Published: August 20th, 2015 at 10:23 am ET
|
Los Angeles Times, Aug 17, 2015 (emphasis added): Biggest oarfish seen at Catalina Island in years washes ashore… marking a rare sighting of the deep-sea creature… [It] was 24 feet long when it was alive, said Annie MacAulay, a marine biologist… its tail [was] severed off — which oarfish have been known to do to shed weight and save energy, she said… The one found Monday had an empty pocket in its stomach, which MacAulay said could mean it recently stopped eating, a potential sign of distress or sickness… a handful of oarfish [have] washed up on California’s coasts in recent years.
New York Daily News, Aug 17, 2015: Stunned scientists fished for clues Monday to explain the origin of the giant oarfish that washed up on the shores of Catalina — the third massive marine oarfish found on the island in two years’ time [see articles below for additional finds]… The sleek silver fish was missing its pectoral fins and tail… perplexed researchers are looking for a reason why. Dr. Misty Paig-Tran from California State University Fullerton collected tissue samples… to determine whether it had any toxins in its system. But questions still remain as to why these fish are dying… The conservationist also speculated that water pollution could be to blame.
OC Register, Aug 19, 2015: This is the third oarfish to be documented on the island [since] 2013… MacAulay said the animal didn’t come to shore because of an illness or shark attack. When she dissected the fish, she discovered a belly full of krill… “It’s very strange, and the other one in June was the same,” she said.
Gazettes (Long Beach), Aug 19, 2015: MacAulay said this is the third such creature to wash up on the island in the past two years…. Before then, MacAulay said she isn’t aware of any others… … Sightings are extremely rare. Those that come near the shore are usually distressed.
AP, Aug 19, 2015: Residents of Santa Catalina Island have found a second sea monster on their shores in just three months… {MacAulay] says to see two in a three-month period after never seeing one her entire career is incredibly exciting.
Mountain and Sea Educational Adventures, Aug 17, 2015: Unbelievable! The second oarfish that we found washed up on the shores of Catalina Island.
- MacAulay: “You’re lucky to see one oarfish in your lifetime, so to see 2 within 3 months… I’ve been working on this island for 17 years and I had never seen any until June.”
- MacAulay: “I’ve been working here for more than 20 years out on the water and I’ve never seen one… three have been found so recently… it is sad.”
- MacAulay: “It’s so unusual that all these years I don’t see any oarfish, and then have seen two in the last few months.”
- MacAulay: “To see two of them in a three-month period when I’ve been working on the island for 20 years and in marine biology for almost 30 years… of course (I’m) very concerned because… for some reason they’re dying.”
San Diego Reader, Jun 30, 2015: First-ever oarfish caught on rod… That it was in shallow water for an oarfish gives the implication that it was unhealthy… crew tried to gaff and raise the 20-foot fish to the boat. The soft flesh only tore, and they had to give up…
Pete Thomas Outdoors, Jul 8, 2015: The bizarre catch… was snagged and barely alive… a crewman attempted to collect it with a gaff, but the flesh was too soft for the gaff to hold… for some reason Catalina has become a hot spot for sightings.
Bruce Smith, captain of sport fishing boat, Jun 29, 2015: “We caught an oarfish… at Catalina… in shallow water like 5 fathoms [30 feet]… It was pretty much dead… I know they washed up on the beach here a couple times… It was very surprising, it’s a once in lifetime thing.”
Los Angeles Times, Jun 3, 2015: Rare oarfish found dead on Catalina… The first sighting of a live oarfish was only recorded 2001, when one was caught on film by the U.S. Navy…
Los Angeles Times, Oct 10, 2013: 2 giant oarfish wash onto California coast, making scientists curious — It’s been the week of the oarfish along the Southern California coast. A 14-foot oarfish carcass was discovered Friday by a snorkeler off the beach in Oceanside. Earlier in the week, an 18-foot oarfish was found dead off Catalina Island.
Watch the LA Times’ video here | Full report from Cpt. Smith here
Published: August 20th, 2015 at 10:23 am ET
|


sending...
Ya bo I agree with you I posted this article a couple of weeks ago? leading with- “the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often in our minds.” Fricken sick I guess wait until everyone has rad effects to stop nonsense like this.
Report comment
I'm fuming because this article and Ian Fairlie is getting around like ice cream with poison folded into it.
I really would just be 'annoyed' if it was Newsweek but this gets posted on 'Counterpunch' 'The Ecologist' 'globalresearch' & gets passed around like hot potato
Who the f*ck is Fairlie ?
Looks like Yuri Hiranuma's part of this too if I'm not mistaken, name listed in 'with thanks to'
Thanks cannotdo1 too, I saw your response in last page just now
Yeah & the biggest sly disinfo – thousands more will die – that number already such a lowball, but aside from that – thousands more will die IN JAPAN AND ONLY IN JAPAN
pfffffffffffftttttttttttttt bleahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Report comment
Oh… this comment has nothing to do with article posted by enenews. DeadAhead and I are talking about
http://t.co/dlUpllGga1
Enenews forums are broken so we have been discussing whatever we want on main threads recently
Report comment
Wow…
And now I see tweets with this article linked
Then two hashtags
#radiation #mentalhealth
Report comment
broken threads, broken rules
Report comment
+sd
Report comment
Whos Fair Lie? Well its a little UNSCEAR, exactly who he is
Report comment
WAHAHAHA
Report comment
yea I wonder WHO he is code
Report comment
character assassination of Dr. Ian Fairlie, calling him from "WHO"
Report comment
Sorry.. that counterpunch article is enough for me to be furious at Fairlie, so yes, I'm slandering him but I really don't care. If you'd like to fight back about it please do so AFTER answering my one and only question here:
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698334
Because I'm actually still open to the possibility that my reading on this counterpunch article written by Fairlie is wrong – the sly wordsmithing is confusing.
Report comment
Do you remember Yuri Hiranuma who likes to attack Busby, Mangano & enenews? Looks like she helped him write this article. ( see name list at bottom)
Report comment
That is, she helped Fairlie with the counterpunch article.
Similar types of 'truthtellers' – in my opinion.
But I'll stay open minded.. again, it's very confusing when somebody is featured, for example, on 'nuclearhotseat' and denounces hormeis & NRC as Fairlie did.. hard to tell..
Yuri heroically exposes Dr. Yamashita's lies on her tweets, then denounces & slanders Busby & Mangano..
Very confusing.. maybe it's all just 'personal disagreements'
( but I also hear Rose' laughter somewhere )
Report comment
Libbe asked a great question on nuclearhotseat 'one thing I've always wondered is about background radiation. So was background radiation lower before 1945 before we started blowing up bombs?'
Fairlie: ' I really don't know.'
Report comment
Of course background radiation was lower and there are many studies proving this.
Report comment
Right ? Strange answer, from a radiation 'expert' no ?
Report comment
"…Fairlie: ' I really don't know.'.."
Since the answer is obvious , his words can only mean.. ;
"..i'm really not allowed to answer honestly.."
Report comment
Why don't you just label yourself pro TEPCO and pro hormesis?
Report comment
If you'd like to fight back about it please do so AFTER answering my one and only question here:
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698334
Because I'm actually still open to the possibility that my reading on this counterpunch article written by Fairlie is wrong – the sly wordsmithing is confusing.
Report comment
Nuclear Hotseat #217 – August 18, 2015:
Ian Fairlie – Radiation Denial to be NRC's New Official Standard?
+ Nuclear Hotseat Website Hack Update
"INTERVIEW:
"• Dr. Ian Fairlie is an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment and a consultant on radiation matters to the European Parliament, local and regional governments, environmental NGOs, and private individuals. He takes on the recent petitions to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposing that the longstanding, scientifically proven Linear No Threshold (LNT) model used as the basis for determining radiation exposure risks be replaced with the false science of 'hormesis,' which claims that low levels of radiation are actually GOOD for you.
Redirecting you to http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=BzU_U&m=3lp0HHNQQpjJuky&b=UBLoxWIkxGPXoHVQSzjHhg
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie:
US NRC Consultation: LNT vs hormesis
August 1, 2015
On June 26 2015, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stated it was seeking public comments by September 8, on petitions stating that the Linear No Threshold theory of radiation’s effects was not a valid basis for setting radiation standards and that the hormesis model should be used instead.
Several US readers have written asking for help in drawing up their own comments. As this is an important issue, I attach my thoughts on the matter. US NRC Consultation 4-1
Readers may use this as they wish as long as proper attribution is given.
ShareSumming the Health Effects of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster
• US NRC Consultation: LNT vs hormesis
• Update: New powerful study shows radiogenic risks of leukemia in workers more than double the previous estimate
• Why We Don’t Really Need Nuclear Power
http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/us-nrc-consultation-lnt-vs-hormesis/
Report comment
Dr. Fairlie’s 12 page comment to the NRC against hormesis is found here:.
http://www.ianfairlie.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/US-NRC-Consultation-4-1.pdf
Report comment
And seeing PT already posted the link, well, duhhh Wani! means I need to read ALL comments before I post squat. Mea culpa. It may LOOK like most are asleep on this, but in all my years doing the old Hemlock Tea Room, I find that MOST are awake to the dangers of low-level. It seems those who reject it do so out of FEAR, uncontrolled fear. They, like most patients given a prognosis of a terminal illness, must go through the stages of denial. And I also find my American readers cling to denial longer than any other nation's people, or so it certainly seems. Maybe that old "Uncle Sam will take care of you" crap was swallowed by too many? It takes guts to face facts and guts to deal with them. Knowledge is power, we learn or we perish.
Report comment
Before biting on any other comments, please answer this one question here :
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698334
Because I'm actually still open to the possibility that my reading on this counterpunch article written by Fairlie is wrong – the sly wordsmithing is confusing. Thank you.
Report comment
Here, I'll spell out the question over, with link:
All I care right now is about this counterpunch article, which Fairlie FULLY PENNED. And I have only ONE question:
In this counterpunch article→
http://t.co/dlUpllGga1
does Fairlie say 'so far 60 people died from radiation in fukushima, and the rest died from stress from evacuation'
That's what I saw.. but of course I could be wrong – hard to be sure, as it seems there's a lot of wordsmithing here. So I would appreciate outside input.
That is the only one question I have today.
Thank you.
Report comment
Japan has kept a lid on ANY reports that MIGHT point to Fuku radiation causing illness or death. The U.S. has said a loud AMEN! to that since it all began. NRC's boss said none had died, http://cnsnews.com/news/article/no-one-died-radiation-exposure-fukushima-says-top-us-nuclear-regulator , the EPA agreed & pulled the plug on monitors, failed to show beta radiation on those left and has incessantly said "Don't worry, be happy", & the likes of FORBES has built a nice case against the possibility that anyone ever will die from Fuku, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/the-fukushima-disaster-wasnt-very-disastrous/. That article cited WHO as well as the EPA in calming the masses. Scientific American, same thing, nobody has died or will die from Japan's nuclear fallout. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/ No, say all, people did not die from radiation. ALL who have stated Japan is worse than Chernobyl have been crucified in the media, ridiculed, & labeled conspiracy theorists. I still see Fairlie as someone who is trying to show the danger of low-level rad. Can anyone pull up medical data that proves there have been thousands of deaths in Japan from the Daiichi plant? No. That data is forbidden. And the U.S. is complicit in that. We can damn Fairlie, but then we have to damn them all, NRC, EPA, Congress, the Prez, Japan's politicians. I'm up for that! They oughta be damned.
Report comment
bo, the way i read the statement was that …2000 people minimun died due to the stress and other aspects of evacuation in order to not receive a high radiation dose, 56 of which were suicides…and that both numbers should be viewed as a minimum. …
it would have been nice to know how many that stayed died due to that high dose, and where they pull the 5000 number from i don't know. i agree the article seems vague and misleading as the start of the article seems to be about the psychological effects and what can be done in the future to limit these types of deaths, which i don't doubt that yes, some happen due to this reason albeit had they stayed the deaths from exposure would have been far greater.
i get the impression they are just softly getting some info out but are pussyfooting around the real meat. they do state that they had to work with limited information that was available. it, to me, just seems like more of the same and no one willing to really put their ass on the line. like when my mom was getting chemo, if i heard the word "inconclusive" one more time i was going to SNAP! all that money all that equipment and no one knows a friggin thing
so.. just my 2 cents.
Report comment
bo
August 23, 2015 at 7:46 am
“I'm slandering him but I really don't care”
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698344
Slander is lying. If you admit you’re a purposefully slandering someone, then you have absolutely no credibility.
Slader is a legal term:
“noun: slander
1.
the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.
"he is suing the TV network for slander"
o a false and malicious spoken statement.”
Report comment
Really?
Report comment
I thought Fairlie was "one of us", http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/update-new-powerful-study-shows-radiogenic-risks-of-leukemia-in-workers-more-than-double-the-previous-estimate/ so you could knock me over with a feather reading what you guys are talking about. He SEEMED to always come out for the damage done by low-level rad.
Report comment
Unfortunately, there are many bloggers here who either don't want TEPCO to get hit with a huge monetary judgment in the sailors' USS Reagan lawsuit, or who really are supporting the nuclear cabal. So they try to find some way to criticize the people who are actually fighting against low level radiation exposures. I think today's attacks are because Dr. Fairlie criticized the Japanese government for raising the levels of allowable radiation for citizens. They simply can't abide criticism of the Japanese government on the part of anyone. I suspect culturally, some people here are not able to violate the State Secrets Act of the Japanese government because they have relatives still in Japan.
Sadly, a lot or even all of the criticism was not even an accurate statement of Dr. Fairlie's position.
Report comment
I apologize if I have misstated the situation of some bloggers.
Report comment
Bullshit. Typically stupid accusation from the profoundly ignorant zealot who can't abide criticism or disagreement with her cartoonishly absurd black & white worldviews.
Take your insincere "apology" and insinuations and fuck off. You make me sick anne.
Report comment
people were having a nice frank discussion anne. no one serious on enenews does not want those sailers to get justice and reimbursement. That is pure gutterball. I appreciate Bos honesty Fads level head sp intelligence and level head.orwells smarts integrety waninahis balance
Report comment
well said
Report comment
Blast from the past
Sickputer's assessment on FairLIE
http://enenews.com/study-fukushima-fallout-detected-in-fish-from-atlantic-ocean/comment-page-1#comment-336762
Report comment
'I appreciate Dr. Ian Fairlie for castigating the WHO whitewash. But I feel he is not aware of what is really happening in Japan or he has personal reasons to promote Chernobyl as larger than Fukushima. He is dead wrong.'
FairLIE is a pro at serving poisoned ice cream & been doing this 'truth-telling' gig for a long time
Report comment
bo- I read many articles floating around and watched the video with his (Ian F) interview. These articles were definitively using "mental health" as the problem. In his interview on hotseat, he tried to explain he was merely trying to "sound scientific" so his peers wouldn't discount his theory.
I disagree with his explanation, and feel his paper, the articles, and the interview all implicated Ian Fairlie as a nuclear shill. I kept watching this feed to see with the other person would answer your question, but apparently it was more of a word count battle for them than actually answering a question.
In closing, I agree with yours, and others assessment of I.F. he appears to be a shill.
Report comment
↑ just caught ur response, thanks, 'death lurking'
& Thanks to all others for the varying views, nobody has to agree
It's great to have enenews here to pick a part these layered nuances.
We're tattered and torn ( broken forums) but soldier on.
Report comment
Here is Dr. Fairlie's speech. It is published in 3 parts. This was very easy to find on the internet.
Dr. Ian Fairlie – "The Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima: Source Terms, Initial Health Effects" [1/3]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu2QzvgfyLg
Dr. Ian Fairlie – "The Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima: Source Terms, Initial Health Effects" [2/3]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bLEb7qB1c4
Dr. Ian Fairlie – "The Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima: Source Terms, Initial Health Effects" [3/3]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPbsPx_BLAY
Report comment
Unspoken Death Toll of Fukushima: Nuclear Disaster Killing Japanese Slowly
20.08.2015
“The Japanese government is still in denial and refuses to recognize the disastrous consequences of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, London-based independent consultant on radioactivity Dr. Ian Fairlie states, adding that while thousands of victims have already died, thousands more will soon pass away.
“According to London-based independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment Dr. Ian Fairlie, the health toll from the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe is horrific: about 12,000 workers have been exposed to high levels of radiation (some up to 250 mSv); between 2011 and 2015, about 2,000 died from the effects of evacuations, ill-health and suicide related to the disaster; furthermore, an estimated 5,000 will most likely face lethal cancer in the future, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
“’What makes matters even worse, the nuclear disaster and subsequent radiation exposure lies at the root of the longer term health effects, such as cancers, strokes, CVS (cyclic vomiting syndrome) diseases, hereditary effects and many more.
“Embarrassingly, ‘[t]he Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honorable exceptions) minimize the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable,’Dr. Fairlie pointed out.
cont.
Report comment
cont.
“The Japanese government even goes so far as to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year, while its scientists are making efforts to convince the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to accept this enormous increase.
"’This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable,’ Dr. Fairlie stressed, adding that ‘there is never a safe dose, except zero dose.’
“However, while the Japanese government is turning a blind eye to radiogenic late effects, the evidence ‘is solid’: the RERF Foundation which is based in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is observing the Japanese atomic bomb survivors and still registering nuclear radiation's long-term effects.
"’From the UNSCEAR estimate of 48,000 person Sv [the collective dose to the Japanese population from Fukushima], it can be reliably estimated (using a fatal cancer risk factor of 10% per Sv) that about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in the future from Fukushima's fallout,’ he noted.
“Dr. Fairlie added that in addition to radiation-related problems, former inhabitants of Fukushima Prefecture suffer Post-Trauma Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorders that apparently cause increased suicide.
“The expert also pointed to the 15 percent drop in the number of live births in the prefecture in 2011, as well as higher rates of early spontaneous abortions and a 20 percent rise in the infant mortality rate in 2012.
cont.
Report comment
cont.
"’It is impossible not to be moved by the scale of Fukushima's toll in terms of deaths, suicides, mental ill-health and human suffering,’ the expert said.
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150820/1025992771.html
Report comment
Yes I noticed that Sputnik article which makes Fairlie sound nicer and legit. So I second guessed myself at first.
But if you read this Sputnik version closely.. you realize the article was written by someone else, picking and choosing info from what Fairlie said in the ORIGINAL article, and what the writer's assumes of what Fairlie 'must have meant' ?
Even 'stroke' is added in instead of just cancer which is even nicer & legit. ( although not clear if that was added in because Fairlie said so or if writer just added it in, very vague )
Please read through at the original Counterpunch article, which *seems* to be the original source of this Sputnik article, as they were released simultaneously, and the Counterpunch article is the article fully penned by Fairlie, with his name under the title.
Please read this article through – to me he seems to say: so far 60 people died from radiation in fukushima, and the rest died from 'evacuation induced by radiation'
That's what I saw, but of course I could be wrong – hard to be sure, as it seems there's a lot of wordsmitjing here. So I would love to have confirmation.
But thank u for the link where Fairlie says in 2011 'Fukushima is worse than Chernobyl' that's interesting, I wonder what Sickputer & majia were referring to then ? Will wait & see if they read & respond.
Report comment
Counterpunch article – Farlie http://t.co/dlUpllGga1
Report comment
And oh well.. u started wallpapering again.. only way is to wallpaper back
Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die
All WORDS BELOW BY IAN FAIRLIEE
Official data from Fukushimashow that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations necessary to avoid high radiation exposures from the disaster.The uprooting to unfamiliar areas, cutting of family ties, loss of social support networks, disruption, exhaustion, poor physical conditions and disorientation can and do result in many people, in particular older people, dying.
Increased suicide has occurred among younger and older people following the Fukushima evacuations, but the trends are unclear.A Japanese Cabinet Office report stated that, between March 2011 and July 2014, 56 suicides in Fukushima Prefecture were linked to the nuclear accident. This should be taken as a minimum, rather than a maximum, figure.
Mental health consequences
It is necessary to include the mental health consequences of radiation exposures and evacuations. For example, Becky Martin has stated her PhD research at Southampton University in the UK shows that “the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are OFTEN IN OUR MINDS'
Report comment
All I care right now is about this counterpunch article, which Fairlie FULLY PENNED. And I have only ONE question:
In this counterpunch article, does Fairlie say 'so far 60 people died from radiation in fukushima, and the rest died from stress from evacuation'
That's what I saw, but of course I could be wrong – hard to be sure, as it seems there's a lot of wordsmitjing here. So I would love to have confirmation.
That is the only one question I have today.
Thank you.
Report comment
Again this is the counterpunch article I referenced. http://t.co/dlUpllGga1
Report comment
He is somewhat vague about it. He only details the 60 deaths, plus…
"An increased infant mortality rate in 2012 and a decreased number of live births in December 2011"
Plus several thousand cancer deaths in the future..
Report comment
Plus the assumption.. 'thousands more will die IN JAPAN'
Phew. Lucky us, we don't live in Japan!
Report comment
Plus even putting aside whether he attributes those deaths to 'radiation induced evacuation' lol the numbers themselves are totally lowballed – just in the U.S. – at least according to this study – there was an increase of excess 14000 deaths in the first 14 weeks post fukushima. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medical-journal-article–14000-us-deaths-tied-to-fukushima-reactor-disaster-fallout-135859288.html
Report comment
The numbers are a lie simply based on for every 3 people that die 1 dies from cancer.
128,000,000 population x 25% low ball = 32,000.000 deaths by cancer before Fukushima.
Average life span next 80 years if baby born today means all others are older or 32,000,000 deaths by cancer divided by 80 years = how many deaths per year in Japan from nuclear induced cancers?
400,000 per year death by/from nuclear induced cancers.
Now which ones are from Fukushima in a cancer epidemic?
Report comment
Fair Lie concludes only 5000 will die from fukushima, the rest from psychological effects.
Report comment
He is a liar..simple!
Report comment
He never says ONLY 5,000 will die.
If someone says 10 will die and 20 die, that person has not lied, because 10 did die.
Report comment
Sorry PT, Ive got an unfair advantage on this one. I actually went to FairLies website. Its unambiguous; "about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in future from Fukushima’s fallout."
Anyway, your logic is goofy. So if I ask a scientist how many people will die from Fukushima and he says 5, and 50 million die, he wasnt lying because 5 did indeed die? Like the boy who said he took a dollar from his dads wallet. One of 5000 dollars but he wasnt lying!
Fair Lie;
"About 60 people died immediately during the actual evacuations in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011. Between 2011 and 2015, an additional 1,867 people 2 in Fukushima Prefecture died as a result of the evacuations following the nuclear disaster 3. These deaths were from ill health and suicides.
From the UNSCEAR estimate of 48,000 person Sv,it can be reliably estimated (using a fatal cancer risk factor of 10% per Sv) that about 5,000 fatal cancers will occur in Japan in future from Fukushima’s fallout. This estimate from official data agrees with my own personal estimate using a different methodology"
http://www.ianfairlie.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Summing-up-the-Effects-of-the-Fukushima-Nuclear-Disaster-10.pdf
Report comment
OK, that makes more sense, because Fairlie definitely came out AGAINST hormesis http://www.ianfairlie.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/US-NRC-Consultation-4-1.pdf
Report comment
Stroke is caused by exposure to radiation.
Report comment
This ought to be very interesting and what ever figures displayed go x 75% for 2030 medical brain trust cancer increase projections for calculations.
http://ganjoho.jp/en/professional/statistics/brochure/2014_en.html
Must be hot off the presses..
Report comment
Ian Fairlie Fukushima Speech
Chernobyl Congress (IPPNW conference) Berlin. 9 April 2011, Ian Fairlie speech
“…’I think that Fukushima is already more serious than Chernobyl, already. And it's going to last for a long time. Already IAEA and Japanese Tepco officials are saying that we have to look to the long term on this they said. 3 to 4 years that the accident is going to continue. Their words not mine. 3 to 4 years. [feigned laughter] That's crazy. Chernobyl was over and done with in 10 days in terms of emissions from the reactor. 10 days. Well here we are and we're all of 35 days in and counting….’”
http://energyknot.blogspot.com/2014/10/ian-fairlie-fukushima-speech.html
Report comment
Recent evidence on the risks of very low-level radiation
January 17, 2013
By Dr. Ian Fairlie
“I’ve previously shown that a great deal of evidence supports the LNT hypothesis and indicates radiation effects well below 100 mSv.
“But in recent months, a flurry of epidemiological studies go further than merely refuting ill-informed articles. They indicate adverse effects to people exposed to very low doses from medical CT scans and other clinical procedures; to infants living near nuclear power stations; and to Chernobyl clean-up workers. They even reveal adverse effects from background radiation to which all of us are exposed.
“Together they reveal a pattern of higher-than-expected risks from very low exposures to radiation.
“1. Background Radiation
“Perhaps the most eye-opening of the recent studies concern background radiation. Most people think that background radiation levels (typically 2 to 3 mSv per year) are very low and are of little concern. But recent authoritative studies clearly indicate that background radiation is not harmless.
background radiation (Wakeford et al, 2009) – se
cont.
Report comment
cont.
– see references at end.
“This surprising result was first refined to 15% of GB childhood leukaemias (Little et al, 2009) (Kendall et al, 2011), then the team predicted the risk rate from background gamma radiation. After conducting a large record-based case–control study with 27,000 cases and 37,000 controls to test associations between childhood cancer and natural background radiation, the authors estimated that the excess risk of childhood leukaemia was 12% per millisievert of cumulative red bone marrow dose from background gamma radiation (Kendall et al, 2012). The most recent comprehensive review (Wakeford, 2013) confirms these estimates.
“Just to make sure the point gets across, these studies mean that all children will receive about 1 mSv of gamma radiation from background radiation each year and this results in their leukemia risk being increased by 12%.
“It’s well known that leukemia is closely associated with radiation exposures and that children are more sensitive to radiation than adults. But the new evidence is not just from childhood leukemias, it comes from radon studies as well.
cont.
Report comment
cont.
“In Canada, following a survey of 14,000 homes with a geometric mean radon concentration of 42 Bq/m^³, Chen et al (2010) from the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada estimated that 16% of lung cancer deaths in Canada were attributable to indoor radon. However this fits slightly awkwardly with another large (7,000 cases and 14,000 controls) risk assessment of radon exposures (Darby et al, 2006) which estimated an excess relative risk of lung cancer of 16% (95% CI 0.05-0.31) at an average radon concentration of 100 Bq/m³. Whichever of these scientific teams turn out to be correct, the cancer risks from background radon exposures are still higher than were expected even just a few years ago.
“Another very large Canadian study by Turner et al (2012) of over 800,000 Americans found that indoor radon was significantly associated with deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ie chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema. The hazard ratio was 1.13 per 100 Bq•m?3 (95% CI = 1.05–1.21). There was a significant positive linear trend in deaths with increasing categories of radon concentrations (p<0.05). For comparison, the UK HPA’s recommended Action Level for radon is 200 Bq•m?3: indoor concentrations above this level require remediation.
mmunology, physiology, mutation and disea
cont.
Report comment
cont.
“And in areas with high levels of natural background radiation (usually from monazite sands), Møller and Mousseau (2012) studied radiation effects in local peoples and found increased risks in immunology, physiology, mutation and disease. They stated “.. if we see effects at these low levels, then we have to be thinking differently about how we develop regulations for … intentional exposures to populations, like the emissions from nuclear power plants, medical procedures, and even some x-ray machines at airports”.
“2. Medical Exposures
“Most exposures from medical diagnostic procedures are relatively low, and although their collective doses are increasing in most developed countries, in almost all cases they are justified by their clinical benefits. Nevertheless there have been a score or so of articles in scientific journals in recent years expressing concern about the risks of increased doses from CT scans, especially to children. Even the WHO has issued a draft report expressing the need for more vigilance.
“In order to investigate these concerns, Pearce et al (2012) conducted a massive UK retrospective cohort study of computed tomography (CT) scans among 178,000 patients. The team estimated absorbed brain and red bone marrow doses per CT scan and assessed the excess incidence of leukaemia and brain tumours cancer with Poisson relative risk models.
cont.
Report comment
cont.
They observed a positive association between radiation dose from CT scans and leukaemia (excess relative risk [ERR] per mGy = 0•036, 95% CI 0•005–0•120; p=0•0097); and a positive association with brain tumours (0•023, 0•010–0•049; p<0•0001). They found CT scans caused statistically significant increases in cancer risks in under three-year olds: three head scans tripled their risk of brain cancer and five to ten scans tripled their risk of leukemia. Although the authors did not comment on these risks, there is no doubt that these are large risk increases from relatively small doses.
“I shall be writing more on this matter in due course.
“In Canada, similar risk increases were observed by Eisenberg et al (2011) after low-dose exposures from cardiac imaging in adult patients with acute myocardial infarction. For every 10 mSv from cardiac imaging, a 3% increase in cancer risk (RR= 1.03 per 10 mSv, 95% CI = 1.02–1.04) was observed. The authors stated “These results call into question whether our current enthusiasm for imaging and therapeutic procedures after acute myocardial infarction should be tempered.”
“3. Leukemias in Chernobyl Clean-up Workers
“Since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, several studies have attempted to find increased leukemia risks among the tens of thousands of clean-up workers most of whom received relatively low doses, to little avail.
cont.
Report comment
cont.
This was due to the smallness of the studies and their lack of statistical power. However the latest study, (Zablotska et al, 2013) is very large (over 110,000 workers) and succeeded in finding statistically significant leukemia increases, even at the relatively low doses experienced by most of these adult workers (average dose = 92 mSv). The authors found a significant linear dose response for all leukemias with an ERR/Gy of 2.38 (95% CI: 0.49, 5.87).
“4. Leukemias near Nuclear Power Stations
“The final area is exposures from nuclear power stations.
“Readers will be aware of my lectures showing that about 40 studies worldwide indicate increased leukemia risks among children within 5 km of nuclear power plants (NPPs). In particular, the important 2008 KiKK case-control study (discussed in Fairlie, 2009), which was commissioned by the German Government, found large increases in the risks of child leukemias and embryonal cancers near all German NPPs. This authoritative report led to geographical studies sponsored by the governments of France, UK, Switzerland and Germany. These have now been published and all four had similar findings, ie 30% to 40% increases in child leukemias near NPPs – see table from Körblein and Fairlie (2012) which contains the references to these four government studies.”
http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/recent-evidence-on-the-risks-of-very-low-level-radiation/
Report comment
The only way to make this background radiation danger assessment is to raise children completely shielded from background radiation, including removing all k-40 from their bodies. Who wants to bet they would be healthier in completely shielded non radioactive environments?
Report comment
The low dose no threshold model is deeply flawed. Why? for some isotopes there is no low dose, only if unfairly averaged over whole body exposure. Then it invites comparison to background radiation. Is 5000 becquerels a low dose or a dangerous dose? Nobody will answer this question, I wonder why. Theyre not sure, or what? If we embrace the low dose no threshold model at least we should have some idea of what a low dose is, right?
Report comment
Not really anything manmade has a no dose low threshold..meaning do not expose your self to any of it.
Or become become one of the 2.9 billion cancer deaths by 2100.
Report comment
Here are some of your low dose results..
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/cancer-prevalence
http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
This is considered a U.S. cancer epidemic and or a black plague that grows daily with all Nuclear Technology Applications on this planet.
Fukushima will guarantee another world wide spike and soon 100% of all life will soon be cancerous in some form..
Are charts showing the results and the future really that hard to understand?
https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+cancer+map&espv=2&biw=996&bih=548&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI-ozPqpm2xwIVQi2ICh3NkQJ4#tbm=isch&q=sweden+cancer+graph&imgrc=TQlMojUbhd6wbM%3A
Report comment
What was it that started this worldwide cancer nightmare?
Low dose manmade and here is how it was done, and then when people searched all areas where these radioactive mining/application sites were located, they found more cancers, and then they checked the radioactive waste areas, and they found more cancers, and then they checked around Nuclear Power Plants/hospitals/bases and they found more cancers, and then governments started paying out billions for the low dose cancer damage done to humans who were exposed silently and quietly.
Massive lawsuits were required to get any compensation like 9-11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_lLhBt8Vg
You government is doing you no favors and they will always favor themselves first in all situations..
We have all been lied to for the making of the stinking dollar bill…
Report comment
This video along with increasing cancer numbers worldwide prove that the concept of Nuclear Hormesis is a false premise.
1900 little to no worldwide cancer = discovery application of Nuclear
2015 Billions slotted for cancer death = Nuclear Hormesis is False
Occam's Razor!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
Report comment
Obi, the force is strong within you, but you still have not convinced me it is Nuclear causing the worldwide increase.
Early 20th century radio systems transmitted messages by continuous wave code only. Early attempts at developing a system of amplitude modulation for voice and music were demonstrated in 1900 and 1906, but had little success. World War I accelerated the development of radio for military communications, and in this era the first vacuum tubes were applied to radio transmitters and receivers
Report comment
Another simple chart and see the spike 1990 after Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster? How it cancer continued to increase?
https://www.google.com/search?q=world+cancer+spike+after+1986+chernobyl+chart&espv=2&biw=996&bih=548&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI1a-I5v6_xwIVxiyICh1cBAcb#imgdii=-g67XzfnsJLHJM%3A%3B-g67XzfnsJLHJM%3A%3B-YACbuMTSrFTTM%3A&imgrc=-g67XzfnsJLHJM%3A
My, my, truth is in the eye of the beholder of the information supplied.
Report comment
Dark you do know I like your thinking and your passion for correcting what is wrong in this bat~shit crazy insane world.
I did look at your Newport NY information, but have not perused/studied your site as of yet. Yes I am aware the military care little for anything but themselves.
Very Dark Energy all over the worldwide military practice at all times.
Now if you can somehow convince me and others that these images of cancers, deformities and mutations were created by your technology applications and not Nuclear Technology applications..then I am in.
Here is your visual proof to my argument and charts presented. I asked you to study these links awhile ago.
https://www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+%2B+Iraq+Weapons+deformities,+cancers+and+mutations&espv=2&biw=996&bih=548&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI0cnt3oHAxwIVxpmICh1KJgxa
Report comment
All cancers require certain things for them to occur..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogenesis
Cellular Mutations..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagenesis
Cancer is not a natural function which you already know..
Report comment
Here is a look after TMI and did your technology do this or did the TMI Nuclear Disaster do this?
It appears Nuclear Radioactivity releases did all of this damage. Once again disproving any Nuclear Hormesis Theory.
http://news.psu.edu/story/325718/2014/09/10/research/thyroid-cancer-rates-pennsylvania-rising-faster-rest-country
Report comment
Obe,
I am in the camp that believes no amount of ionizing radiation for any period of time is good for you.
I am in the camp that believes limited amount of electromagnetic radiation is good for you, ie.a little sunlight, a little radio. I do not believe it is healthy to live near transmission towers, especially high power high gain antennas of any type.
I would expect cancer rates to increase around nuclear sites and places like Fukushima and Chernobyl and effect all biology in the area.
Your pictures from Iraq, since they did not to my knowledge have or use Nuclear weapons may be attributable to excessive electromagnetic radiation as they did use a lot of radars and high power transmitters.
Many of the dolphins, manatees, sharks and reef fish we have been finding dead have full stomachs and do not appear highly diseased although some appear to have excessive skin and flipper damage, not necessarily tumors (although some do) so to me it does not appear many of them were sick for long but suddenly died in a specific area.
Once somebody explains how ionizing radiation could make this happen in clustered areas along all of our coastlines without being detectable I am all ears.
I did not start out my research thinking high power, high gain antennas were shocking marine mammals, my maps and statistics have led me to that conclusion.
May the force be with you…
Report comment
Not detectable Ha ha ha. The bait for hook then the passive aggressive sinker to show casual and other vis8tors to this site that since beusseler and the gov dont measures rads it does not exist. Now he will saybthat bob nichols and radnet readings do not measure for ionizing radiation and that anything anyone sees on their inspector is there because you are misreading it or because you are crazy or because inspectors are unreliable. He is saying all of mvbs work and bobby1s work is unreliable. he is bullying us the same way the rest of them have been bullying and lying since 3 11. He even calls jebus lap dog over and ovrr like mf aunavoz socref metalbeard. please hit report comment several times and move on. sexually harrassed ann beck. bullied her
Report comment
There were lots of sources to the birth defects in Iraq. They had a nuclear reactor which was bombed in 1981, the Iraqis manufactured biological and chemical weapons which they used against the Iranians for 8 years and which Saddam Husein used against his own people. The Americans used depleted uranium weapons, Saddam Husein destroyed the land south of Baghdad after the first Gulf War, etc. All of there weapons were carcinogenic and mutagenic.
Report comment
For whatever reason, I see no reply button on Dark Energy's comments, so will just reply best I can.
Dark wrote:"Your pictures from Iraq, since they did not to my knowledge have or use Nuclear weapons may be attributable to excessive electromagnetic radiation as they did use a lot of radars and high power transmitters."
Does depleted uranium count?
There was plenty of that in Iraq, still is.
http://gulfwarvets.com/du.htm
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14321787/ns/us_news-military/t/armament-sickening-us-soldiers/#.Vdpj5iV3lBw
Certain birth rare birth defects are definitely showing up in offspring of military vets, which studies have addressed.
Similar, tho' larger amounts of such are common in Iraq and many have sued for compensation while international health organizations have filed complaints against America for knowingly leaving the DU behind.
"Many of the dolphins, manatees, sharks and reef fish we have been finding dead have full stomachs and do not appear highly diseased"
Perhaps you missed the Canadian and Alaskan reports since 2011 Re: uncommon emaciation in marine mammals like the seals, sea lions, walruses, and several species of fish and birds?
There are many more reports of starvation, possible collapse of the food chain than there are for "healthy animals" being found dead.
Report comment
Now to really put things into perspective and how this is really a Nuclear Numbers game now. I have presented the world jet stream worldwide circulation patterns and have found that most of all cancers will be found below these air streams were the manmade radioactivity falls to the ground once it is airborne and why all Nuclear Testing on Planet Earth was stopped.
The reasons are simple why they stopped it all the fallout caused cancers and diseases.
Now the entire population of the world of 7 billion can all live inside the State of Texas with a 1000 square feet each. Yet many scream we have an over population problem. Pretty sure we actually have a consumption problem, but that is another topic. So, if such a small space of Planet Earth can fit everybody then when you spread them all out on the Earth nobody is here.
70% of the planet is covered with water and we humans do not live on the water yet. So 70% of the Nuclear fallout can land in water leaving 30% for land fallout. This means the Earth is very large and the open space is huge and there is a good chance you can miss eating, breathing, and wearing these Nuclear Poisons. But the more we create the slimmer the prospects of not being hit by these Nuclear Poisons. Bioaccumulation and the long live released manmade radioactive isotopes will eventually find there way up the food chains and on to our dinner tables and inside all our homes.
This damage is only 70 years in and growing bigger by the year!
Report comment
The smartness thing to do at this point is to Ban the Nuclear Technology and shut down all Nuclear Power Plants, since we already know more will blow up and more swaths of land will become dead zones and uninhabitable for humans.
Guess that is one way to shrink your own planet…simply trash your own planet with Nuclear Radioactive Poisons. Once we have trashed all our natural resources in/through the Nuclear Process we will all move back in time and begin to eat each other again.
Some people here on Earth actually call this Nuclear Nightmare progress!
Report comment
Waninahi1, Excellent links!
There is no doubt about what is killing everything out here..
Ban it and ban it all now!
Report comment
I'm the new kid here, I know so little, but being a product of the late 1950s, early 1960s, I saw what seemed to work. When people took to the streets, things changed. I don't know how many of us there are here on this site, but I do know thousands have agreed on my old website. That may seem like few, just thousands, but when thousands start roaring and demanding change, we HAVE seen change. I've knocked on politicians' doors, made more phone calls and written more letters than I care to recall, but that face-to-face encounter always seems to be what they react MOST to. We have voices, some of you are quite eloquent. Raise those voices in face-to-face encounters and see what happens. I believe in action, action backed by TRUTH over everything. For my grandkids and great-grandkids, I'll keep hammering on those doors. But what if we ALL did that? Like I said, I know little, but I know Tecumseh was right…bundled arrows have much strength. We just gotta aim them in the right direction. ~I;-)
Report comment
@Waninahi1 – Glad you're aboard. You're already a welcome addition to Enenews, imo.
(P.S. – Do you think you can get some of the thousands from your old website to sign this petition
https://www.change.org/p/united-states-nuclear-regulatory-commission-protect-children-from-radiation-exposure
Report comment
I dunno what's up with the reply buttons, but I'm muddling along… I certainly DID post a link to that & I think I stole some of Collins' material again to do so. No way to contact the lad to get his permission so I just raid him when the spirit moves. I did chide people to NOT comment anonymously. What's the point of making a comment and NOT leaving your calling card? Given that time is running out, I should have thought to post the link at the end of each blog & will do so from now on, thanks to you, From A Distance. Sorry, I don't know any of you great folks by name & many of us prefer that, yes? Been reading you since Fuku blew, have a deep respect for this group. Any time I step on toes, just tell me. I can get a little obnoxious, or so I'm (often) told, but I'm not intentionally so. [Never listen to vicious rumors] TRUTH, I do TRUTH and I spend a LOT of time finding it. Just glad I found a considerable amount right here. Hey, any other insomniacs aboard? And are the forums 'fair game'? I try not to raid other folks' hunting grounds. Mostly…
Report comment
Waninahi1
search: "ornithine, insomnia"
And thanks for keepin' watch.
Report comment
Code, Is it a dose of K40 or plutonium? Or some other Fukush concoction? If I say "K40" is a radioactice isotope and has a hormetic effect.", Then, can I also say "Plutonium also has a hormetic effect, because it is also a radioactive isotope."? Banana/MOX- same thing.
A separate threshhold would have to be set for every isotope measured in background…all kinds I hear now…Background is also a lazy interpretation in it's own right. Background of what? The isotopes measured in background have changed, but that just get's interpreted with "background". Using this rule, hormesis is then applied to include all isotopes, all background. When in fact, hormesis is limited in it's application and isotopes. Using the same rule, they apply threshhold proven for one radioactive isotope- to all other isotopes, despite evidence to the contrary. The new rules and threshholds are just a taste of what's to come. Glad they're planning ahead.
Fukushima on a plate. Enjoy. Tip the nuke industry on your way out.
Report comment
thats right HillBilly, you cant apply hormesis to man-made isotopes, and probably not all natural isotopes either. Changing the internal and external balance of nature is not very wise, especially when the change is a radioactive poison.
Report comment
Thanks much, Hillbilly. I do the liquid aminos thing, but insomnia has been a lifesaver since I was born. I can honestly say I appreciate it. Who called sleep "the small death"?
Coming off a day of helping a neighbor dip animals with sulfur/lime, so glad you all can't get a whif. Showers don't help. Baa haa. Reading with much interest the latest, hoping to catch up after the 2 hounds are fed. Looks like somebody has filled the proverbial handbasket & we're headed deep in a hurry. Missed an entire day of reading news sources, here, everywhere. Deep appreciation for all the current posts, folks. This website SHOULD get several million hits a day.
Report comment
Code's argument is the same as that of socref, Rod Adams, and is the nuclear cabal's playbook to confuse everyone.
In the first place, it doesn't matter if 5,000 becquerels is low dose or not. The dose scam is still the dose scam.
one becquerel can damage the DNA of one cell which can cause cancer. This is proven epidemiologically.
If you take all the studies of the atomic bomb survivors from both Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the leukemia rates from the lowest doses is a supra linear curve. This is not a theoretical model but an epidemiological model derived from actual data.
Also the 5,000 Becquerels of K-40 for an 80 kg man is again not based upon actual figures which is from real data only 4-5,000 Becquerels of K-40 for an 80 kg man.
It has been proven from many, many studies that any dose of any kind of radiation can cause cancer. These are actual studies of real people and real animals.
The thing that is flawed is the religious, cult mentality of the nuclear cabal who value money over human life, who value power over preserving any life on the planet.
Advertising and propaganda do not equal reality and the truth.
Report comment
Well then if code is wrong, then explain this chart and then explain why there was little to no cancer on Planet Earth in 1900. Good luck!
Report comment
oops..The Chart!
https://www.google.com/search?q=sweden+cancer+map&espv=2&biw=996&bih=548&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI-ozPqpm2xwIVQi2ICh3NkQJ4#tbm=isch&q=sweden+cancer+graph&imgrc=TQlMojUbhd6wbM%3A
Report comment
Because stable potassium as alkaline and an electrolyte washes out radiation from the body. And eating foods also with Vitamin B-17 and cyanide also kills cancer cells.
There is no potassium not in compounds in nature. There is no K-40 separate from potassium in nature.
Report comment
Try eating apple seeds, millet, lentils, apricot seeds, the seeds from citrus, flax seeds, amaranth seeds.
Report comment
Of course, you can't eat cyanide extracted by itself. Only modern man keeps extracting things in order to gain a patent and to make money. And genetically modified foods are also destroying nature.
Report comment
Foods Containing B17 (Nitrilosides)
“Vitamin B17 appears in abundance in untamed nature. Because B17 is bitter to the taste, in man's attempt to improve tastes and flavors for his own pleasure, he has eliminated bitter substances like B17 by selection and cross-breeding. It can be stated as a general rule that many of the foods that have been domesticated still contain the vitamin B17 in that part not eaten by modem man, such as the seeds in apricots. Listed below is an evaluation of some of the more common foods. Keep in mind that these are averages only and that specimens vary widely depending on variety, locale, soil, and climate….”
http://www.vitaminb17.org/foods.htm
Report comment
It doesnt matter if 5000 bq is a low or high dose? OF course it does. Go to Buesselers "our radioactive ocean" website. There you will find charts, text and even movies about how you get "far more radiation" from naturally occurring radiation than you fukushima fallout.
lumping all radioactivity together and saying it does damage at any level…this is the no threshold linear dose model currently in use by the IAEA etc, makes it VERY difficult to argue that 2 becquerels of fallout is a HIGH dose (LD50 butterfly larva) while 5000 bq is a completely non harmful dose to a human, and that the largest source of radioactivity in the ocean is not harmful while the lesser amount added by fallout is causing the collapse of the ocean.
This statement that stable potassium (stable?) washes out your radioactivity is just strange. Its fresh steer manure, bunkum, balderdash, twaddle, claptrap. The largest internal radioactivity is PART of the potassium and isnt getting washed out. Oddly you end with a true statement, that there is no potassium free of k-40, although you say it in reverse. K-40 is not a contaminant, its a primordial aspect of potassium
Report comment
Well I did not get my answer and this medical condition will soon be common..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3209092/Boy-2-born-THREE-penises-incredibly-rare-condition-surgery-remove-extra-appendages.html
Report comment
Highly doubt K-40 had anything to do with this condition..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3208623/Poignant-images-reveal-tender-bond-two-month-old-conjoined-baby-twins-share-liver-undergo-gruelling-surgery-separated.html
Report comment
Code this is right up your alley and they even mention your name!
But then, if this works, why would chemo still be required?
It wouldn't be required, except for the massive amounts of money it costs..if you have the key use it, and then save billions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3209105/Scientists-discover-switch-cancer-Remarkable-breakthrough-means-diseased-cells-healthy-again.html
Report comment
And another one with more chemo..just can't let that chemo go!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/598382/CANCER-BREAKTHROUGH-MRI-scanners-rid-body-cancerous-tumours
Report comment
Another war lost..rack em up!
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/war_on_cancer_a_progress_report_for_skeptics/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/War_on_Cancer
Report comment
“…Large radiation doses to the fetus during the more sensitive stages of development (between weeks 2 and 18 of pregnancy) can cause birth defects, especially to the brain. When a fetus is exposed to large doses of radiation (above the dose received from 500 chest x-rays) during the more sensitive stages of development (especially between weeks 8 and 18 of pregnancy), the health consequences can be severe, especially to the brain. Fetuses in the 8-to 18-week stage of pregnancy exposed to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were found to have a high rate of brain damage that resulted in lower IQs and even severe mental retardation. They also suffered stunted growth (up to 4% shorter than average people) and an increased risk of other birth defects….”
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/pdf/prenatal.pdf
Report comment
Comments on: Hormesis is a flawed theory – John Peterson Myers outs Edward Calabrese
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/08/14/hormesis-is-a-flawed-theory-john-peterson-myers-outs-edward-calabrese/feed/
Report comment
Hormesis is a flawed theory – John Peterson Myers outs Edward Calabrese
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/08/14/hormesis-is-a-flawed-theory-john-peterson-myers-outs-edward-calabrese/#comment-72111
Report comment
“…Thus, the upward supralinear dose-response best describes the relationship between in-body Sr-90 and childhood cancer risk. This relationship indicates that the greatest per-dose risk occurs at the lowest dose levels, which is a critical aspect of understanding health risks of radioactive environmental emissions routinely released from nuclear facilities….”
http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/2006MarChildCancerIJHS.html
Report comment
“…All the post-Chernobyl studies show between 150 and 800 times more leukaemia than expected. We argued in CERRIE that this was prima facie evidence against the external risk model. Our opponents set out to show it could be ignored….”
http://www.icrp.org/consultation_viewitem.asp?guid={425C3761-CF20-4FC0-8373-A558C7EDB8FF}
Report comment
apparently 1 becquerel from radioactive potassium isnt mutating all the embryos. Its simple; 5000 Bq (+-60 bq/kg) didnt mutate the species to extinction over 100s of thousands of years but 20 bq/kg of fallout is doing it in a few generations. Thus thinking in terms of becqerels of radiation (especially absorbed energy average dose) is not useful whereas thinking in terms of isotopes is
Report comment
Sickputer or majia, if either of u are reading this, will u please let me know which 'symposium' this Sickputer comment is referring to ?
I want to nail down this FairLIE he makes me so mad
http://enenews.com/study-fukushima-fallout-detected-in-fish-from-atlantic-ocean/comment-page-1#comment-336762
Report comment
Ian Fairlie publications:
2010
• Hypothesis to Explain Childhood Cancer near Nuclear Power Plants. Int J Occup Environ Health 16:341–350 (2010)
• Childhood Cancer Near German Nuclear Power Stations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C. 28:1–21 (2010)
• Chernobyl: Consequences Of The Catastrophe For People And The Environment. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. Book Review. 141(1): 97-101. (2010)
• Commentary on J. F. Bithell, et al Childhood Leukaemia near British Nuclear Installations: Methodological Issues and Recent Results. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Jan;138(1):87-8; author reply 89-91. Epub 2009 Oct 19. (with Alfred Körblein)
• Commentary on UNSCEAR 2006 Report: Annex C–the new effects of radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Feb;138(2):190-3.
• Review of epidemiology studies of childhood leukaemia near nuclear facilities: commentary on Laurier et al. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010 Feb;138(2):194-5; author reply 195-7. (with Alfred Körblein)
2009
• Commentary: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations Environmental Health 2009, 8:43. 12 pages. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-8-43.pdf
• Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear Power Stations: the ongoing debate. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 197–205.
• Childhood Cancers Near German Nuclear Power Stations: hypothesis to explain the cancer increases. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Vol 25, No 3. 2009, pp 206–220.
2008
cont.
Report comment
Ian Fairlie publications cont.
2008
• Depleted uranium: properties, military use and health risks. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. Vol 25:1. 2008 pp 41-64
• The health effects of depleted uranium. Disarmament Forum. UNIDIR (2008) Vol 3. pp. 3 – 16. United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.unidir.ch/pdf/articles/pdf-art2756.pdf
• The hazards of tritium – revisited. Medicine, Conflict and Survival. Vol 24:4. October 2008. pp 306 -319. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a904743144~db=all~order=page
• New evidence of childhood leukaemias near nuclear power stations. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 24:3, pp 219 – 227. August 2008. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a794966247~db=all~order=page
• Reasonable doubt. (Child Leukemias near German Nuclear Power Stations) New Scientist. 26 April 2008. Page 19. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826535.300-comment-lets-take-cancer-clusters-seriously-this-time.html
2007
• Dispersal, deposition and collective doses after the Chernobyl disaster. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 23:1, pp 10 –30. June 2007. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a770375304~db=all~order=page
• RBE and wR values of Auger emitters and low-range beta emitters with particular reference to tritium. Journal of Radiological Protection. Vol 27 pp 157-168. (2007) http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0952-4746/27/2/003/
cont.
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie publications cont.
• Global warming: is nuclear power the answer? Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 23:3, pp 228 – 233. June 2007. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713673482
• Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities. Published by Greenpeace Canada. June 2007. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/tritium-hazard-report-pollu.pdf
• Tritium Hazard Report on Cernavoda 3 and 4: Environment Impact Analysis: Report for Greenpeace Romania. Published by Greenpeace CentralEurope. November 2007. http://www.greenpeace.ro/uploads/articole/Cernavoda%20Report%20for%20GP%20Central%20Europe.pdf
2006
• The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH). An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster with critical analyses of recent IAEA/WHO reports. Ian Fairlie and David Sumner. Commissioned by Rebecca Harms, MEP, Published by Greens/EFA in the European Parliament. April 2006. http://www.chernobylreport.org
• New Information on Radiation Health Hazards. In “Nuclear or Not. Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future?” Editor David Elliott. Palgrave Macmillan. London. May 2006. http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=0230507646
cont.
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie's publications cont.
2005
• Uncertainties in Doses and Risks from Internal Radiation. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, Vol 21:2. pp 111 – 126. (2005) http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a714004320~db=all~order=page
• New Information on Radiation Health Hazards. Energy and Environment. Vol 23. October 2005.
2001
• Possible Toxic Effects from the Nuclear Reprocessing Plants at Sellafield (UK) and Cap de La Hague (France). Report published by the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel of the European Parliament. Xavier Coeytaux, Yacine Faid, Ian Fairlie, David Lowry, Yves Marignac, Emmanuel Rouy, Mycle Schneider and Gordon Thompson. April 2001. Commissioned by European Parliament, Directorate General for Research.
• Transfer of radioactivity to fruit: significant radionuclides and speciation. Ould-Dada Z, Fairlie I and Read C. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. Vol 52 pp 159-174 (2001)
2000
• In Defence of Collective Dose. Fairlie I and Sumner D. Journal of Radiological Protection Vol 20 pp 1–10. (2000)
1997
• A Nuclear Waste. How Ending Reprocessing Can Benefit Public Health, Protect the Environment and Save up to £6 Billion.SERA Publication. Socialist Environment and Resources Association. June 1997.
cont.
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie's publications cont.
• Radioactive Waste: International Examination Of Storage And Reprocessing Of Spent Fuel. PhD Thesis. Centre for Environmental Technology. ImperialCollege ofScience, Technology and Medicine.London. September 1997.
• No Dose Too Low. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Ian Fairlie and Marvin Resnikoff. Nov/Dec 1997 pp 52-56.
• Spent Fuel Storage Visited. CEES Working Paper No 137. Centre for Energy and Environment.PrincetonUniversity.PrincetonNJUnited States. December 1997.
1996
• Radiation and Health. In “Health and the Environment”. Published by SERA and SHA.
1994
• Government forces NRPB to Back Down Safe Energy. Vol 102. Autumn 1994. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se102-Fairlie.pdf
1993
• Magnox Gamma Shine Safe Energy. Vol 95. June-July 1993. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se95-Fairlie.pdf
1992
• Tritium: The Overlooked Nuclear Hazard. The Ecologist. Vol 22 No 5. 228-232 (1992)
• Tritium – the cause of leukemias? Safe Energy. Vol 91. Oct-Nov 1992. available from http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/articles/se91-Fairlie.pdf
• Estimation of Radiation Doses to Critical Groups near Dungeness Nuclear Power Station. MSC Thesis.MedicalCollege of St Bartholomew’s Hospital.London (1992)
http://www.ianfairlie.org/publications/
Report comment
Thank you
Report comment
But stop before you wallpaper this to oblivion – will u please wait to hear from Sickputer & majia ? The question I had was about that specific comment regarding 'a symposium' where Fairlie seems to have said Chernobyl was worse than Fukushima.
However if you do happen to know which symposium they are referring to, please do share.
Report comment
Here is the symposium:
http://enenews.com/watch-live-stream-fukushima-event-nyc
Here are notes taken from Dr. Fairlie's speech at the symposium:
http://enenews.com/watch-live-stream-fukushima-event-nyc/comment-page-1#comment-336845
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie's presentation at the symposium, click on his name:
http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf
Report comment
+311 fad
SP: Thanks for answering bo… I have been busy with family today (5 puppies 4 weeks old needing supervision, but more importantly my wife and I celebrated our wedding anniversary today.
That NYC confab was the symposium and I didn't get to view a lot of the speakers (my presence was virtual from Texas, not in person which I believe majia may have been in physical attendance. Not sure though… My memory has some gaps…I think I lost 5% of my brain memories during my five hour vascular surgery several months ago.
My favorite speaker I listened to at that March 2013 symposium was the Soviet scientist who was savaged by the nucleoapes pre-Fukushima for his work on the Royal Academy book disowned by the Big Brother suckups here and abroad. I forget his name, but he was awesome in his presentation.
Don't remember much about Fairlie other than the comments I made on Enenews which in reviewing I do claim as my honest opinion at that time. I remember the map part really well, just didn't sit right with me. To be fair (pun) to Fairlie, I don't know if he was Internet savvy enough to understand the truth being told about Fukushima in that time frame (2011-2013). So was he honestly representing what he had learned by traditional sources of information? Maybe. And maybe he has a better grasp on the magnitude now. The diehard nuclear energy supporters are fairly shellshocked by the long string of bad news from Fukuhell, but they hide it well.
Report comment
I wonder what Busby has to say about Fairly.
Report comment
Well, some Enenewsers criticize Busby, too,
Report comment
"About 60 people died immediately during the actual evacuations in Fukushima Prefecture in March 2011."
Is this the sentence you're asking about, Bo?
It clearly states "during the actual evacuattions". I read it as direct deaths plainly attributable to evacuation process.
What the arrticle is about is evacuation effects. I might challenge numbers, too, and his psychological stuff is layman's conjecture and BS that should make one mad. He's neither qualified or can even conjecturally point to any case but suicide. He didn't define the numbers outside of a MSM article cited in the original PDF, the offical numbers without criticism of his own. A fluff piece. Maybe he's trying to make his point within the official numbers to have some credibility with those who accept them? It's a half-assed method of getting what might be necessary out of it.
I've seen or-well's post (thank you or-well, always exceptionally reliable) and am not saying that he's not a gatekeeper of sorts.
Might it also say something of Counterpunch and all these other aggregators who aren't too critical themselves?
As Sickputer said, Fairlie has been iffy regarding what we might have him focus upon. I found his tritium papers good, which is all I've cared to read from him.
I guess the point is (and has always been) trust no one at any one time. All propaganda and misdirection holds some truth and one can never know another's momentary motives.
I, for one, will be more…
Report comment
…wary. Thank you.
Report comment
Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die
by Ian Fairlie
August 20, 2015
“…Cancer and other late effects from radioactive fallout
“Finally, we have to consider the longer term health effects of the radiation exposures from the radioactive fallouts after the four explosions and three meltdowns at Fukushima in March 2011. Large differences of view exist on this issue in Japan. These make it difficult for lay people and journalists to understand what the real situation is.
“The Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honourable exceptions) minimise the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable.
“For example, the Japanese Government is attempting to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Its scientists are trying to force the ICRP to accept this large increase. This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable….”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/20/fukushima-thousands-have-already-died-thousands-more-will-die/
Report comment
Dr. Fairlie is not building nuclear power plants and did not cause the Fukushima disaster.
Please focus on those who are causing all the death and suffering on the planet. Those who are keeping nuclear technology alive should be the focus of anger, not someone who has proven with studies many times over that low dose radiation is killing people and is destroying the human genome.
Report comment
You know.. each person is free to make their own opinion about Fairlie, like Sickputer and 'From a Distance' has.
& I totally hear you, 'from a distance'- I did listen to Fairlie stand firmly against hormesis on Libbe's show ( I listened it through full segment carefully )
It kind of almost swayed me ( just as each time I read Hiranuma's sincere sounding expose of Dr. Yamashita's lies, I am still swayed )
Personally, though – when I read those first few paragraphs on counterpunch articles, knowing that each word was fully penned by Fairlie ( with drafting assistance by his friend Hiranuma and some others ) – I am not able to accept him as being 'on our side'
Report comment
For example I do not always agree with Gundersen ( bobby1 once called him 'fukushima lite') , but I accept him as on 'our side' even if we don't agree if there was fuel in SFP 4 or if 3/11 tsunami/ quake was induced artificially – it's a big issue, but actually, this difference is not important in the bigger scheme of things – more important to me is knowing Arnie would NEVER in a million years personally pen an article that opens with the following, exact words ( from counterpunch) :
'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS.'
Report comment
I'm sorry, but to bring 'radiation-induced evacuation' as cause of death as main talking point/opener when given a chance to reach readers in 'counterpunch' is criminal to me.
This is not Newsweek, it's 'counterpunch' – it carries more clout.
For example I saw some nonJapanese nonFukushima bloggers who normally focus on geo-political stuff but they all took a moment to think about Fukushima last week just because it was on counterpunch. Since they don't spend 24/7 thinking about Fukushima like us and the minute details of radiation, I think many of these otherwise intelligent people swallowed this whole, pits and all. To them, it will make no difference the good academic work Fairlie has done on tritium – this is the only thing they'll ever read from him.
Report comment
And to the rest of the world who read this counterpunch article (because influential tweeters/bloggers pointed to it ) – guess what. Most people in this day and age only skim articles and grab info from THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS ( where all that mumbo jumbo about 'mental health' is placed), holding a bag of popcorn in the other hand. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if the writer says some fairly legit-ish things several scrolls down the article. And there's no way Fairlie and Hiranuma were not aware of this fast, on-the-go readership when submitting to 'counterpunch' – I almost am inclined to think that order, that placement was strategic.
I view this move by Fairlie combined with finding by or-well & Jebus as criminal & unforgivable – nothing can make up to it, and is beyond just 'disagreeing views' – I sense a sinister force. It makes it even more clear knowing Hiranuma (who has made nasty attacks to Busby* & Mangano ) is on his side.
But that's all just a personal view with a whole lot of sixth sense thrown in, so.. don't mind me…
Report comment
* I understand not all people agree with Busby or Mangano. It was the style of attack against Busby that caught my attention – an attack citing his 'mental instability' or.. has Busby really turned into a psycho recently or something ?
Report comment
Do you have a link for these terrible accusations? Where is your link?
Report comment
I left a link last time we discussed about Hiranuma. You accused me then of being a shill for questioning an activist ( 'You must be pronuke, to question intention of an avtivist doing good things!') , then later, you accused me of being pronuke for being 'unsure where Hiranuma stands' ( 'Anybody who attacks Busby is pronuke! Hiranuma is obviously pronuke! To not be sure about that shows you are pronuke !' )
That was the gist of it…
I'm sure you can find the thread with your amazing research skills. My fingers are tired and chemical plants are blowing up in Japan.. I'll leave that job up to you.
I think RobG, or-well, & maybe Sickputer remembers.. I supplied a very solid link then. Not repeating it here. Good day.
Report comment
bo, you just said this: "has Busby really turned into a psycho "
recently"
Why are you just making character assassination statements?
Report comment
bo, the accusations you are making against me are not in the discussion of Hiranuma. I said nothing against this because I know nothing about Hiranuma.
Wyakin
June 20, 2015 at 3:28 am
CSD: why didnt OJP publish Yuri Hiranuma's objection..
We may never know without asking the editor.
Rhetorical Q's sometimes require restatement of what appears to be the obvious:
“…by then it was obvious that she had royally fucked up in her approach.”
Doubtful it was sanctioned by PSR.
Publish a document by someone distancing themselves from their own objections by virtue of the fact they are refusing to substantiate their underlying analysis in writing?
“The exposures from Fukushima clearly affected an objectively measured bio-indicator the frequency distribution of TSH scored in newborns.”
The cutoff would not change the conclusion.
“..utterly stupid assertion about mechanisms, and the only effect of radiation being lagged cancer increases…
There are many epidemiological indications that increased death rates immediately following low level exposures and plenty of mechanisms.
However, a mechanism identification is not necessary for causality…this was stated by Sir Austen Bradford Hill in his Principles of Medical Statistics…”
Hiranuma can respond at any time to the invitation to put papers into the peer review process. Goddard, irrelevant.
By the time this happens, Japan will be in the midst of a radiation caused death and disease epidemic originating at point and…
Report comment
cont.
time from FU, on a scale never previously achieved by man.
Yuri and nuclearist cheerleaders will be recognized by all as completely and totally delusional.
http://enenews.com/tv-canadian-govt-detected-airborne-elements-radioactive-pollutants-fukushima-radioactive-materials-gushing-plant-unexpected-difficulties-preventing-escape-airborne-radioactive-contaminants-video/comment-page-1#comment-680484
Report comment
You can't use quotation marks unless you have a link and those are the exact words from the citation.
Report comment
In that discussion I did say this:
Here is the link to Dr. Busby's comment:
http://atomicinsights.com/mangano-sherman-take/
Report comment
PraisingTruth said -
August 24, 2015 at 10:35 am
'bo, you just said this: "has Busby really turned into a psycho recently"
Why are you just making character assassination statements?'
Why did you just say 'assasination' PT?
Did u assassinate somebody ? I'm so confused !!
Report comment
bo, why don't you Google the definition. It means pretty much the same as slander. Calling an antiNuke scientists a psycho is a trick of proNukers.
char•ac•ter as•sas•si•na•tion
noun
noun: character assassination; plural noun: character assassinations
1. the malicious and unjustified harming of a person's good reputation.
Report comment
If you don't know the definitions of "false" (in the definition of slander) and "unjustified" (in the definition of character assassination) you can look them up.
Are you now accusing me of assassinating someone? This is again vicious slander. If I had the money I would sue you. Maybe someone else will sue you. Free speech doesn't mean that you can slander someone on engage in character assassination.
Report comment
I'm going to start my own website. It will be academic without any comment section. I'm going to be too busy to comment here to people who are vicious trolls.
Report comment
Please criticize the Japanese government for hiding the truth. Please criticize the Japanese government for incinerating nuclear waste all across Japan to prevent the epidemiological studies to show cause of death.
Report comment
Please criticize the Japanese government for hiding the number of infants born with horrible mutations and killed at birth.
Report comment
Please criticize the Japanese government for adding MOX fuel to 2 reactors at Fukushima. Please criticize the Japanese government for not decommissioning Fukushima long before the accidents. Please critize the Japanese government for restarting their nuclear reactors and for still using MOX fuel in reactors at the present time.
Report comment
Where is your link? 'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS
All you offer is just propaganda, innuendo, and classic mind washing techniques.
Substantiate your claims with actual links with actual quotes linked or continue you as you said, slandering everyone. Slander is malicious, FALSE, statements.
Report comment
hope you start that academic website soon.
Report comment
TY, cannotdo1. I already have a website on pesticides, and I just need to add to it. I had another website on cell phones and cell towers that was on a university website, but it got deleted when they updated that link, and I just need to upload it from a disc.
I will start with just citations on low level radiation.
I am getting an add on hard drive so I can update to Windows 10, but it will be a couple of weeks because I need to wait until my pension deposit comes at the end of the month before I can order that hard drive.
Report comment
Think twice before "updating" to Windows 10 and consider their "privacy policy"
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/06/microsoft-new-privacy-policy.html
This is not a joke
We collect data on everyone you know, including all their information that you have in your computer or phone.
We collect all your financial information, that is online, even your Quickbooks files if emailed or posted on OneDrive, your tax filings, anything and everything.
We also collect (and buy from others precise information) on where you have been, what hot spots you have come close to even if you didn't log in. This can be very specific information and basically tracks your every step while your phone is turned on.
We collect everything you have searched for
We take all the contents of all your computer files. …….
Report comment
Hi stock and all , for win7 users , if you want to get rid of GWX.exe , the popup nazi Win10 installer, tutorial here..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4kiv6OL3L0
Report comment
Oh.. wow.. this entire thread, beginning with my initial post has been about this ONE Counterpunch article (and I even left the link over and over through out thread ) and – you haven't even read it.
Ok.. well.. here it goes again for the millionths time…
This is the article that has been penned fully under Ian Fairlie's name, which we have been discussing.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/20/fukushima-thousands-have-already-died-thousands-more-will-die/
You will see those exact words within the first few paragraphs.
& to be clear-
these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS'
is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
(He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)
The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.
I thank you for taking the time to read this article which this entire discussion was about. I appreciate it.
Report comment
↑ This above post is in response to PT saying that I am slandering Fairley by saying that he said these preposterous words – 'Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations .. the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS'
Well.. he said these words.
PT says to bo :
All you offer is just propaganda, innuendo, and classic mind washing techniques.
Substantiate your claims with actual links with actual quotes linked or continue you as you said, slandering everyone. Slander is malicious, FALSE, statements.
Huh. It almost seems she agrees with bo, that those words penned by Fairley in the Counterpunch article are preposterous. She's really mad I claimed Fairley uttered such nonsense.
Report comment
But yes, Fairley said those exact words, he did utter such nonsense.
For the millionths time-
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/20/fukushima-thousands-have-already-died-thousands-more-will-die/
Report comment
bo, you are the one who said you are slandering Dr. Fairlie:
bo
August 23, 2015 at 7:46 am
“I'm slandering him but I really don't care”
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698344
Report comment
Yes – I actually did use the term 'slander' there incorrectly. I do apologize about that misleading comment.
What I really I meant was :
'yes, I have intentions of exposing the negative sides of Dr. Fairley and I have no intentions of treating him with kid gloves here, since I personally found his writing, his wording in this Counterpunch article to be unforgiveable.'
So I did not mean 'slander' – which refers to 'making up false accusations.'
All I meant was to expose negative sides of Fairley that I saw and believed to be real. However as I make clear in the post, I also kept that rather open-ended.
Report comment
These were my exact words from which you cherrypicked just one rude phrase→
'Sorry.. that counterpunch article is enough for me to be furious at Fairlie, so yes, I'm slandering him but I really don't care. If you'd like to fight back about it please do so AFTER answering my one and only question here..
Because I'm actually still open to the possibility that my reading on this counterpunch article written by Fairlie is wrong – the sly wordsmithing is confusing.'
But.. there's no way to prove my intention of the word slander, so I guess yes, you can sue me and throw me in jail, as you have expressed your wish to be. Lol what nice Christian lady.
Report comment
PT, bo has a sense of humour, which is useful. she was joking, telling the truth is not slander.
All joking aside though, even telling the truth, if the only purpose is to create undue harm can be called defamation. I guess that means you need to have a reason for telling the truth.
Report comment
Fairlie never said these words: "the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often in our minds". So please don't take me to task for not reading the article. This is a quote of Becky Martin said.
Report comment
Yes – I spelled out that part about Becky Martin very clearly, to be fair to Fairley.
Please see my comments here:
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698690
I clearly said:
'& to be clear-these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS' is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
(He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)
The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.'
Report comment
I made sure to spell that out, as it would be unfair to quote that as Fairley's own words, if it had been a quote from an article where he is criticizing Becky Martin's position.
But.. reading the article it must be clear to you as it is to others, that Fairley and Martin are in complete sync here, their views are blended and melted together like butter – it's not an unfair quote at all – very much in contrast to your accusation that I said 'Chris Busby is a psycho!' (really hard to believe that someone has that bad of a reading comprehension to grasp context.. but ok, I give u the benefit of the doubt that your reading comprehension is really that bad)
Report comment
& Yes PT I read through that part of the article where he takes a stand against ICRP & it *almost* made me teary too. You're free to clutch onto that piece Fairley tosses out in the last half (several scrolls down the article, after most hurried readers had already stopped reading) and hug it to sleep at night.
I personally cannot stomach what he utters in the beginning of this article, and nothing can make up for it – but that's just my personal view and values – we just happen to disagree about that.
It's ok & permitted for us to not always agree, I think ?
Report comment
I already quoted from this article, and, yes, I did read it:
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698480
Fukushima: Thousands Have Already Died, Thousands More Will Die
by Ian Fairlie
August 20, 2015
“…Cancer and other late effects from radioactive fallout
“Finally, we have to consider the longer term health effects of the radiation exposures from the radioactive fallouts after the four explosions and three meltdowns at Fukushima in March 2011. Large differences of view exist on this issue in Japan. These make it difficult for lay people and journalists to understand what the real situation is.
“The Japanese Government, its advisors, and most radiation scientists in Japan (with some honourable exceptions) minimise the risks of radiation. The official widely-observed policy is that small amounts of radiation are harmless: scientifically speaking this is untenable.
“For example, the Japanese Government is attempting to increase the public limit for radiation in Japan from 1 mSv to 20 mSv per year. Its scientists are trying to force the ICRP to accept this large increase. This is not only unscientific, it is also unconscionable….”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/20/fukushima-thousands-have-already-died-thousands-more-will-die/
Report comment
Copying and pasting and an article .. actually does not mean.. reading an article, PT.
I'm no better, I often do slippery reads myself.. but one thing I'm proud of is I'm always very honest about what I have and have not read. What I can and cannot understand.
Report comment
The fact that u did not even recognize those preposterous words uttered by Fairlie in the very first paragraphs ( actually, the very first sentence!) in the counterpunch article to me suggests that you essentially did not read the article. Your cursor read it, but not u. But that's just a hunch.
Report comment
Sorry, you are totally wrong and didn't read the article and didn't copy and paste it correctly. Becky Martin said those words.
And you falsely attributed those words to Dr. Fairlie.
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698769
Didn't he say that the people did need to be evacuated, and that they needed to be cared for more adequately in evacuation? It was the nuclear cabal said that these people shouldn't have been evacuated. It is not correct to claim that Dr. Fairlie said that or that he was the equivalent of WHO or any other agency that disparages the effects of radiation.
Again, you are twisting the information and accusing me falsely, which is a character assassination. Calling Dr. Busby a psycho is a character assassination. Intimating that I have assassinated someone which without the word character assasination is accusing me of murdering someone.
Report comment
In addition, Becky Martin added these words: "She adds: 'Imagine that you’ve been informed that your land, your water, the air that you have breathed may have been polluted by a deadly and invisible contaminant. Something with the capacity to take away your fertility, or affect your unborn children.'`"
Of course, if someone commits suicide before the radiation effects kill the person, the person should have been offered support and counseling and money and clean food and a permanent home and shouldn't have to keep paying off a mortgage for a house that will never be habitable, and their children shouldn't be forced to eat radioactive food or clean up radioactive debris and they shouldn't be shunned by the society because they have become radioactively contaminated.
Report comment
The is the first sentence, "Official data from Fukushima show that nearly 2,000 people died from the effects of evacuations necessary to avoid high radiation exposures from the disaster." I still don't see what is wrong with this. They did die from the evacuation. Have even more died from radiation poisoning or will millions die eventually from the radiation? Undoubtedly yes.
I have said many times that billions will die from the radiation from Fukushima. How many are you saying are going to die?
I've seen even on this website people whose mental health is less than what it would be if Fukushima had never happened, if all the radiation everyone has been subjected to the last 75 years had never occurred. I've seen my own family dying of radiation poisoning, and depression because of that poisoning, and autism because of that poisoning, and ADHD because of that poisoning.
And I've read about the people in Belarus who are depressed because everyone is contaminated and the land and water is contaminated.
Should those people be helped? Or should they just be abandoned?
Everyone in the whole world is now contaminated with 2,000 radionuclides. What should we do?
I don't think we should just blow up the whole earth, but should try to help everyone we see. And we should be grateful for all the help we get and not judge people and devalue that help. When we help others we actually are helping ourselves as a result. It is a blessing to give,…
Report comment
cont.
more than the blessing to receive. And we love because He first loved us.
I want to have my own website, because then I can help people and post what I think will help without having to be constantly criticized. In my own website, I won't have to waste all my time justifying myself gainst false accusations and I won't have to face the almost daily hatred that expressed towards me.
I have never been for nuclear weapons and nuclear energy and any other nuclear technology.
I refuse to be vilified for trying to save the lives of others and especially the children. I refuse to be vilified for loving my children and my family and my friends.
Report comment
If you want the truth, I cried yesterday when or-well told me to fuck off. And I am crying now when I write this. I tried to explain why people are so unreasonable and intolerant on this website. And maybe I didn't know how to say the words properly, but anytime I am sincere and try to say something positive, some individuals are so hateful and mean to me.
In my own website, I will post Bible verses and I won't have to face hatred because no one else will get to say anything but the people I quote, and the only people who will read it will be people who want to hear something positive. And I won't have ads or be making money, I will just get to be a loving person, and I won't have to be constantly sticking up for the scientists who are helping us and who want a radiation and toxic free future as much as I want it.
My son runs my website for me and he tells me all the trafic I get from all around the world.
Report comment
Repost -
Yes – I spelled out that part about Becky Martin very clearly, to be fair to Fairley.
Please see my comments here:
http://enenews.com/unbelievable-scientists-stunned-3-rare-giant-oarfish-found-dead-recent-weeks-california-flesh-falling-apart-body-parts-missing-biologist-course-im-very-concerned-reason-theyre-dying-being-tes/comment-page-3#comment-698690
I clearly said:
'& to be clear-these words: 'the most significant impacts of radiation emergencies are often IN OUR MINDS' is Fairley quoting a scientist named Becky Martin within the article he penned.
(He effectively uses this quote to iron out his basic premise/tone in the opening of the article that initial most deaths in Fukushima are mainly due to stress caused by evacuation – so he is aligned with this comment)
The capitalization has been added by bo for emphasis.'
Report comment
Dr. Ian Fairlie – Fukushima: Mega Nuclear Disaster, Spent Fuel Pool Fires, Criticality Explosion, Health Effects From Fukushima Fallout Are Global, Like Reverse Lottery Ticket
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2015/08/dr-ian-fairlie-fukushima-mega-nuclear.html
Report comment
Thank you so much Dr. G.. I will be sure to read this tonight.
Report comment
1986 – Pripiat, Ukraine, Russia – Chernobyl Nuclear Reactor Melts Out And Blows Up; Denial Of 1.5 Million + Casualties; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/chernobyl-coverup-and-denial-of-1.html
Report comment
IPPNW – Global Health Effects And Number Of Deaths Caused By Chernobyl Nuclear Planet Meltdown – 69 Million Victims; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/07/ippnw-health-effects-of-chernobyl-25.html
Report comment
At Fukushima MULTIPLE corium 100 ton ACTIVE FISSIONING radioactive lava blobs left containment and are now connected to the ocean compared to just ONE at Chernobyl.
Multiple fuel pools had fires and #3 exploded, releasing MOX into the air.
Even a fool or anyone with common sense can add up the death toll, and it will be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER THAN CHERNOBYL.
The only question is how much higher..
The future will answer that question, but humanity will have to wait until 30 years down the road to count the total number, just like humanity had to wait for 30 plus years after Chernobyl to count those casualties.
Report comment
"The future will answer that question, but humanity will have to wait until 30 years down the road to count the total number"
I'm surprised you made such a basic mistake.
Risk Expert: “High risk” of nuclear holocaust at Fukushima — Plant to keep emitting radioactive materials “for a thousand years or so” (AUDIO)
http://enenews.com/risk-expert-high-risk-nuclear-holocaust-fukushima-plant-keep-emitting-radioactive-materials-thousand-years-audio
There's a very high probability of a huge earthquake near Fukushima in the next several years. My theory is that if Fukushima Daiichi is ever permanently evacuated (for whatever reason), the totally unmitigated radiation coming from there will make a larger and larger chunk of land uninhabitable in Japan. And that will eventually spread to Fukushima Daiini which will eventually have to be permanently evacuated. The resulting radiation contamination will spread throughout the rest of Japan, taking out all the nuclear reactors in the whole country (over 50) like dominoes and eventually they'll ALL melt down.
Any thoughts on that theory?
Report comment
I'm thinking that would probably end the wireless revolution…
Report comment
That is what Arnie Gundersen theorized as well.
Report comment
Would you please post a link to where you read or heard that?
Report comment
And in the meantime.. the buildings are crumbling and sinking.
Fukushima site becoming even less stable as crumbling buildings sink into ground around nuclear reactors
Aug. 21 2015
http://www.naturalnews.com/050868_Fukushima_unstable_ground_nuclear_reactors.html#ixzz3je0iOa4t
Thanks Natural News ..nice bring around to the physical realities.
Report comment
INCREASES IN BACKGROUND RADIATION:
- In 1963 background radiation per year = 193.2 mrem
- In 2002 background radiation per year = 360 mrem
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/background_radiation/background_radiation.htm
- “the world Inventory of radioactive materials >>>prior to World War II<<< both in the environment and in the laboratory, >>> was
confined to those which occurred in nature" <<<
"Construction of large nuclear reactors during the war and the associated operations for extracting plutonium from irradiated
uranium >>>resulted in the first extensive occasions for contaminating the environment with radioactive substances<<<”
http://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/00/09/82/13/00001/cesium137otherga00roes.pdf
Report comment
All these people responsible for this unnatural increase should be thrown in jail!
Report comment
Just found out there is some discussion of ecological happenings on
duh-duh-dumm….Craigslist!
Login and look for the
"eco" section. Links to articles and comments appear on right when you click a thread.
first link that I found :
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/opinion/microbeads-the-tiny-orbs-threatening-our-water.html?_r=0
And people asking what's killing whales and birds.
Report comment
"Flesh falling apart while still alive, body parts missing —"
The Effect of Ionizing Radiations on Connective Tissue
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780120354108500124
Unbelievable? ..the gapping mouths of the scientists.
So unremarkable.
Report comment
Those oarfish's relatives need to call Bonner and Bonner.
The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan's sailor's attorneys representing them in their lawsuit against the nuclear power plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company
The lawsuit PDF:
http://akradioisotopeinfocenter.org/pdf/USS%20Reagan%20Lawsuit.pdf
Report comment
The lawsuit itself references ENENEWS, but misspelled it.
[...] was considered by outside experts after March 11, 2011, does the public, including
the Plaintiffs herein, now not have to rely upon the glib and technically
inaccessible reports from DEFENDANT herein.
.
50
50
Web sites such as “enews.com”; “fukushima-diary.com” and “rense.com” have operated as information clearing houses for mainstream news, academic studies and independent sources of publication about the nuclear crisis in Japan
Report comment
gapping mouths of the scientists: "The presence of radiation exposure symptoms can by no means be proven to have been caused by radioactive material, even when present. Radiation poisoning is so rare, that we do not expect to find it, and do not test for it. Radiation poisoning may actually be good for you. The only testing we recommend is for nutritional deficiency, that is to say, one may benefit from some added dose to the natural background radiation levels. There is no definite proof of this, but if there may be a possible benefit from radiation, we accept the theory as dogma. On the other hand, if there is possible harm from low doses of radiation, you can just be happy and ignore it, so we do. And so should you. Want some candy little girl? Come closer. Just a little syphilis shot…"
Report comment
Its related i oarfish an eartquake 3 a radioactve ocean
Report comment
This Ian Fairlie?
http://www.llrc.org/rat/subrat/rat522.htm
Read the last section.
I can't get the text to copy.
Report comment
Truth realized…
The appointment of Sarah Darby as a neutral raised a few eyebrows but the most extraordinary development was the control exercised by Ian Fairlie over the direction of the committee and its deliberations. Fairlie, who admitted to being a great friend of Richard Wakeford, BNFL’s Health Effects Rottweiler, even withheld papers which had been submitted for the Committee’s consideration. The deliberations became so altered by the time the minutes of the early meetings appeared that LLRC had to bring a DAT tape recorder to each session to ensure accuracy. Paul Dorfman was routinely excluded from decisions, paperwork and access to meeting transcripts. Finally, when Marion Hill (about whom we were at first the most concerned in terms of possible bias) began to be excluded from the secretariat loop, she resigned in a letter that accused Fairlie and Goodhead of collusion resulting in a bias to the intention of the committee. She further complained that Fairlie’s invoices would soon amount to £100,000 – four times as much as other Secretariat members – when unsalaried members of the committee like Richard Bramhall (who spent days transcribing the tape recordings) and Chris Busby (writing copious papers for the committee) received nothing. This bombshell letter has been followed by a major re-allocation of work in the secretariat. More in the next issue. For some further information check out http://www.cerrie.org
Report comment
I love u guys.
Thank u.
Report comment
Good article from shortly after Fuku blew.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/28/deconstructing-nuclear-experts/
Report comment
Read where Bramhall of LLRC criticises a Fairlie/Sumner report.
http://www.robedwards.com/2006/04/nailed_the_lie_.html
It's in the one comment.
here's a link to a fuller look
http://www.llrc.org/health/subtopic/fairliechernobyl.htm
Report comment
or-well, great links. Thanks for your diligence and reliability.
I may have been away from here too long…
Report comment
I see fairlie as a fence sitter. He did offer to help w nrc. Perhaps because he could not stomach the psychopathy and psychosis of rod adams and his ilk. thanks owrell jebus bo from a distance!
Report comment
Just my opinion, but I like Dr. Fairlie. He didn't have to get involved in the NRC hormesis thing, but he did. He didn't get paid for that. I heard the sincerity in his voice in the interview with Libbe. He sounded genuinely concerned about the hormesis thing, and he sincerely encouraged people to get comments in and to make phone calls to the EPA, CDC, NRC, etc., telling them NOT to adopt this.
Report comment
Also, he CRITICIZED the WHO's Fukushima report and said that the WHO, UNSCEAR, and IAEA are all trying to downplay collective doses.
Also, as a scientist, he is limited to what he can say based on what facts are available to him.
How many deaths have the Japanese gov't admitted are from Fukushima radiation? Zero!
So how can Dr. Fairlie go beyond that and say thousands have died when even the Japanese refuse to do that and the information is hidden?
Here at Enenews there are second-hand accounts of firemen, policemen, nuclear workers, etc. dying of Fukushima radiation and I believe that fully, and a scientist may believe those, too, but can't state it unequivocally.
Report comment
from a distance, you will see that FairLie said UNSCEAR models showed 5000 people would die from Fukushima. He said He agreed and also came to the same conclusion on his own. This much you can read for yourself. He may be a sincere fence-sitter, but in my opinion, any truly concerned scientist with clout would talk about how much more devastation will come from the ocean pollution, the effects on the environment which will multiply the mortality to humans too. How could any scientist "in the know" not be aware of the other papers, Bandazhevsky, the million deaths and more from Chernobyl… the blue wing butterfly LD50 of 2 becquerels, Dr Scampa; Fukushima is not only 3.7 times higher than Chernobyl; but, more importantly, 28.3 times more radiotoxic with every breath you take.
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/6913
Is that an intelligent well meaning fence sitter? Can hardly believe it
up to 8.6e17 Cs137 release
http://www.npsag.org/upload/reports/00-004/00-004%20Castle%20Meeting%202011%2009%20-%20Paper.pdf
Report comment
I guess when Japan finally admits that thousands have died from Fukushima radiation, the scientists will be free to do the same.
Report comment
Fukushima is 1000s of times worse than Chernobyl because of all the MOX fuel and plutonium and 4 cores are in China Syndrome.
English Interview about nuclear danger with Holger Strohm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZL7FM_zLgM
Quietly into Disaster – Full Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIEzTKO03do
Report comment
Was this posted:
Sendai's tubes are already leaking:
http://nuclear-news.net/2015/08/21/sendais-cooling-tubes-already-leaking-but-the-pro-nuclear-hubris-goes-on/
Report comment
By 2100, Earth Will Have an Entirely Different Ocean
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/by-2100-everything-you-know-about-the-ocean-will-be-wrong
Report comment
Say N☢ to Nuclear
Report comment
Drop a comment here folks, about shutting down 3 plants in Illinois or letting them screw the ratepayer.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150822/ISSUE01/150829956/exelon-provides-numbers-on-financial-performance-of-its-nuclear
Report comment
Well, if nuclear power promised energy too-cheap-to-meter, it was a bad business model from day -1. Now they say that the cost of running the plants demands a certain minimum charge. So, it never was or could be "too-cheap-to-meter" in the first place. So shut them all down, and maybe we can deal with the too-expensive-to-meter spent fuel disposal in a few thousand years!
Report comment
Drop a comment here folks, Pilgrim scrammed again
http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150822/NEWS/150828474
Report comment
Pilgrim was one step away from blasting Boston with Radiation this winter, because of a snow storm. Details are here, scary how close it was.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/02/pilgrim-nuclear-in-boston-came-very.html
Report comment
BREAKING news:
"Huge explosions at US army base in Japan as warehouse burns and emergency services rush to scene"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/huge-explosions-army-base-japan-6306696
Credit to Radchick on twitter:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/huge-explosions-army-base-japan-6306696
Report comment
oops, correction: Radchick twitter:
https://twitter.com/RadChick4Cast
Report comment
wonder what was in there; they could not use water on it.
Maybe something like the stuff in China?
Report comment
Got DU?
In the middle of a city
Report comment
2015 Large Whale Unusual Mortality Event in the Western Gulf of Alaska
Since May 2015, elevated large whale mortalities have occurred in the Western Gulf of Alaska, encompassing the areas around Kodiak Island, Afognak Island, Chirikof Island, the Semidi Islands, and the southern shoreline of the Alaska Peninsula.
This event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME).
Most whale carcasses have been floating and were not retrievable. Also, the majority of carcasses were in moderate to severe decomposition with only one whale sampled to date.
Why are whales stranding?
Currently only one whale has been able to be sampled and there no was no definitive cause of death identified for that whale at this time. As part of the UME investigation process, an independent team of scientists (Investigative Team) is being assembled to coordinate with the Working Group on Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Events to review the data collected, sample future whales that strand and to determine the next steps for the investigation.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/large_whales_2015.html
Report comment
And in 2011, it was the seals with the Unusual Mortality Event
Has NOAA learned anything about it in those 4 years?
Report comment
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/dozens-dead-whales-washing-ashore-alaska/
Just ran across this. It's a mystery???
Report comment
i love yur posts mm hope u r ok
Report comment
Ty, hope your good, too. Honestly, I just broke my face and knocked out 2 front teeth and realized how very vain I am, so I am accepting prayers now, but I'm alright. Lesson learned. Don't play capture the flag at night with a snowplow around. Doh!
Report comment
I am sorry mm. I will pray for ya. Recuperate well. I really like your posts.
Report comment
Ty, I like yours too.
Report comment
Ha! Good times. I only say that cuz I've done similar damage to my face. Take pictures.
Of course there was a lot of alcohol involved in my stories.
Report comment
Enjoy the painkillers. Forget the label, have a drink or two. Heal well!
Report comment
I did. I look like Rocky.
Report comment
Take care of yourself, mm! Get well soon.
Report comment
It took a snowplow to do the job!haha wink
Peace and fast healing
Report comment
So sorry Melting Mermaid. Swift and healthy recovery. There is no dental remedy, only compromises. And I was just wondering about Obe who broke out two of his teeth too
Report comment
Sorry to hear of your mishap, MM. In '96 while in college I was playing football @ night in the snow and ice and while making the game ending catch, my head caught a light pole and brought a knot about the size of a golf ball over my left eye. Knocked me out and the resulting blood drainage into my left eye made me look like an infected person from the 28 days later movie. Lol now, but had a bit of a headache back then.
Games @ night tend not to turn out too well for us day-dwelling creatures. Hope the healing is quick for you.
Report comment
At least the bears are eating the carcasses. But then, the bears may not have fish to eat?
Report comment
I do no think so from a distance. Thanks for posting that jebus. I have friends in japan who read about tge whales in ak and emailed me. Things are piling up now. My friend in seattle wh is barely surviving there is giving me reports of dead wildlife. She can barely talk about fukushima because it is hard enough to just survive in this cutthroat economy. Her kid is autistic. She tries to stay positive by getting away from the city into nature and living a day at a time but even that is not working any more.
Report comment
http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/blog/2015/02/12/nr15-023/
02/12/15 – Corals At Kaneohe Bay Now Impacted By Disease
DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
News Release
…Acute Montipora White Syndrome (aMWS)
Report comment
Military base
Report comment
You are in Hawaii or Georgia?
Report comment
Georgia, my brother was stationed at Kaneohe for 9 years
Report comment
Where in ga.?
Report comment
Atlanta
Report comment
HHD see shark article and comment below.
Report comment
As reality gets worse, just expect more lies from more parties.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/06/why-are-sharks-attacking-more-people-than-ever-in-hawaii/
A $184,000 study in Hawaii to study shark attacks comes up with "more people in the water" as the only cause, and that "sharks are acting normally"
Shark apologists are saying ——-Let's get it straight: a shark bite is not an "attack." It's usually a nibble, they back off, then see if they'll have some carrion to feed on in a while. Do you "attack" the food on your plate, other than metaphorically? Is this linguistic invertebratophobia? Microaggression? Drop the "attack' rhetoric. Predators need to eat just like you and I do.
——————————–stock here
Really? Done several hundred dives off Makena, including quite a bit of night diving, I would say saw sharks on 20% of dives and that percent increased over a period of 20 years. Mostly they were white tip, some black tip, a bull shark, a galapagos shark, and I was in the water when the 2 old codger kayakers were rescued by a dive boat at a large white was following them. The amount of sharks coming in close is obviously increasing.
Anyone saying its just because of more people in the water, is flat out lying. We got reefs dying, far less fish, mass species dieoffs throughout the Pacific, algae blooms, and radiation and heavy metals from Fukushima. And a 500% increase in shark attacks, especially that more…
Report comment
I agree with the less food theory due to dead reefs. And you know why I think much of the reefs are dead. Electric fields can also stimulate/agitate sharks.
The marine biologist I am working with on Kauai was on the recent Nat Geo Live show "When Sharks Attack"
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/when-sharks-attack/
Report comment
Reefs started dying in the carribean in the 1970s and 80s
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/09/06/caribbean-coral-reefs-mostly-dead-iucn-says/
Report comment
We were/had been testing Nuclear bombs throughout these time frames too!
Report comment
Every time I watch this I worry a little less… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GtiSCBXbHAg
Report comment
Random synchronicity I ran into today.
Bonus, for being an easy drawing/stress relieving technique
http://tanglepatterns.com/tips-tools/string-ideas
Sound technology to be used for good instead of harm.
Wish I was going to be alive when they whip that out
Report comment
http://www.theantimedia.org/yelp-just-announced-it-will-start-letting-you-write-reviews-about-the-government/
And the government agreed and promises they won't send in a swat team and do a cavity search if you hurt their feelings. Honest. Scouts honor…they crossed their hearts.
Report comment
http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/08/23/fukushima-disaster/
This isn't Fukushima now?
Report comment
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-age-of-imperial-wars/5470957
God save us from the neocons.
Report comment
http://www.jumpingjackflashhypothesis.blogspot.com/2015/08/event-update-for-2015-08-21.html?m=1
This is what scares me. Add to this pyrophoric dustified uranium, mox and methane and well I could go on an on…2 seperate airshow disasters…chemical plants in China, US military base in Japan. Soon we might be launching nukes at each other because of this..
Report comment
Hey, its a Sunday. No one is supposed to die, kill, burn or blow things up today, correct?
Oh well, go ahead. What is the use of making rules? Rules are meant to be broken.
(sarc)
Report comment
North and South Korea firing artillery at each other
http://www.conspiracyclub.co/2015/08/21/n-korea-moves-scud-and-rodong-missles-to-south-border/
Report comment
http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/honest-cop-charged-with-misconduct/ I mean really?,??? I hope the public rallys around this poor guy.
Report comment
Yes! Until good cops say something, they are all bad.
Report comment
Radiation Use in Colorado
They use radiation to kill people in Colorado. There are Intercontinental Ballistic Missile silos here.(1) The composition of the warheads is classified. In 1967 they bombed a place near Parachute with a nuclear bomb for natural gas, but the gas was too radioactive to use, and three bombs in western Colorado's Piceance Basin in 1973.(2) There are over 2,000 uranium mines, and a uranium processing mill near Grand Junction and they used the uranium tailings to landscape the yards where people live.(3) Our only nuclear power plant was a helium-cooled thermal power reactor using fissile uranium and fertile thorium , and was a failure, Fort St Vrain Nuclear Power Station, and has been decommissioned, but the live fuel is still being stored near the site there. (4) There was a huge uranium oxide, yellowcake, spill near Lamar, Colorado.(5)
The worst place is where Rocky Flats used to be. There is still just as much plutonium (Pu-239) and curium (Cm 250) and other actinides in the soil as before the clean up. (6) They built plutonium pits from plutonium-239 for nuclear weapons:
“Plutonium … is essentially a man-made element discovered in 1940 after uranium-238 was bombarded with neutrons in a device called a cyclotron. Plutonium-239, as well as uranium-235 and uranium-233, are among the few materials whose atoms can be split (or ‘fissioned’) to create a nuclear explosion, which releases massive amounts of energy instantly. …”(7)
Here is a…
Report comment
cont.
sad comment by Ken Johnson about all the plutonium still buried today beneath Rocky Flats:
“Before he die[d] of brain cancer my dad who was a inspector at dow at rocky flats told me that some day people will need to know about the pits of plutonium that are buried all over on the areas around the plant, he said their deep and huge surrounded by 15 foot thick walls of a tar like substance he said it never goes away half Life of 500000 years …..’”(8)
Only one tenth of a millionth of a gram (0.1 microgram) of plutonium inhaled is lethal.(9)
There were fires every day at Rocky Flats, the worst two were in 1959 and 1967 when a criticality occurred.
“Plutonium metal is difficult to handle and store safely, because it is radioactive and "pyrophoric" meaning it oxidizes and can become very hot when exposed to air. It can ignite nearby flammable materials, causing fires that can result in plutonium exposure of workers and the public. In addition, workers must avoid storing more than a few pounds in close proximity to prevent runaway fission, an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. Such a reaction’s burst of energy, known as a ‘criticality event,’ would not become a nuclear explosion, but could release radiation very dangerous to nearby workers. Such an event can also result in uncontrolled releases of both plutonium and fission products to the environment…”(7)
Many people have already died who worked there or who were downwind from Rocky Flats…
Report comment
That is the most pitiful conduct possible.
Grand Junction, Colorado has a natural beauty and an unnatural interloper.
Report comment
(1) http://www.nukewatchinfo.org/nuclearweapons/index.html
Report comment
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rulison
http://www.hcn.org/issues/25/727
Report comment
I can't post the (3) link
Report comment
(4) http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/124953.pdf
http://www.sustainablees.com/asme/Shanahan_Fast_Reactors_3.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_St._Vrain_Generating_Station
http://www.fsvfolks.org/FSVHistory_2.html
Report comment
(5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/10/08/crash-spills-toxic-matter/7a6e6d57-9bc9-4b44-8df7-f58addcf83d3/
Report comment
(6) http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_19995436
Full Body Burdern: Growing Up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats, by Kristen Iversen
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Body-Burden-Growing-Nuclear/dp/0307955656
(7) https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/HM_sf-rocky-flats-plutonium-health-risks.pdf
(8) http://www.coloradoindependent.com/145376/toxic-suburbia-fantastic-rocky-flats-vistas-plutonium-breezes
Report comment
(9) http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html
https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00326640.pdf
The Plutonium Files: America’s Secred Medical Experiments in the Cold War, by Eileen Welsome
http://www.amazon.com/The-Plutonium-Files-Americas-Experiments/dp/0385319541
Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters, by Kate Brown
http://www.amazon.com/Plutopia-Families-American-Plutonium-Disasters/dp/0199855765
Report comment
This fact sheet provides information about the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
Title I disposal and processing sites at Grand Junction, Colorado. These sites are managed
Site Description and History
The former Grand Junction processing site, historically known
as the Climax uranium mill, sits at an elevation of about
4,600 feet above sea level and occupies 114 acres of the
broad, arid Grand Valley in west-central Colorado. The former
mill site is located in an industrial area along the north bank
of the west-flowing Colorado River on land owned by the City
of Grand Junction. Early facility operations began in 1899
as a sugar beet mill. In 1950, the Climax Uranium Company
transformed the original site to operate as a uranium and
vanadium mill until 1970. During 19 years of operation, the
mill produced 2.2 million tons of radioactive tailings.
From 1950 to 1966, mill tailings—a predominantly sandy material—were available to private citizens and contractors, who used them as fill material and as a component of
concrete and mortar. Radioactive tailings were hauled to more
than 4,000 private and commercial properties in the Grand
Junction area. In 1966, concerns about potential adverse
health effects from mill tailings prompted the Colorado
Department of Health to sample the tailings for radon-222,
and preliminary results indicated elevated levels. The finding
caused Climax to stop releasing tailings from the site.
However, an estimated…
Report comment
cont.
300,000 tons of tailings containing
radioactive uranium daughter products had already
been removed.
During 1970 and 1971, the Climax Uranium Company
demolished 8 of the 12 main mill buildings at the processing
site. Equipment that could be decontaminated was sold;
equipment that could not be decontaminated was buried
in the tailings pile along with building rubble. Activities to
demolish the remaining buildings, except the old sugar
beet warehouse, were completed in 1989. The sugar beet
warehouse was cleaned, sold to a nongovernmental party,
and presently sits on private property, outside the northern
boundary of the fenced-in, City-owned site property.
Surface remediation of the processing site and contaminated
private and commercial properties (i.e., vicinity properties)
began in the mid-1980s. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) conducted radiological surveys at all vicinity properties
and remediated those where mill-site-related radium-226 or
radon levels exceeded established maximum concentration
limits. Tailings and other contaminated materials removed
from vicinity properties were stored temporarily at the
processing site
Report comment
) http://www.l m.do e.gov/Grand_Junction_D P/Fact_Sheet_GJ.pdf
Report comment
I put some spaces in the link to get it to post
lm
doe
DP
Report comment
Seems to be the trend another explosion in http://www.rt.com/news/313176-tokyo-factory-blaze-airport/
Report comment
Asian stocks swooned further on Monday, touching multi-year lows, as the meltdown in China's equity markets accelerated in early trade.
"We are going to see a fearful Asia today, as risk selling activity is expected to blanket the regional markets. Geopolitical tensions in the Korean peninsula are going to add to the weak sentiments," IG's market strategist Bernard Aw wrote in a note released early Monday. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/23/asia-braces-for-selloff-on-tanking-us-markets.html As we countinue our deflationary cycle not to end anytime soon. Hold onto your hat,going down!!
Report comment
The Human mentality is deeply flawed.
I'm not even sure the future generations want to hear it (truth).
It might be out of their comfort zone.
The Coddling of the American Mind
In the name of emotional well-being, college students are increasingly demanding protection from words and ideas they don’t like. Here’s why that’s disastrous for education—and mental health.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
Report comment
Wow, I guess none of these children have seen Hannibal on the main stream programing that all children any age can see when broadcast across America.
Hannibal sounds just like Cannibal!
The problems of/with the human mind go much deeper than any college instructor or wordcraft spoken.
The government allowed programming starts at a very early age..
Report comment
The Underground History of American Education.
It all makes sense now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT0k57tAHo&index=2&list=PL7lYeAfdwVKbgyhYXMSRYHMw3vMBDxK7Y
Report comment
..
Report comment
I think you meant the government planned programming not allowed it Obewan! Having control over programmed people is easier than people that think for themselves and dare to question authority! I was a "Free range" baby boomer and we had to read Animal Farm and The Jungle and understand it to get into high school, along with being able to read write and add and subtract!
Report comment
Of course and you/we are the government and you/we own all the airways so all you see is government programming and should be free.
Report comment
China on Sunday allowed pension funds managed by local governments to invest in the stock market for the first time, potentially channeling hundreds of billions of yuan into the country's struggling equity market.An investor looks at an electronic board showing stock information in Hangzhou, China, on Aug. 18, 2015.
China Daily | Reuters
An investor looks at an electronic board showing stock information in Hangzhou, China, on Aug. 18, 2015.
China on Sunday allowed pension funds managed by local governments to invest in the stock market for the first time, potentially channeling hundreds of billions of yuan into the country's struggling equity market.
China published a draft rule on the move for public consultation on June 30, at the height of a recent stock market rout. The State Council, or cabinet, published the finalized rules on Sunday after shares slumped nearly 12 percent last week, the worst weekly performance since June. What a better time to invest peoples' pensions but when cash infusion is needed! http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/23/china-gives-pension-funds-access-to-stock-market.html
The Wall Street Journal also reported Sunday that the People's Bank of China is preparing to add liquidity to its banking system, adding that the move could come before the end of the month.
Report comment
Strange days straight ahead..
http://www.zetatalk.com/newsletr/archives.htm
http://ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com/2015/08/strange-beams-of-lights-are-seen-all.html
Report comment
I don't think any of us realize how "strange" it is going to get.
Report comment
Things are pretty strange already..
Report comment
Indeed.
Report comment
http://www.rt.com/news/313176-tokyo-factory-blaze-airport/
Report comment
Gee! 1973? Better hold on with both hands..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Wd037tmJM
Report comment
obewan I graduated high school in 73 after watching your 1973 and remembering what was going on nuke plants start up, gas lines, hard to get a job, know wonder I became a dead head for the next 20 years. Seems like he nailed it and the world is simply out of control with with no leaders or plan to fix our situation!!
Report comment
n 1973 I was in high school and we joked around about how fucked up the government is and how they are probably behind drug smuggling etc. then proved correct (Iran Contra fiasco). I did very well out of school I cut my long hair and started working as a machinist…making ball screws for nuclear power plants! Peace man!
Report comment
I graduated high school in 73 too. Worked in the woods a couple of years, 4 more in the air farce. Didn’t really start yelling and screaming till I got out in 79. I get the feeling there’s a lot of us screamers here from the 60s 70s 80s.
Dead Head, so sad but correct, “ the world is simply out of control with no leaders or plan to fix our situation!! “
We could sure use a plan.
Report comment
There is a plan, but very few are listening.
Report comment
Seems to me Doc, the plan is to have no plan, and go there as fast as we can. Few notice indeed.
To be honest, I haven’t yelled much in 10 years. I stumbled on Enenews two years after Fuku went boomx4 (b3+B1 ?). Now, I’m about to stop talking about the ocean, pink sky and chemtrails too, no one wants to hear/seems to care about … anything.
Report comment
There are people out there on this planet who do want to hear the truth. One might think this info would sell itself, but those who desire to know aren't roaming around in droves as some may think. Pick your places and find the times there will be some who desire to hear that will cross paths with you sometime. Keep yelling, a few want to know the truth.
Report comment
Yep.
Report comment
Black Monday: China stocks slide most since 2007 The Shanghai composite has closed 8.5 percent in the red, as Beijing’s measures have failed to ease investor's concerns about the slowdown of the world's second-largest economy.
Asian markets followed China with a broad selloff.
Japan's Nikkei has closed 4.6 percent down.
http://www.rt.com/business/313180-china-market-crash-monday/ Hong Kong's Hang Seng is 5.21 percent in deficit.
Mumbai's Sensex is down over 4 percent in late trading.
The ripple effects are being felt on the European markets.
London's FTSE is down 2.5 percent in early trading.
Germany’s DAX is losing over three percent, sliding below the 10,000-point mark for the first time since January. In a few hours it will be US tern already down 350+-
Report comment
US stock market was down 1000 in just first few minutes today.. went back up though.
Has china put the 50 percent of all deleted stocks back on the exchange?
Report comment
Two quakes 4.5, 4.8 near fuk nothing to get willy nilly about but the week is young by the end of this week the world will be changing faster than ever for the worst.
Report comment
I think that trashing any scientist who is helping the anti-Nuke movement is only helping to build more nuclear power plants around the earth. The voice of non-scientists will never shout out the voice of scientists.
Fukushima along with all the other sources of radiation contamination is undoubtedly an ELE. Arguing whether 5,000 will die or 63,000,000 will die from Fukushima is just the pot calling the kettle black.
There will be many billions who will die from radiation exposure. The number will depend solely on how fast this ELE will unfold.
So far, I only see today Dr. Scampa and Dr. Caldicott stating anything near the terrible consequences of all the nuclear disasters. But then the consequences were predicted in the 1940s also. And so-called civilization is still rushing toward the end like a train speeding ever faster even after it has left the rails.
Trashing the scientists who are working from the data present (which the Japanese government and the nuclear cabal are hiding) is not focussing on anything positive.
Calling me a zealot and a wallpaperer are also evidence that those who trash the scientists who support the anti-Nuke movement use name-calling as the most effective method to keep the nuclear cabal in power.
Until people unite to save the children and ban all nuclear technology there is no hope for the future. This is being realistic, not being a zealot.
Report comment
We need to shame these scientists who are but grant whores.
Report comment
Correct and it is all much worse than any of these people can imagine..including our scientists.
The results are playing out in real time worldwide…
Report comment
Yeah with nukes it's not a matter of if but when and how much, nothing less! There is no reason for them to exist other than to make more bombs. United States should ban them and every other country should be banned from it I'm all for our military going to war to make that happen! Shut them down or face your maker!
Report comment
Does anyone want to see bat~shit crazy? Here is some..how can any species treat each other this way?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3205754/Blood-oozed-soil-grave-sites-pits-alive-secrets-Ukraine-s-shameful-Holocaust-Bullets-killing-centre-1-6million-Jews-executed.html
Mind control is paramount..always.
Report comment
O You seem to really LOVE that dailymail
Report comment
Yes, it appears to be the only internet site that covers real news properly…
Report comment
i kinda like the daily mail. ken addeco hates daily mail so it must be alright
Report comment
Did the sores on fish look like this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3208750/Brave-psoriasis-sufferer-left-feeling-like-freak-proudly-shows-painful-red-welts-covering-97-body-decade-cruel-taunts-stares.html
Report comment