A Coverup -California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan

[onawah]

Um, let's see--you originally wrote that you think the thread should express both points of view.
And now you say you think the thread should be closed?
And you think there have been no deaths in Japan from radiation.
You claim you have shown fear regarding the dangers of radiation from Fukushima to be false and "fear porn".
I'm no expert, but I would say that kind of thing fits the usual profile of a disinfo campaign, designed to cover up the truth.
I think there are reasons not to worry too much about Fukushima, because I think Gaia herself will eventually clean up the mess as her frequencies rise, and of course, some think that is just pie in the sky delusional optimism.
But I don't claim that there are not clear and present dangers at this time from exposure to radiation, which is lunacy, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't understand your reasoning, and I think it would be to your own benefit to start your own thread and explain it, so no one will have to sift through this thread to find out why you think what you think.

[giovonni]

from Jeff Rense ~ http://rense.com/

The latest on Japan's Nuclear Disaster ...

NEW ~ Michael Collins
Radiation Update
Monday 11.12.12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...ins_111212.mp3

Also ~

NEW ~ Yoichi Shimatsu
Japan Update
Monday 11.12.12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...tsu_111212.mp3

[TargeT]

Posted by onawah (here)
But I don't claim that there are not clear and present dangers at this time from exposure to radiation, which is lunacy, as far as I'm concerned.

why do you consider it lunacy? what if exposure was actually good for you?

this thread explains how we have been mislead on radiation and its supposed dangers:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-nuclear-scam-

it also tells how radiation is actually good for you (especially at the ultra low levels present in Japan)


This thread continues to update an old baseless fear (of radiation), I think its good to monitor the progress but not add words like "threat" especially "threat as high as japan" which clearly has no threat (as time has shown).

[giovonni]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
But I don't claim that there are not clear and present dangers at this time from exposure to radiation, which is lunacy, as far as I'm concerned.

why do you consider it lunacy? what if exposure was actually good for you?

this thread explains how we have been mislead on radiation and its supposed dangers:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-nuclear-scam-

it also tells how radiation is actually good for you (especially at the ultra low levels present in Japan)


This thread continues to update an old baseless fear (of radiation), I think its good to monitor the progress but not add words like "threat" especially "threat as high as japan" which clearly has no threat (as time has shown).

highlighted text (above) is pure nonsense ...

[TargeT]

Posted by giovonni (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
But I don't claim that there are not clear and present dangers at this time from exposure to radiation, which is lunacy, as far as I'm concerned.

why do you consider it lunacy? what if exposure was actually good for you?

this thread explains how we have been mislead on radiation and its supposed dangers:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-nuclear-scam-

it also tells how radiation is actually good for you (especially at the ultra low levels present in Japan)


This thread continues to update an old baseless fear (of radiation), I think its good to monitor the progress but not add words like "threat" especially "threat as high as japan" which clearly has no threat (as time has shown).

highlighted text (above) is pure nonsense ...

your statement is based on what? your "feelings" ?

mine is based on research & a book.

This book:

Why "All things are poison; nothing is poison." You may not believe the following claims now, but you will after reading this book. * Low levels of radiation don't harm us. * Our fear of tiny traces of radiation stops us from tapping a limitless source of clean energy. * We could improve our health by increasing our exposure to radiation! For one thing, it may well reduce the risk of cancer. Hiserodt reminds us of a cardinal rule of pharmacology: "the poison is in the dose." Just as arsenic and salt are deadly poisons in large enough doses but necessary nutrients in much smaller amounts, copious data have been reported for decades showing that exposure to low levels of radiation (but considerably more than people normally receive) can actually increase one's health (a stimulatory effect called hormesis). Alas, though researchers have scrupulously recorded such data, when it comes to drawing conclusions they too often ignore their findings or treat them as a fluke. This subject that "very few of us understand" may seem intimidating at first, but Ed Hiserodt is the perfect guide -- friendly, clear, knowledgeable, and not a little irreverent. Step by step, he spells out the basic physics, tours the evidence he has spent years pondering, flays flimsy claims, and opens the door to exciting possibilities. Put it this way: if you're worried about the radon in your home... don't be. You'll also learn: What the media hasn't told you about Chernobyl, Three Mile Island... and the survivors of Hiroshima. * What we could do with the radioactive "waste" that we now try to get rid of. * What gravity, sound, heat, light -- and ionizing radiation -- all have in common. * Which is most dangerous: a reactor leak... a pint of salad oil... or a handful of dirt? * How did X-rays help Professor Shrader's Guinea pigs survive the diphtheria bacillus? * Why it's impossible to steal nuclear fuel from a functioning reactor. Sorry, Mr. Terrorist.

http://www.amazon.com/Underexposed-W.../dp/0930073355

You see, a part of being open minding is the willingness to challange your strongly held beliefs (and they are JUST THAT, beliefs)

Definition of BELIEF


1

: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing


2

: something believed; especially: a tenet or body of tenets held by a group


3

: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Your demonstrated belief does not appear to fit the definition of the word closely enough.

[modwiz]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by onawah (here)
But I don't claim that there are not clear and present dangers at this time from exposure to radiation, which is lunacy, as far as I'm concerned.

why do you consider it lunacy? what if exposure was actually good for you?

this thread explains how we have been mislead on radiation and its supposed dangers:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...-nuclear-scam-

it also tells how radiation is actually good for you (especially at the ultra low levels present in Japan)


This thread continues to update an old baseless fear (of radiation), I think its good to monitor the progress but not add words like "threat" especially "threat as high as japan" which clearly has no threat (as time has shown).

Ben Fulford used to be a regular on Rense until 3/11. Rense gets alot of eyeballs for his Fukushima focus. Ben told him he was being hysterical and that there was no danger and he would be staying in Japan as proof.

Ben has serious skin in the ideas you are putting forth here. I made a similar comment to yours on another forum shortly after 3/11 and got called all kinds of names and things. I spoke of the possibility for positive DNA mutation from the effects of radiation. One brave member, listened to me and was open to considering there might be some merit to my thinking. Especially since the inevitable exposure they feared looked better with a positive attitude.

[giovonni]

i have said more than once, we as humans have been all along transmuting the affects of radiation via the cosmos's, but (in my opinion) i do not feel what is being perpetrated in Fukushma is the same thing with its effects because of the erratic ways the radiation has and apparently continues to be released within our environment... But saying that only time will tell the rest of this story...?

And note again ~ i will continue to post the updates

[giovonni]

In fairness and without fear ~ truth to me has always been found in the middle ground ....

Mote ~ Here's a most recent news article study in regards to radiation ...

***********

Even Low-Level Radioactivity Is Damaging, Scientists Conclude

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2012) — Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health...

Read more - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1113134224.htm

[TargeT]

Posted by giovonni (here)
In fairness and without fear ~ truth to me has always been found in the middle ground ....

Mote ~ Here's a most recent news article study in regards to radiation ...

***********

Even Low-Level Radioactivity Is Damaging, Scientists Conclude

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2012) — Even the very lowest levels of radiation are harmful to life, scientists have concluded in the Cambridge Philosophical Society's journal Biological Reviews. Reporting the results of a wide-ranging analysis of 46 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 40 years, researchers from the University of South Carolina and the University of Paris-Sud found that variation in low-level, natural background radiation was found to have small, but highly statistically significant, negative effects on DNA as well as several measures of health...

Read more - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1113134224.htm

This is an excelent demonstration of how science has mostly been corrupted when funded in the ways most of it is (Government funding); this looks like possibly the sloppiest most gross missuse of statistical analysis I have ever seen; however the paper it's self is hidden behind a pay site (which I am not willing to pay for at this time) and so hidden from public & hard to review ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...EA8C07B.d03t03 )

Collecting statistics from other studies that were held for reasons other than the intended statistic is terrible science. Looking for desired statistics is like looking for a car of similar make as yours while driving down the road, yes you are going to find it & probably think to your self "wow, there's more of these out there than i considered".

since this is not even a study, but a number crunch of other studies with weak statements like: "The frequency of negative effects was beyond that of random chance." which imply that they were close enough to random chance that this statement had to be made, I find it hard to give it much weight.

Of course this is comming from my biased opinion that modern science is used to look for a desired out come, not reality; especially when coming from "univercities".

examples of this are: the Lipid theory (killing millions through the demonization of cholesterol & natural fatty foods, science has repeadedly proven this wrong emperically yet studies continue to slide out of univercities showing that fat is bad and carbs are good).

I've read several of the historical studies from the US and around the world written on radiation exposure, used for the current guidelines; and they are at best very weak, most being based on "hear say" or a select few cases where less than 10 subjects were involved in uncontrolled situations; I assume these are NOT the studies referenced in the above statistical analysis (Note: it is not even a study itself) as they generaly deal with higher doses; it is unfortunate that more information is not presented on the sources (the reference list is even hidden behind a pay site).

This is a not a very good "other side" example from my point of view, surely there is an actual study on this topic?

I'll see if i can find one.

Here MIT does a study (not statistical analysis) on this topic directly:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/p...sure-0515.html

A new look at prolonged radiation exposure

MIT study suggests that at low dose-rate, radiation poses little risk to DNA.

A new study from MIT scientists suggests that the guidelines governments use to determine when to evacuate people following a nuclear accident may be too conservative.

The study, led by Bevin Engelward and Jacquelyn Yanch and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that when mice were exposed to radiation doses about 400 times greater than background levels for five weeks, no DNA damage could be detected.

Current U.S. regulations require that residents of any area that reaches radiation levels eight times higher than background should be evacuated. However, the financial and emotional cost of such relocation may not be worthwhile, the researchers say.

“There are no data that say that’s a dangerous level,” says Yanch, a senior lecturer in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. “This paper shows that you could go 400 times higher than average background levels and you’re still not detecting genetic damage. It could potentially have a big impact on tens if not hundreds of thousands of people in the vicinity of a nuclear powerplant accident or a nuclear bomb detonation, if we figure out just when we should evacuate and when it’s OK to stay where we are.”

Until now, very few studies have measured the effects of low doses of radiation delivered over a long period of time. This study is the first to measure the genetic damage seen at a level as low as 400 times background (0.0002 centigray per minute, or 105 cGy in a year).

“Almost all radiation studies are done with one quick hit of radiation. That would cause a totally different biological outcome compared to long-term conditions,” says Engelward, an associate professor of biological engineering at MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/p...sure-0515.html


Another article (which I view as minorly more significant than the originally quoted article).

Some people went into Hiroshima the first day after dropping of the A-bomb when much but not all of the radiation contaminants had dissipated through wind currents. These persons suffered less cancer, had better lifetime immunity, and enjoyed longer lives than people who visited Hiroshima two or more days after the mushroom cloud, when radiation particles had even further dissipated.4
...
Workers at Los Alamos who worked in factories generating radioactive substances, who followed appropriate safe-handling practices received, on average, a three-fold higher exposure to plutonium than the maximum recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection. People who worked at Los Alamos in factories generating radioactive substances have had less cancer and better immunity, and lived extended lives.7
The proportion of the total number of such exposed workers who have died has been 57% lower than in the general population, and 43% lower than among Los Alamos workers who were not exposed.8
All this contradicts the "solidly established concept" in environmental health that the effects of toxic agents climb on a continuum of biological change from undetectable effects at the lowest levels of exposure to severe health damage at very high doses. That concept is based on assumption of a straight line from low risk at very low dose radiation to extreme risk at very high doses. But no test that has ever been conducted confirmed its predictions around the lower end.9

http://www.townsendletter.com/Jan200...ybombs0105.htm

[giovonni]

Thanks again ~ Targe T for your posting and contributions to the thread

[TargeT]

This study seems to offer both points of view

Whole-body responses to low-level radiation exposure: new concepts in mammalian radiobiology.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17379086

This one looks like a study, but I can't find any data really..( though its from the EPA, so facts are the last thing I'd expect to find... Haha)

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understa...h_effects.html


This one has some extremely high subject numbers (over 100,000, which is questionable to me) & states as little as 100 microsverts is bad

Low-Level Radiation Exposure Increases Leukemia Risk Says US/Ukraine Study

http://enformable.com/2012/11/low-le...ukraine-study/

So it seems like you can pick and choose your studies on this topic; an unfortunate amount of contradiction seems prevalent

[giovonni]

From Targe T ...

So it seems like you can pick and choose your studies on this topic; an unfortunate amount of contradiction seems prevalent

Having learned this first hand at the university level ... Statistics can be used to support or undercut almost any argument ...

Giovonni

[giovonni]

Again ~ from Jeff Rense ~ http://rense.com/

The latest on Japan's Nuclear Disaster ...

NEW ~ Michael Collins
Radiation Update
Monday 11.19.12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...ins_111912.mp3

Also ~

NEW ~ Yoichi Shimatsu
Japan Update
Monday 11.19.12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...tsu_111912.mp3

[giovonni]

An interesting ongoing project in the Ukraine...

***********

Giant 100-meter sarcophagus constructed at Chernobyl nuclear plant (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

http://rt.com/news/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement-773/

***

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=en3rQy0Hcq4

https://youtube.com/watch?v=en3rQy0Hcq4

Descriptive:

Published on Nov 28, 2012 by Brian Willian

FAIR USE NOTICE:

We are making this material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of
any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purpose.

[giovonni]

Fukushima Update
Tracking Japan's nuclear crisis


Read the latest here - http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/

[TargeT]

Posted by giovonni (here)
An interesting ongoing project in the Ukraine...

***********

Giant 100-meter sarcophagus constructed at Chernobyl nuclear plant (PHOTOS, VIDEO)

http://rt.com/news/chernobyl-new-safe-confinement-773/

The construction site has been deployed just 200 meters from the existing sarcophagus.

How come none of those workers have radiation protection suits on? how come there's not even exposure badges there?

the levels that near the reactor are higher than Japan ever got to & its still considered a "no man zone" for living, yet they have crews constructing this megalithic structure?

am I the only one seeing hypocrisy / contradiction here?

This is an interesting statement as well:

The shelter fund established to construct a new sarcophagus for Chernobyl has been sponsored by 28 countries and managed by the European Bank

http://www.ebrd.com/pages/homepage.shtml
President of the bank doesn't seem like a "nice guy"
http://www.ebrd.com/pages/about/who/...resident.shtml

Why are the FAO and the EBRD promoting the destruction of peasant and family farming?
http://viacampesina.org/en/index.php...family-farming


I'm sure this topic deserves more investigation.. lots of questions.

[giovonni]

I'm sure this topic deserves more investigation.. lots of questions.

And ~ i totally agree ~ Targe T

And thanks for the link to the bio to this key player in constructing the giant Chernobyl sarcophagus...
Perhaps he should adopt the sir-name 'Rothchild' to his quite distinguished and already knighted and entitled name ~ for his loyal services to the TPTB ?

EBRDPresident Sir Suma Chakrabarti



Sir Suma Chakrabarti, born in 1959 in West Bengal, India, is the sixth President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The Bank’s Board of Governors elected Sir Suma as President of the EBRD for the next four years, from July 3, 2012. He replaces Thomas Mirow, the President since 2008.

Sir Suma has extensive experience in international development economics and policy-making, as well as in designing and implementing wider public service reform.

Most recently he held the position of Permanent Secretary at the British Ministry of Justice and was its most senior civil servant. Prior to this, from 2002, he headed the UK’s Department for International Development -- formerly the Overseas Development Administration (ODA) -- where he worked closely with economies undergoing substantial reform in eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Middle East and North Africa. Sir Suma is notable for playing a key role developing the UK's successful Know-How Fund for Central and Eastern Europe and worked with the European Commission in improving its programmes in the Middle East and North Africa.

Sir Suma also worked in the late 1990s in the UK Treasury, where he was responsible for UK public expenditure, and in the early 2000s in the Cabinet Office, where he led on cross-departmental strategic issues and subsequently the management of the Cabinet agenda.

After studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics at the University of Oxford, Sir Suma took a Masters in Development Economics at the University of Sussex. He also holds honorary doctorates from the Universities of Sussex and East Anglia.

Source page: http://www.ebrd.com/pages/about/who/...resident.shtml

***********

hy·poc·ri·sy = a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude ...

Why did it take 25 years to finally act on this ..?

Obviously it was not considered an immediate concern for the then and now funding countries in regards for containing the Chernobyl nuclear disaster...?

Perhaps ~ there were other determining factors involved... Such as coverups (then) and the even (now) potential prospects for profiteering from this almost forgotten environmental disaster... ?

And ~ i imagine somewhere (presently) there are ongoing meetings of world bankers - multinational corporations and of course the corrupt governmental officials ~ Who are probably devising a fund (scheme) in doing (executing) the same actions in regards to Japan's Fukushima disaster site ?

For who knows what ungodly agendas ~ perhaps were being perpetrated there as well ?

For those out there who weren't aware of this news ?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=G-DytapvvlY

https://youtube.com/watch?v=G-DytapvvlY

Uploaded by RussiaToday on Apr 22, 2011

It was the world's worst nuclear disaster, but 25 years on, the battle to contain it continues. Building a new sarcophagus over the Chernobyl site is the most pressing issue, as a meeting of donor countries is held in Ukraine.

Also ~

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YfulqRdDbsg

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YfulqRdDbsg

Published on Apr 26, 2012 by Arkitekture

A short film based on current conditions in Chernobyl & Pripyat. Please note, I am an amateur documentary filmmaker and this documentary was made on no budget. The only cost involved were just the travel expenses to the Ukraine.

Some frequently asked questions:

Was I exposed to lots of radiation? In short, no. My dosage of radiation would of been about the same as I would have received on a long haul flight. You also get checked for contamination on the way out of the zone.

Did I have to wear any protective clothing? No, but you are not allowed to wear shorts or short sleeve shirts. You must wear long trousers and jumpers, boots or other hard wearing shoes/ Open shoes like sandals are not allowed.

How did I get access to Chernobyl? You can arrange a visit through a company called Solo-East. Google them! A private tour like I took costs $500 a day. I recommend 2-3 days if you can afford it. You will see hardly nothing in just one day. Unfortunately, you are no longer allowed inside buildings.

What camera did I use? It was a Canon 7D with a Canon 17-40mm L & Sigma 10-22mm. Sound was captured with a Sennheiser wireless radio mic and recorded on a Roland R05.

What did you edit this video with? Adobe Premiere CS5 and After Effects CS5

[giovonni]

Friday, Dec. 28, 2012

Eight U.S. sailors sue Tepco for millions for falsely downplaying Fukushima radiation exposure

Bloomberg

Tokyo Electric Power Co. is being sued for tens of millions of dollars by eight U.S. Navy sailors who claim that they were unwittingly exposed to radiation from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant meltdowns and that Tepco lied about the dangers.

The sailors aboard the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan were involved in the Operation Tomodachi disaster relief operations following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami that devastated the Tohoku region and led to the nuclear catastrophe, according to their complaint filed in U.S. federal court in San Diego on Dec. 21.

Tepco and the Japanese government conspired to create the false impression that radiation leaking from the Fukushima No. 1 plant didn't pose a threat to the sailors, according to the complaint. As a result, the plaintiffs rushed to areas that were unsafe and too close to the facility, exposing them to radiation, their lawyers said.

The Japanese government was "lying through their teeth about the reactor meltdown" crisis, as it reassured the USS Reagan crew that "everything is under control," the plaintiffs' lawyers said in the complaint. "The plaintiffs must now endure a lifetime of radiation poisoning and suffering."

The sailors are each seeking $10 million in damages, $30 million in punitive damages and a judgment requiring the creation of a $100 million fund to pay for their medical monitoring and treatments.

"We can't comment as we have not received the complaint document yet," Yusuke Kunikage, a Tepco spokesman, said Thursday. "We will consider a response after examining the claim."

In July, the Nuclear Damage Liability Facilitation Fund took control of Tepco in return for a ¥1 trillion capital injection after the disaster left the utility on the brink of bankruptcy. The utility received ¥1.4 trillion in state funds to compensate those affected by the disaster.

Source page: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20121228a3.html

Sailors aboard USS Ronald Reagan, floating off the coast of Japan, load humanitarian relief supplies March 22, 2011, into a U.S. Navy Seahawk belonging to Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 14, piloted by Lt. Cmdr. Ben Van Buskirk and Lt. Victoria Throckmorton. The pilots made several trips into tsunami-damaged towns along the coast to deliver the supplies.
T.D. Flack/Stars and Stripes

[giovonni]

Again ~ from Jeff Rense ~ http://rense.com/

The latest on Japan's Nuclear Disaster ...

NEW ~ Yoichi Shimatsu
Japan Update
Monday - 12/31/12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...tsu_123112.mp3

Also ~

NEW ~ Michael Collins
Radiation Update
Monday - 12/21/12
Free MP3 - Listen here - http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/...ins_123112.mp3

[kyleannmontana]

My friends and I have notice eye irritation here in Montana for about 6 months now. That and respiration issues seem to be a growing problem. I was wondering if all the wildfires were the cause or if radiation pollution is here now too.