Fukushima Now Radiating Everyone: 'Unspeakable' Reality 'Will Impact All Of Humanity'
Submitted by m72mc on Sat, 09/03/2011 - 17:07Fukushima Now Radiating Everyone: 'Unspeakable' Reality 'Will Impact All Of Humanity'
EU Secretly Authorizes Emergency Order Allowing Large Increase Of Radiation In Food
America and EU Agree: Raise Radiation Levels for Food
Bad link...
..here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAzrWJXBIM0
+
Forum link & YouTube userid disabled due to copywirte troubles.
Your reply & mine point to the same recently added YouTube newsreel. Either will do.
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
60 Minutes Report: Fukushima Now Radiating Everyone
60 Minutes Report: Fukushima Now Radiating Everyone: Will Impact All Of Humanity Posted March 6, 2012. 13 minute newsreel clip from the news programs called, 60 minutes. Certain times in an uncertain world. The title in red is on the newsreel.
The heat goes on.
PS: This newsreel may well be the same as the one in this forum . Now an inconvenient truth... Unavailable.) "If you have been exposed [to cesium 137] because you are an atomic worker, even after you're long dead & buried, your gravesite will be radioactive. Your great grandkids can come with geiger counters and see that Great Granddaddy still has radiation at his gravesite.
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
Alex Jones and the Inforwars crew have never dropped this story
As a resuly, in my circle of influence, people have been aware that we are slowly being poisoned. As I often say: Get good with God. Evil sons of bitches!
Thanx,
Jason
You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.
Nuclear Proliferation blows donky terds
The market is so vertical and people think they can't learn how to tap their local energy sources?
whatever happened to diversity of production?
the average American spends 33 hours of 40 hours a week paying off their energy consumption... what if that money were saved?
Wind will work where it is windy, hydroelectric doesn't mean build a dam so fu$king huge that you compromise the environment... how come we assume we are too stupid to break up energy consumption into bio-regions and work from there??
the people who are balls to the wall for nuclear energy are asking for the monopolization of the energy sector by another energy regime...
WHY DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REGIME PRODUCE YOUR ENERGY???
Bush's energy policy was oil--- we invaded Iraq for oil.
Obama's energy policy is nuclear proliferation---well... we're surrounding Iran.
If we want to be free like the founder's intended we better start acting free
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"give me control of my own permaculture and I care a lot about what makes law"
-Permaculture Republican
After BP and Fukishima-
I don't eat anything from the ocean. The day after Fukishima, I bought a bunch of tuna fish and 10 boxes of Morton's Kosher salt and sea salt. After that runs out I guess I will try to live a salt free diet.
There's a salt from Utah
There's a salt from Utah called Real Salt that comes from a salt mine of old sea water.
but, though good, it doesn't contain any iodine
So, to protect the thyroid crude sea salt is better (radiation is an issue here, too). Also, pre-fukushima kelp, if possible.
I just wrote a book about this, Natural Cures for Radiation. It is just as bad as these posts indicate, even worse. There is an increase all over the world, esp. USA, of thyroid nodules, thyroid cancer, and throat cancer from Fukushima plus up to a 50% increase in stillbirths and infant mortality.
It is BAD. Nuclear power plants should all be shuttered.
'pre-Fukushima' ...
an unfortunate addition to this year's lexicon.
Take kelp everyday.....
http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/8-health-benefits-of-ke...
http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public...
"Observe the masses,and do the opposite."
;))
Damn who in their right mind, would build a Nuke plant so close to the Ocean!!!!
And not have a gravity water supply ? when electricity goes out!!!
Madness!;-)))
I have always found it funny
I have always found it funny that most anti nuclear people are also pro electric automobiles. How do these people plan to generate enough power to meet the enourmous increase in demand for electricy that would be caused by electric cars?
Let's have a free market in energy. Force companies to respect property rights, end all energy subsidies, and eliminate regulation that promote pollution. Let the most efficient forms of energy play. I'm convinced if this was allowed to occur, nuclear would take over.
http://lionsofliberty.com
voteliberty2012 is correct
The last thing the nuclear industry wants is a free market.
Quite simply, the nuclear industry cannot exist in a free market as it relies on the opposite of protection of the right to property in order to build and operate facilities.
Limits on liability, reliance on taxpayer subsidy (direct and indirect) and political cover are essentials for the nuclear power industry as we've known it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_...
voteliberty2012 makes the correct point. In a free market, no investors could risk providing capital to the nuclear industry.
In the above link, note how the insurance industry limits the amount of coverage in policies which are available to the industry (nothing especially seedy about that, the insurers simply want to make a profit while at the same time providing the insurance) BUT the excess liability "fund" is UNfunded except when accidents occur and any liability is or can be transferred to the taxpayers with the help of congress.
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
Ain't insurance for Nuclear Power plants.
They are an extreme case of government limiting liability by fiat. In case of disaster, Dial-a-Prayer. 911.
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
Robo dial those prayers
Like they do with Amber Alerts.
And better to make that a 900 number...no reason one can't turn a quick profit while dealing with the aftermath of a Fukushima.
The first 5,000 call recipients can get glow in the dark Tee-Shirts.
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
If nuclear were not protected
If nuclear were not protected by government, who would really invest in a technology with unlimited exposure to property rights violations?
I'm all for a free market energy system. I really like solar technologies because a distributed system has a lot of benefits of being resilient against disasters. But I think nuclear would be over, not take over if we really enforced property rights and it received no protections and support from government.
Government
Government "protection" with the NRC place an enormous financial burden on Nuclear Engineering companies. It's entirely possible that independent, private nuclear reglatory firms would develop in a free market.
There would have to be a strong case proving damaged private property caused by Nuclear Plants, which is not the case around any U.S. nuclear plants. Coal plants emitt more radiation than Nuclear plants.
http://lionsofliberty.com
Incorrect
Jao171,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_...
There essentially is NO liability past the current insurer obligations of up to 375 million dollars per plant per accident.
No insurer or pool of insurers can or wishes to fund the liability which can and will arise from any one disaster. Transparently, nuclear power plants represent a non insurable risk, therefore, a risk only taken with the connivance of corporate fawning and irresponsible government.
And, the unfunded "fund" which is to provide for liability beyond that also is a capped amount, a bit over 12 billion.
Fukushima alone is more than that in known damages, and it's not like anyone will get "rich" via lawsuit, as there is nothing to recover when there is nothing.
Since, ultimately, taxpayers are to be the insurers of last resort, one will need to sue oneself to "recover" in the event of a nuclear mishap.
Thanks but no thanks.
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
Good Info
John P,
Good information. I agree that Nuclear Energy, as currently set up cannot function without government coercion. The system is broken. Nuclear Energy currently relies on government force in order to overcome the cost burden that results from regulations. I would favor eliminating Price-Anderson. Over 43 years only 150 million has been paid by nuclear companies to cover claims. I disagree, private insurance or insurance pools could be created.
To be fair you are comparing the Japanese disaster to legislation in the United States. One has zero bearing on the other. Japan was hit with a once in 500 years earth quake and Tsunami. The plant itself was not up to the standard of United State plants.
We aren't going to meet rising energy demand in this country or the world without Nuclear Energy. Unless something is invented that can create Energy out of thin air (maybe The Federal Reserve can head up the project. They have the money out of thin air procedure perfected) With modern techology nulcear energy is safer that it's ever been and it is the cleanest form of energy.
You believe nulcear energy would never be a viable alternative unless government intervened? Is this correct?
http://lionsofliberty.com
yes, I do believe it's not viable in a free market
Price Anderson was created because the nuclear industry literally couldn't exist without it...that was the industry impetus to push that legislation.
Investors wouldn't invest because insurers would not insure.
That remains true today. Insurance is capped in what very logically can be called a private sector response...the available insurance is limited to 375 million per policy, per incident.
The other "cap" isn't so much a cap as a smokescreen. It's for something over 12 billion per incident and supposedly would be paid by all plants with a pool. Problem with that is no such pool exists and only would be created after an incident and after liability had been established...and there's not even a known way to predict how those costs would be calculated.
That leaves the taxpayer to foot the bill. So, the people injured by the incident would be litigating against themselves for any possible recovery which of course means no recovery is possible.
In the community in which I was raised, Sacramento, CA, the local publicly owned facility built the Rancho Seco plant. In that situation you had the taxpayers owning the nuclear plant. of course, they would be the injured parties in the event of any incident. So it becomes an even more extreme example of why any liability really means no payout by those responsible.
In the so-called private energy industry, one has monopolies...so it's not a real great improvement over a publicly owned utility, it's simply what appears to be a private business which exists solely due to government grant and favor, like any monopoly.
It's really simple to see that a free market requires no limit on caps, no unnecessary delays or inhibitions before one could go to court to press for compensation.
There are plenty of alternatives. We don't need nuclear (at least not the uranium kind; thorium seems an interesting and potentially good alternative, I really don't know, but I'm open to that if it is safe and if there is no limit on liability).
One of the tired old arguments which I've seen repeated in the comments here is that newer plants are safer. You also add that Japan was a once in 500 year tsunami and the additional (incorrect) info that US standards are higher. Japan is noted for a high incidence of earthquakes and for having building codes far more stringent to protect against the known threat of quakes.
The fact is a once in a 500 year storm can arrive in the next hour...no one knows how many and when. What IS known is they occur.
As for the older plants, they continue to operate, so there's really no meat on the bones of the newer plant safety arguments. The industry is unsafe. It's an unacceptable risk.
We can't afford the existing nuclear industry. No one can.
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
This is the justification government uses to interfere
"We aren't going to meet rising energy demand in this country or the world without Nuclear Energy"
To make such a statement is in contradiction to free market. It says you know what the market needs. It is the justification the government uses to interfere in the market because someone believes they know what is essential.
In a true free market we may very well find some unexpected winners as investments begin to more freely flow to alternative technologies and oligopolies loose the power to suppress competition through the power of government.
And why is it that we MUST meet the rising energy demand? In a true free market top to bottom maybe the demand adjusts to the supply. Government interferes by creating more demand where it is not sustainable. Maybe growth in some areas in reality is above what the market says it should be and therefore it should slow down.
Good Points
Perhaps I should have said, looking at population growth worldwide and increasing dependence on electricy to fuel our lifestyle I cannot envision a society not using Nulcear Energy to meet the demand. I could be wrong. I don't know what the market will provide. I was responding to statements others made implying that Nuclear Power would not exist without assistance from government.
Truth is none of us know what our society would look like if we'd had a true free market for the last 100 years. There might be a heck of a lot more travel by rail and fewer automobiles. We can speculate and analyze the unintended consequences of government meddling, but we can't know for sure how the market would have reacted without government interference.
http://lionsofliberty.com
I think that the hate
I think that the hate propaganda against nuclear power plants is part of the neocon campaign for war on Iran (and other potential and alledged nuclear wanna be nations). Harmless radiation levels are are blown up to panic. "Nuclear" has become a magic word, which stops people from thinking and instead programs them to cry for war and regulations. About a thousand nukes have been detonated above ground and in the oceans (not including underground tests). In Hiroshima and Nagasaki people died by heat and chockwave, not by radiation. The radiation hysteria is simply propaganda. It is used because it differs nuclear power from other energy sources, and therefor targets only nuclear power.
ignore that horn growing out of your head
It's harmless.
And the third eye on your newborn's forehead, that is a sign of specialness, embrace it.
Who wouldn't want pets which glow in the dark?
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
Please visit the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museaum.
Please study the devastating effects of nuclear disasters. Please study how they aid and abed nuclear weapon production. Please study the relationship between levels of radiation & cancer.
Please study how nuclear power plants generate electricity by boiling water to thousands of degrees. Only 100 degrees Celsius is required to boil water.
Please stop spreading harmless, when it isn't. Regards,
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
We need to go nuclear
and stop wasting time spinning our wheels debating the pros and cons of it. It's the safest, cheapest and cleanest form of energy thus far developed by man. It's also the reason that the organized and well-funded left has carried on a campaign of lies attacking this form of cheap electicity generation. The left hates independence and allowing this form of energy production would hurt their anti-capatalist agenda.
The left basically possess an anti-capitalist mentality and anything that advances our standard of living they oppose. That's why they support wind, solar and other non-viable forms of producing energy,because they are costly! Subsidized "green energy" boondoggles, that don't work and will sink the nation further into scarcity is to a member of the organized "left" the objective.
The debate is over, nuclear has won on the technical, economic and environmental argument. But the political battles go to the organized left since their ace in the hole is the scare card that they always play. But it is just a card not a fact of life!
archtoplee
Do what Paul says, then:
And stop subsidizing nukes with taxpayer money. It is the most UNprofitable of all type of power sources. Without those subsidies all nuclear power plants would collapse into oblivion (bankrupt).
nuclear is the opposite of free market
The nuclear industry only exists with the connivance of government.
In a free market, it cannot be funded due to liability.
If one believes in personal responsibility one opposes nuclear power.
Unacceptable risk means just that.
Producing, distributing and archiving the BEST Ron Paul Speech films.
I am glad to read that your debate on these issues is over.
Thank you for your contribution, even you felt the debate is over. Regards,
Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul ☑
Harmless! Stop spreading lies!!!
Nonsens!
Fukushima was worst case scenario. A 40 year old power plant without earthquake protection was hit by a tsunami and several cores melted. No salvation operation was possible, because all resources and access roads had been destroyed by the tsunami. It couldn't be worse!
Still, NO ONE DIED FROM RADIATION! Those who died, were killed by the tsunami. The reactor building was the safest place on the whole coast! A couple may have died from fires. Fukushima proves that nuclear power is extremely safe. We thought a tjernobyl was unlikely to repeat. Now we know that it is IMPOSSIBLE! There's no conceivable scenario (unless the safety is shut off to experiment, like in Tjernobyl).
The Fukushima nuclear power primary safety failed because they were programmed to automatically shut down when they fellt the earthquake. But the Tsunami destroyed the diesel generators outside, and cut off the grid. So they had no electricity at all to run the safety systems with! If the nuclear power plants had been kept running, the primary safety systems would've been intact and no melt down would've occured. It was the irrational panic propaganda against nuclear power which had prompted the "safety" measure to shut down the plants automatically in the case of an earthquake...
Tens of thousands died by the tsunami. It is an insult to them to focus on the harmless little Fukushima incident in the midsst of this massiv devastation. Among those who died, were dozens who were killed when a WATER DAM broke! Hundreds of thousands of people have died from hydro electric power plants failing the last 100 years. Nuclear power is the safest way to produce electricity.