15 Comments

  1. Look to Israhell for the cause, IE their Stuxnet virus designed to meltdown Siemens controlled reactors (that's all reactors) and you'll likely find the cure (withheld for their own use of course) within the same government.

  2. blank the doctor says:

    Nuclear power was never thought to be "safe" – Einstein pointed out it was a "hell of a way to make steam," but it was thought the risks could be mitigated. One has to ask a few questions to fully understand this entire process.

    What did they think they would do with the spent fuel – what was the original plan for it? One cannot open a car painting shop without proving you can dispose of the waste.

    Safety being the highest priority would dictate the plants be placed in safe, containable areas, that said, one needs to ask: Why were plants built on KNOWN fault lines, in tsunami zones and near population centers? Better yet, why were some plants built near ALL THREE?!

    Why build a plant that NEEDS to withstand an earthquake when one can be built away from a fault?

    Why build a plant near a population center, when power-lines can deliver the power anywhere?

    Why build something that has no system for disposing of the waste product?

    Why is that form a steam so much better then any other form of steam – it doesn't create electrons but steam!

  3. I read some articles that said radiation is good for you. Maybe some people get cancer after being radiated, but some people get cancer if they are not radiated. Has anyone ever taken radiation and directly caused cancer themselves, to verify that radiation causes cancer firsthand? Or does everyone just rely on hearsay and voodoo science? Not everybody died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and most of the survivors did not get cancer. Maybe all of this is good, because it will weed out those with poor genetics, and stronger humans will be able to live in harmony with radiation. Maybe cancer from radiation is just a sympton of those with poor genetics.

  4. Before anyone wets their panties over my comment, I suggest learning a little: http://www.rerf.or.jp/library/update/rerfupda_e/c

    Note: Does radiation "cause" cancer? Clearly, radiation is a contributing factor. How it contributes in the multistage process of carcinogenesis is not yet known; however, radiation does seem to be a ***weak*** initiator … It is not so simple as radiation=cancer. Many defective biological processes must exist for radiation damage to turn into cancer, as with all cellular damage. I think there is a lot of "Henny Penny" behavior related to Fukushima, mainly promoted by Jeff Rense.

    1. blank Fake Norwegian says:

      Chad who is paying you to go to websites and make ignorant comments?

      I suggest that YOU should go to Fukushima and get some of that "good for you" radiation you speak of.

      By the way, if you were not so ignorant, you might have know of one of the first deaths by radiation exposure. Her name was Madame Curie.

      Do not bother answering.

  5. POISONS (including radiation) make you live longer, if you don't take so much as to kill yourself. Again, Fukushima may just make most people live longer than average. As Neitzche said: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and science verifies this: http://discovermagazine.com/2002/dec/featradiatio

  6. Truth is not exciting, so don't expect to find it in any media, left or right, mainstream or alternative, hippy or fascist. Media operates for profit, and truth is too tedious and boring to attract an audience. If you want some truth, read scientific peer review journals, or experiment yourself. For a while, I experimented with the "fluoride toothpaste is bad, use baking soda & peroxide (et al)". And after years of experimenting, tediously cleaning my teeth, and never eating sugars, I got lots of little cavities popping up. So, there's fraud to the left, and fraud to the right, and "correct analysis, correct facts, personal experimentation" are more important than what groups we belong to.

  7. This would be an interesting article/report/study: get a little Fukushima waste, and 4 rat cages with 10 rats each. Put a vial of 1mg Fukushima waste into one, 10mg into another, and 100mg into a 3rd, leaving one cage as a control with no waste. Then, record the lifespace and cause of death for each of the rats. Then maybe we can learn something about human exposure, and have some interesting facts to play with, instead of "oh no, it's the end of the world" nonsense. That kind of thinking is straight out of the Dark Ages, where people were motivated by superstitions, gossip, and all things non-evidentary.

    1. blank ANIMALAURA says:

      I would never agree that any animals should be murdered just to prove a point, probably one whereby the outcome is already known. However, a lower lifeform would be quite an effective test subject in this research — such as politicians, lobbyists, or lawyers.

  8. Death Watch,

    I have to say that the research I have done on the subject of nuclear power and it's fallout is absolutely in agreement with your comments. So are the comments made about world leaders, though I have to believe that many of the humans who support those in authority do not have a complete understanding of the impending disaster.

    There is so much 'contradicting evidence' available that one needs to have the time of years to study the data, and arrive at the correct answer. Besides many people are inclined to take the easy road.

  9. blank Terrahertz says:

    Chad, the ignorant fool from the dark ages is you, not those who understand the dangers of radioactive contamination.

    Regarding Madame Curie, I've read her biography. She died from radiation sickness, without any doubt whatsoever.

    “Maybe all of this is good, because it will weed out those with poor genetics, and stronger humans will be able to live in harmony with radiation.”

    You clearly have no understanding whatsoever of how DNA works, and the balance between cumulative errors in the genes and the extremely slow operation of evolution via culling of 'the weak.'

    Also, you neglect to consider one small detail – 'culling the weak' in the case of radiation induced genetic damage, involves hundreds of generations of tears and tragedy.

    Incidentally for higher complexity organisms in even moderately raised background radiation levels, evolution simply doesn't work. The errors accumulate faster than they can be 'selected out'. Result – extinction of the species. That's us humans remember.

    So Chad, how about you f-off to Fukishima, and eat lots of the local farm produce and fish. Tell us in ten years how good it was for you. If you're still alive, which I strongly doubt.

    Oh, and in the meantime, please stop writing paid shill posts.

    1. blank Fake Norwegian says:

      Terrahertz!

      Clearly they are losing the information war.

      Gratitude for an intelligent post.

      Who ever is paying these trolls is losing money! Soon to be irrelevant money if we cannot solve the Fukushima crisis and heal the planet.

      Signing off.

  10. Hey Chad hows about we make you one of the rats, then tell me how it works out for you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *