But the men at the top are trying damn hard to keep us reliant on them and keep the money coming in



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Silicis n Volvo
 


Solar Energy is not "that" harmless like you might think,
the Production of it need highly toxic Gases and the final Storage
is a own Chapter, just look for "the danger of Sonar Panels" via any Search Engine!

Google
I prefer Solar Energy too but just needed to mention it!
edit on 4-2-2014 by Human0815 because: link


Edit:


Manufacture

The manufacturing process used to build solar-energy harnessing devices (such as photovoltaic cells) can harm workers or create safety hazards at factories. Factory workers must construct photovoltaic cells using arsenic and cadmium, which are both hazardous materials. The chief component of solar cells is silicon (as polysilicon), and the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells can release the carcinogen crystalline silica dust. Workers exposed to this dust can suffer from cancer, lupus, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, the autoimmune disorder Sjögren's syndrome and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In addition, accidental spills could expose factory workers to toxins and hazardous chemicals, and a fire at the manufacturing plant can release toxic gases into the atmosphere.

Waste Disposal

The manufacture of solar panels leaves behind a number of toxic by-products. These can include the toxin silicon tetrachloride, the greenhouse gas sulfur hexafluoride and other dusts that can contaminate water and soil. The process to make one ton of polysilicon generates four tons of silicon tetrachloride, and if not disposed of properly, this toxin can render land infertile for growing crops. Also, because silicon-based panels possess only about a 25-year life span, the panels must be disposed of or recycled properly, or else they can contaminate the environment.

eHow

@ Op, here from your own Source:



The law covers defense, diplomacy, counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

NPR
edit on 4-2-2014 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-2-2014 by Human0815 because: see edit



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I still say 50 Megatons for Tsar Bomba detonated about the height of the radio mast at Fukushima will erase the problem. Figure out the physics question I've never heard anyone answer on whether existing material would be inert contamination and fallout or add to the critical chain reaction (very very VERY bad thing if that happened) and we're good to go.

I ran the sims on one of the simulators for nuclear detonations (there are a couple high quality ones out there) and the Pacific would be one glowing mess in a fan outward about 100-150 miles and about as wide by the time it was all said and done. Virtually all blown offshore and a one time splash of trash, so to speak...rather than slow, long years or pouring into the sea every day, nonstop.

It would take damn near Tsar Bomba tho because nukes aren't nearly as destructive as people think and as I found in checking into this awhile back. Anything much smaller, and all 3 buildings with surrounding storage areas are not within the atomizing fireball. (The fireball is what is actually much smaller than I'd imagined).

This is a real problem and a regional crisis without end in sight. Status quo is fine if that's all that can be done...but it seems any suggestion of ..oh, I don't know..destroying the problem? Is poo poo'ed outright as 'you gotta be crazy!'.

Well..is it crazy to accept a day of insanely high contamination for a couple hundred miles out and wide downwind...or to discuss months and years of millions of gallons per day flowing like a killer septic tank into the life giving ocean?

I call the latter more crazy than popping one BIG nuke to end this.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


What im waiting for is when the health effects finally take a toll on the usa and officials turn around and say....well its because you used your cell phone too much.

I do think cell phones can definitely cause cancer but its the perfect scapegoat to lump any abnormal cancer that occurs and that may have been happening from Fukashima.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Two kinds of people IMHO work with Nuclear :

1. Idiots
2. Psychopaths

Einstein ( reportedly ) had trouble tying his shoelaces... well - that's because he was an idiot.

Oppenheimer reportedly compared himself to ' Shiva , destroyer of worlds '... well - that's because he was a psychopath.

Just 2 cents



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Bazart
 



He was not comparing himself to shiva. After seeing the results of the first nuclear explosion, he quoted a text. He now knew mankind had the power to destroy the world. He was not a psychopath.

edit on 4-2-2014 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: Spelling



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join