Jeff Rense Has Gone off the Deep End

I've been a long-time listener and a fan but with the Fukushima disaster I feel that Jeff Rense has totally lost it. His latest interview with Dana Durnford on March 14, 2016 did it for me. In this post I will embolden the statements by Rense that have caused me to lose any faith I had in him. But, everything I'm putting in this post is part of why I've lost faith in Rense so I'm including it here.

You can listen to the interview here:


www.youtube.com...

I found an analysis of the interview on a blog which isn't allowed to be linked to here so I'll just include some of the highlights:

20:40

“And so, Fukushima, the only way to hold these people (TEPCO) accountable is to get rid of corporate personhood.” – Dana Durnford

Refutation:

TEPCO EXECUTIVE RESIGNS AS NAVY LAWSUIT STEAMS AHEAD
thefifthcolumnnews.com...

27:24

“And so, Fukushima, Japan, nobody can be held accountable, and so they do awful stuff.” – Dana Durnford

Refutation (the following is in addition to the Navy lawsuit mentioned above):

Over 50 branches of Japan’s district courts are currently considering lawsuits from 12,539 people against the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, according to local media.
sputniknews.com...

38:25

Rense: "There’s no end in sight, the technology doesn’t exist. They don’t even know how to go about beginning to design technology that would take care of the problem. It’s that bad."

Durnford: "Cause we only send in the homeless and the destitute."

Refutation:

Around 8,000 workers are now assisting in the cleanup.

...

Not all is going well, however. Engineers still have to locate the molten fuel, which seems to have melted through steel vessels.
www.scientificamerican.com...

All 8,000 workers and all the engineers are "the homeless and the destitute"? Not a chance.

38:36

“If we were to force Harvard and Yale and Berkeley and Stanford and MIT and Oxford to go into Fukushima, then they would come up with solutions.” – Dana Durnford

No one knows what would happen.

38:51

“The nuclear industry is, after all these years of getting away with bananas, potato chips, and everything else is arrogant and it’s pompous and it has dropped its guard.” – Dana Durnford

It’s on lock-down more than ever. See Japan's State Secrecy Law.

40:35

Durnford: “Well, we killed the Pacific."

Rense: “It’s dead.”

Durnford: “You know people, I think this is the year where it will really strike people. Because there are effects for killing the Pacific.”

The Pacific Ocean is not dead. Rense has lost it completely.

40:40

Rense: “Somebody wrote to me a week or two ago and said, 'You’re crazy, they’re still catching fish here and there, blah, blah, blah.'”

Durnford: “Yep."

Rense: “Yeah, that’s fine, there still are some fish left.”

Durnford: “There are, yeah. One percent of one percent.”

Rense: “We're talk, thank you."

Durnford: "Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off."

Rense: "No, no. You got it, one percent of one percent. That’s left in the ocean. That’s all that’s left.”

I could go on a little but that's the most pertinent part concerning Rense and how he's now apparently detached from reality. I shouldn't have to offer any sources to anyone here to prove that the "One percent of one percent.” claim is literally crazy talk.

it's possible he's off his nut, but on the other hand Fukushima is way worst than we have been lead to believe.
just say'n

a reply to: Profusion

I don't think you'll have to convince many people here that Jeff Rense has gone off the deep end, though it may take some work to convince anyone that it's something that happened in the past decade.

IMO, that guy has been long gone (mentally) for a very long time. And not just "for profit", but " for real."

originally posted by: Caver78
it's possible he's off his nut, but on the other hand Fukushima is way worst than we have been lead to believe.
just say'n

But, "You got it, one percent of one percent. That’s left in the ocean. That’s all that’s left." is a very specific claim that can be disproven easily. Rense is stating it as an absolute fact, there's no way he could know it for sure. There are parts of the Pacific Ocean that man has never even seen, how does Rense know what's happening in those places?

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: Profusion

I don't think you'll have to convince many people here that Jeff Rense has gone off the deep end, though it may take some work to convince anyone that it's something that happened in the past decade.

IMO, that guy has been long gone (mentally) for a very long time. And not just "for profit", but " for real."

What things did Rense say or promote that made you believe that?

BTW, interesting point you brought up there because look who has an entire forum on this site:

the view from marrs

Jim Marrs who was just on the Rense show on March 15, 2016. I wonder what his opinion is of this?

Marrs has been a regular guest on the Rense show for a long time. Anyone who's listened to Rense and Marrs for on the radio would probably agree that they're friends. Do you leave your friend when they've gone crazy? Maybe Rense is just crazy on one or two issues but otherwise sane.

a reply to: Profusion

But he gets ratings.

He may consider what he does as fiction. Doing so allows him to bring in money, which justifies the double-think.

Perhaps your assumption of the reality and rationality of Mr Rense's radio show is called into question?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Profusion

But he gets ratings.

He may consider what he does as fiction. Doing so allows him to bring in money, which justifies the double-think.

Perhaps your assumption of the reality and rationality of Mr Rense's radio show is called into question?

You're bringing up a hypothetical with no supporting evidence (you can't support a hypothetical with an an assumption).

Then, assuming that your hypothetical supported by an assumption is correct, you question whether my "assumption" (which I never stated) is correct?

I would propose that none of what you wrote is relevant to the original post because even if "Jeff Rense" isn't a real character, we can use the character's words and actions to deduce whether or not they are trustworthy and/or insane.

You're assuming that I believe that "Jeff Rense" is a real person, where did you get that idea? As a matter of fact, I don't believe that because I've heard him admit on his show that he made up the name and that he is someone else in "real life."

But, whether we're talking about a character or a real person, "Jeff Rense" can be held to the standards of real people in determining whether or not to trust them and whether or not what they're portraying is sane or insane.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Profusion

But he gets ratings.

He may consider what he does as fiction. Doing so allows him to bring in money, which justifies the double-think.

Perhaps your assumption of the reality and rationality of Mr Rense's radio show is called into question?

You're bringing up a hypothetical with no supporting evidence (you can't support a hypothetical with an an assumption).

Then, assuming that your hypothetical supported by an assumption is correct, you question whether my "assumption" (which I never stated) is correct?

I would propose that none of what you wrote is relevant to the original post because even if "Jeff Rense" isn't a real character, we can use the character's words and actions to deduce whether or not they are trustworthy and/or insane.

You're assuming that I believe that "Jeff Rense" is a real person, where did you get that idea? As a matter of fact, I don't believe that because I've heard him admit on his show that he made up the name and that he is someone else in "real life."

But, whether we're talking about a character or a real person, "Jeff Rense" can be held to the standards of real people in determining whether or not to trust them and whether or not what they're portraying is sane or insane.

I was not referring to Jeff Rense as being fictional but was referring to a probable personal attitude that he may have to the content of his show.

Similar to the History Channel and many of their "documentaries". One could hardly describe them as encyclopedic fact, but they do get higher ratings for the History channel, and that pleases the advertisers that pay their bills.

I was merely being cynical about the nature and motivation of the media.

What I find that happens with all this alternative media conspiracy genre is you get hooked on it like a drug until all you want to hear is the crazy. I have come across people who only ever think in crazy stuff and nothing normal anymore..its addictive and eventually it can become a belief system hard to get out of.

a reply to: mazzroth

Everything is viewed through a dark glass... automatically. I see and hear that in Jeff.

What happened at Fukushima IS IN FACT off the charts and in uncharted waters as far as catastrophe goes. All solutions are one part invention and two parts luck.

As far as the Pacific fish go, I would say the statement is true if you use the words "safely edible" with the word "fish".

I wouldnt eat a McDonalds fish sandwich for 20,000 years now.

originally posted by: Profusion
I've been a long-time listener and a fan but with the Fukushima disaster I feel that Jeff Rense has totally lost it. His latest interview with Dana Durnford on March 14, 2016 did it for me. In this post I will embolden the statements by Rense that have caused me to lose any faith I had in him. But, everything I'm putting in this post is part of why I've lost faith in Rense so I'm including it here.

You can listen to the interview here:

www.youtube.com...

I found an analysis of the interview on a blog which isn't allowed to be linked to here so I'll just include some of the highlights:

20:40

“And so, Fukushima, the only way to hold these people (TEPCO) accountable is to get rid of corporate personhood.” – Dana Durnford

Refutation:

TEPCO EXECUTIVE RESIGNS AS NAVY LAWSUIT STEAMS AHEAD
thefifthcolumnnews.com...

27:24

“And so, Fukushima, Japan, nobody can be held accountable, and so they do awful stuff.” – Dana Durnford

Refutation (the following is in addition to the Navy lawsuit mentioned above):

Over 50 branches of Japan’s district courts are currently considering lawsuits from 12,539 people against the Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, according to local media.
sputniknews.com...

38:25

Rense: "There’s no end in sight, the technology doesn’t exist. They don’t even know how to go about beginning to design technology that would take care of the problem. It’s that bad."

Durnford: "Cause we only send in the homeless and the destitute."

Refutation:

Around 8,000 workers are now assisting in the cleanup.

...

Not all is going well, however. Engineers still have to locate the molten fuel, which seems to have melted through steel vessels.
www.scientificamerican.com...

All 8,000 workers and all the engineers are "the homeless and the destitute"? Not a chance.

38:36

“If we were to force Harvard and Yale and Berkeley and Stanford and MIT and Oxford to go into Fukushima, then they would come up with solutions.” – Dana Durnford

No one knows what would happen.

38:51

“The nuclear industry is, after all these years of getting away with bananas, potato chips, and everything else is arrogant and it’s pompous and it has dropped its guard.” – Dana Durnford

It’s on lock-down more than ever. See Japan's State Secrecy Law.

40:35

Durnford: “Well, we killed the Pacific."

Rense: “It’s dead.”

Durnford: “You know people, I think this is the year where it will really strike people. Because there are effects for killing the Pacific.”

The Pacific Ocean is not dead. Rense has lost it completely.

40:40

Rense: “Somebody wrote to me a week or two ago and said, 'You’re crazy, they’re still catching fish here and there, blah, blah, blah.'”

Durnford: “Yep."

Rense: “Yeah, that’s fine, there still are some fish left.”

Durnford: “There are, yeah. One percent of one percent.”

Rense: “We're talk, thank you."

Durnford: "Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off."

Rense: "No, no. You got it, one percent of one percent. That’s left in the ocean. That’s all that’s left.”

I could go on a little but that's the most pertinent part concerning Rense and how he's now apparently detached from reality. I shouldn't have to offer any sources to anyone here to prove that the "One percent of one percent.” claim is literally crazy talk.

I think this is on topic enough to remain here but if you go to jimstone.com he has a lot of Hi res photos of Fuku.

Jim stone claims he was professional photographer in his spare time while working for the NSA and at a level higher than Snowden until he published photos of fuku particularly reactor 3.

Jim stone claims the earth quake had nothing to do with the reactors, that a sunami bomb was in fact used to cover the nuking of reactor 3.

Today I listened to Karen Hudes and one of the things that she said while refuting some claims was that yes she is Jewish and that Fufu was nuked by I........

"KAREN HUDES LIVE with Andy Peacher" - 30+ minutes in.

Karen Hudes was fired from her position as Senior Legal Counsel with the Word Bank, in 2007.

a reply to: Profusion

Three years ago or so, Rense was my first "go to" place for non-standard news. I visited there for several years. I had even contributed to the site with articles and not infrequently offered comments. I overlooked some of the quirky stuff that he peddled and his funny feud with that Canadian inventor of the game Scrabble, but eventually he drove me away with his seemingly support of the Russian grab in Ukrainian. It seemed to me that his father had a strong influence on the site as politics came on stronger and stronger. I finally wrote a goodbye post explaining my take on the situation and have never been back.