I'm not sure if this blogger has been referenced at RI before - he's doing a sterling job of keeping us informed about fukushima, where the msm is failing miserably.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by coffin_dodger » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:58 am
by Nordic » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:24 am
Industry Views Prevail on Radiation Risks
Health experts unheard on health effects of Fukushima
By Steve Rendall and Patrick Morrison
U.S. media coverage of the nuclear disaster in Japan contains vanishingly little serious discussion of the human health risks posed by the radiation escaping from the Fukushima nuclear facility.
In place of a discussion informed by experts on these risks, journalism largely conveys vague, industry-friendly reassurances, frequently including no sources with expertise on the health effects of radiation on humans.
New York Times reporter William Broad reported (3/22/11) that “health experts” deemed a radiation plume that had reached the U.S. from Japan to be harmless:
Health experts said that the plume’s radiation had been diluted enormously in its journey of thousands of miles and that—at least for now, with concentrations so low—its presence will have no health consequences in the United States. In a similar way, faint radiation from the Chernobyl disaster spread around the globe and reached the West Coast in 10 days, its levels detectable but minuscule.
Who were Broad’s “health experts”? He didn’t name any, unless you count the Department of Energy, which is better known for promoting nuclear energy than for its medical expertise. Broad wrote that the DOE said that the radiation plumes, in his words, “posed no health hazard.”
There is scientific disagreement about the risks of ionizing radiation. Some scientists hold that there’s no evidence that low-level radiation is harmful (e.g., Health Physics Society, 7/10), or insist, for instance, that the accidental radiation release at Three Mile Island caused little or no harm to humans (NRC Backgrounder, 8/09). But the prevailing scientific view is that there’s no threshold below which radiation exposure is safe—in other words, that all radiation, including the ever-present background radiation, is a potential health risk—and that the risk decreases linearly, so that even decreasing a radiation dose by 99 percent still leaves 1 percent of the risk. According to this “linear, no-threshold” model of radiation risk, a given amount of human radiation exposure will produce the same number of cancers, no matter how many people it is distributed among.
In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences concluded, in the final paragraph of its 323-page report on the biological effect of ionizing radiation, that current scientific evidence “is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.”
An Extra! survey of New York Times and Washington Post coverage and commentary on the first eight days of the Fukushima story found that Broad’s reporting was typical. Out of 89 Fukushima articles appearing in the two papers during the period (3/12–19/11), no story mentioned the NAS’s conclusions specifically, nor generally described the notion that there was no safe level of radiation exposure.
Just 6 percent of total sources were presented as health experts—that is, medical or scientific experts with specialized knowledge of the effects of ionizing radiation on humans—and of these, only two-thirds were actually identified by name. These sources were used to comment on, for instance, comparisons between the Fukushima and Chernobyl accidents, the wisdom of taking iodine to ward off thyroid cancer, whether or not Japanese imports posed a threat to the U.S., and the levels of radiation exposure facing Japanese reactor workers and civilians.
With few exceptions, these sources did not play down radiation risks in Japan, but neither paper cited a single health expert warning that radiation from Japan might pose any real threat to the United States. For instance, regarding the radioactive plume passing over the U.S. from Japan, the Times (3/19/11) quoted a spokesperson from the California Department of Public Health saying that “all data from state and federal sources show that harmful levels of radiation won’t reach California.’’
In the case of the unnamed experts, identified, for instance, as “health experts,” “scientists” or “studies,” it wasn’t clear that the journalists had actually consulted with sources. For instance, the Times (3/17/11) reported, “Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable.”
So dismissive was the coverage of health concerns that among articles that mentioned radiation and human health issues, just 30 percent (17 of 57) included one or more sources identified or presented as a health experts including unnamed sources—a rate that held constant in both papers.
Reassuring claims were often attributed to sources with no identified expertise in relevant scientific fields, as in a Times article (3/16/11) that reported that “experts say” Japanese officials had “taken precautions” concerning public health that would prevent Fukushima from “becoming another Chernobyl, even if additional radiation is released.”
Journalists may like to seek simple (and reassuring) answers from “science,” but science is rarely so straightforward. A 1990 Columbia University study found that local increases in cancers following the Three Mile Island accident couldn’t be conclusively attributed to radiation releases (American Journal of Epidemiology, 9/90). But a 1997 follow-up by the University of North Carolina, led by epidemiologist Steve Wing (see "Coverage of Radiation Risks 'Astonishingly Irresponsible,'" Extra!, 7/11), faulted the Columbia researchers, whose court-ordered study allowed insurance companies to influence scientific questions, for accepting unreasonably low assumptions about the magnitude of radiation releases in the disaster. Wing’s team concluded that the releases had contributed to cancer increases (Environmental Health Perspectives, 1/97). Corporate journalists, however, virtually always reflect the Columbia study’s findings (e.g., Associated Press, 3/16/11; Washington Post, 9/14/10).
Even within scientific circles that acknowledge the harmful effects of low-level radiation, there is a spectrum of views. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Chernobyl assessment (2008) predicted 6,000 additional cases of thyroid cancer, but little other low-level radiation damage to people. Using some of the same data, the Union of Concerned Scientists (4/22/11) predicted that Chernobyl would end up causing 50,000 excess cancers, and 25,000 additional deaths. A large array of scientific publications assessed in the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (New York Academy of Sciences, 2009) suggested that Chernobyl has already contributed to hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
While it might be beyond the abilities of daily journalists to determine who is right in these scientific disagreements, it’s not hard to convey that they exist, a fact that would be hard to glean from corporate media. But the short history of scientific literature about the effects of ionizing radiation on humans demonstrates that the scientists who have urged more caution have had their views vindicated over time.
For decades, distinguished scientists who insisted, contra industry claims, that there was no safe level of radiation exposure suffered professional marginalization for challenging the nuclear establishment. The late nuclear chemist and medical researcher John Gofman first argued against the notion there were safe levels of radiation in the 1960s as the director of the Biomedical Research Division at the DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. Gofman’s clashes with the DOE over its notions of safe radiation levels resulted in his being stripped of research funding and his departure from Livermore in the early 1970s.
However, in recent years several major scientific organizations have adopted the views of Gofman and his colleagues. In addition to the NAS, Gofman’s no-threshold model has been adopted by the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2000), the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2001) and the United States Research Council (an arm of the NAS, 2004), among others.
In reporting on technical scientific issues such as radiation effects, journalists inexpert in the relevant fields of science are wrong to take sides. The best they can do is to inform readers on the range of opinions and the track records and relative independence of the researchers behind them. This is clearly not being done with regard to the Fukushima fallout—a failing that could have dangerous consequences.
by Nordic » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:25 am
by eyeno » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:31 pm
I permit ANYONE to copy and repost anything in the news section and run it as their own provided my name stays with it, the wording remains the same and a link to the article you used is included (readers need to be able to find their way here) I permit and encourage entire site mirrors of all my articles. Copy them and run them as your own; my topics are huge and often need distributed protection.
I answer all mails individually. If you receive no response it never reached my box.
BUSTED!!!!
"Federal government" BUSTED for forcing American nuclear industry to become a ticking time bomb
I can guage how accurate a report is by how much it gets shilled in the blogs, while being defended by intelligent people. This report is getting it a LOT worse than the Fukushima report, which got nailed bad. This one REALLY hit a nerve. This is possibly the biggest scandal in American history, and it may well destroy your future if steps are not taken by the people to force the FED to overturn the mandated lunacy which now stands as a menace to us all.
You have been told the nuclear waste must go somewhere. You have been told it needed to be stored inside a mountain in the desert, where it will sit as a threat and menace to the world for millions of years. You have been told there is nothing we can do about it. But what if you have been told a lie? What if that "spent fuel" was not spent at all? What if a technology existed which allowed the same fuel to be used over and over, twenty times in fact, and expended so fully that fuel rods would be safe enough to handle directly straight out of the reactor? Think any "spent fuel pools" would be full? And even if this never happened,
What if foreign nations, (France was one) offered us hundreds of billions of dollars for our "spent fuel" only to have the U.S. Government refuse the offer for no reason at all? Would that not solve the problem of getting rid of it? And the final question, WHY would the Fed want so much nuclear material sitting around the country, only to become a menace? Could it be that we do not have a government, and instead have a band of usurpers in power who have intentionally set us up for a fall? After reading this report, I believe you will be inclined to think so.
This report consists of hard scientific fact, and even harder answers.
In my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, and earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting a real investigation into such a disaster a responsible journalist would want that type of reference. I was surprised when my prior study of the reactor systems there was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of the reactor he never expected anyone in the media to know.
When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing, he dropped a bombshell on a totally different subject. He opened his new direction of the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order
Here is what followed that introductory line, and the reason why we need to oust the FED and start over.
The following is what he said in the interview
I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.
When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the fuel, build up in the fuel and poison the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment that will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the poisonous isotopes, and use the isotopes as fuel until the fuel is purified of them, and therefore had it's original radiological characteristics restored. Once that is accomplished, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor, and used as new.
We perfected the second reactor design, which used liquid sodium as a coolant, and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor in lieu of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which boiled the water outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - one side produced electricity while poisoning the fuel, and the other side produced electricity while burning the poisons out. This process can be repeated 20 times, and when it is finished the fuel is DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential has been used up. It was a dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!
He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all.
He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was, because the fuel is expensive, and they were only using it to about five percent of its total potential. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. REAL CHEAP. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have been a no brainer.
This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.
His take on it was that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article on Fukushima and liked it, so one would guess his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. Even still I think he missed the obvious in what he said.
Here is my take, and it has NOTHING to do with price, preservation of resources, or free energy.
Nuclear reactors are HUGE. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima can easily hold enough fissionable material to make countless atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up at a rate of 25 tons per gigawatt YEAR. This means that even small facilities like Fort Calhoun have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive "poisoned" fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster.
When GE and others designed the nuclear facilities both here and abroad, they had calculated that they would indeed succeed in closing the nuclear loop. So they designed the nuclear facilities with approximately a 20X safety margin in the fuel pools, because they did not have a clear date on when the technology would be perfected. It was my impression from this engineer that they got it sooner than expected. So fortunately the fuel pools were over built. But they were never built to withstand the fuel burdens that would result from a political decision to destroy the technology altogether.
So now, 40 years down the road, we have fuel pools around the country that are so full that they have exceeded even the extremely generous safety margins they were originally designed to have, and even modest pools often have over 400 tons of highly active isotope ridden "spent" fuel in them.
Having functional fuel pool cooling systems was never intended to be necessary. GE and others wanted one or two cores worth of fuel sitting in a pool at any one time. This would make it so that even if all cooling failed, there would be no boiling of the water in the pool, no pending disaster possible from equipment failure no matter how severe. But the way it is now, if there is any sort of attack or disaster which prevents fuel pool maintenance at any of the facilities around the country for a period exceeding three days, all hell will break loose and a nuclear disaster of unimaginable magnitude just like Fukushima will take place. And it never needed to be this way, in fact, the situation is criminal.
Upon recognizing the lunacy of America's Federally mandated nuclear sabotage, countries like France and Germany stepped up to the plate offering to buy our 5% spent fuel for billions of dollars. Heck, they were not held political hostage by a hostile government, and could certainly use a "freebie". But instead our government mandated NO transport of the fuel to foreign nations, NO FURTHER USE WHATSOEVER. Use it 5 percent, leaving 95 percent of the radiological hazard remaining, and please let it build up in a pool that needs maintenance. Shills have said it was the import/export restrictions which caused this, but since those are written by the same government that banned the closing of the "nuclear loop", the restrictions are only a further indictment of the FED for causing this problem.
Simultaneous with the intentional building of the threat from having so much nuclear material sitting around came all the government scandals and lies about needing to put the fuel somewhere. Inside a mountain in the desert. Inside a dry cask. Maybe in the ocean, all the while the general american public was kept oblivious to the obvious answer: If we are not allowed to use it because of a nonsensical piece of legislation, why not let someone else have it, when they are willing to EVEN PAY FOR IT?
Here is what I believe is the answer. And this answer needs to be spread far and wide.
Whatever you think of Kennedy, on the day of his death he was our last hope. No one since has been anything other than an enemy infiltrator, The enemy is not only inside the gates, it was getting a paycheck from you 40 years ago.
Consider this. Our government intentionally put in place policies that de-industrialized America. That's an act of war. Our government put in place policies that intentionally destroyed our schools. That's an act of war. And I consider FORCING VIA MANDATE the buildup of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of nuclear warheads worth of perfectly good reactor fuel just waiting for a disaster around the country to be an act of war as well - Only an enemy would intentionally mandate the creation of such a threat, who on earth would, other than someone who hated this country? Not only did we lose a marvelous clean virtually free energy future, that future got converted into a threat that could very easily destroy us. All it would take to kill America, with our nuclear facilities drastically overloaded with spent fuel, is 150 smart bombs. ONE BOMBING RUN AND IT IS OVER.
Here is something I posted in response to a shill, who is trolling the internet looking for any place my article on Fukushima and talk on this subject is posted, in an effort to back stab it out of the public eye. This was a tasty response, good enough to put here.
Dear Shillery
This is where I am going on this topic,
Our nation, after Kennedy has not had a true representative government, especially starting with Carter. We got over-run by outsiders who hated our guts. Up until 1973, America was going NO WHERE but UP, and anyone who wanted to see us destroyed would NEVER permit us to get virtually free energy.
So once enough legs of the "vampire squid" writhed and squirmed down our hallowed halls and meeting rooms, the death squeeze was on.
The enemy from outside COULD NOT allow us to have a technology such as this, so they HAD TO shut it down. They would lose oil profits. They would potentially lose control of energy, leaving the financial system the only means of forced compliance outside of a hot war they had to use against us, and they wanted options. True clean energy HAD TO GO.
This is a sinister enemy. It weaponizes EVERYTHING. It weaponizes sympathy, victim status, water systems, ANYTHING it can think of, and uses them to destroy. SO the nuclear industry, now blocked from a dream come true technology, could be used as a weapon.
There is plenty of proof. No shill can stop people from checking out the history of other nations, such as Germany, France and Russia offering us BILLIONS for our not so "spent" fuel, which really needs to be gotten rid of after a political decision banning technologies which allow for it's purification. It has been building up now, unnecessarily for years. To the tune of 25 tons of spent fuel per gigawatt year generated. That's a lot of "waste", and it's nasty stuff. It's the equivalent of keeping a 5,000 gallon gas tank in your bedroom. Better hope all is well with it.
I honestly feel that banning this miracle technology; you should have heard the sparkle, the awe in the old man's voice when he said they closed the "nuclear loop", and the sadness, despair and anger expressed at it's being banned; I feel it was an ACT OF WAR AGAINST AMERICA. There were never any accidents associated with this technology. NONE NADA ZIP. you can take that story and stuff it. If a problem occurred it was not related to this, and how can you prove said problem was not a "wag the dog"?
This enemy wanted this fuel building up. 25 tons a gigawatt year. WOW. That means that lowly little Fort Calhoun must have no less than 400 tons of "SPENT" fuel sitting in it's little pool by now. OUCH. Just what an enemy would want; you see -
Now, all it will take is a smart bomb, a societal breakdown, a natural disaster and POOF, fuel pool goes up in smoke and AMERICA IS FINISHED. Multiply that by Browns Ferry, Prairie Island, and over 100 others all across America. Tyranny's dream come true. Just what the enemy would want, and it NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN.
The problem was not scientific, IT WAS POLITICAL.
I feel that man opened up and passed me the baton because he knew I would "get it" and believe me pal, SHILL, HATE AMERICA SELLOUT TO BE HUNG FROM A TREE, I will carry that baton, I will not stop with this, I got a solid dose of light from America's great past; Oh what a nation we were. Only after the likes of you are adequately flushed will we ever have hope for a future, I truly hope there is a chance;
I am spreading the word, will do it quickly, and make good and sure that if anything does blow up the blame will land squarely ON YOU.
The following text, which was posted on the Nuclear Engineering web site out at the University of Berkely California, led to the rip from a shill which follows it. They posted the picture Reference with the quote "Jim Stone - STILL STUNNING THE WORLD"
This starts where I stepped into the conversation after finding them in my site stats.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-21 08:15.
Hi, I found you in my site stats. Thanks for the support! Btw, 85 year old nuclear engineers with over 100 patents filed for GE does not constitute "teenager" let alone the (several) others in their 50's who have sent me info that is going to blow you away in the next report.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate this post.
Jim Stone
» * reply Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-21 20:05.
Thanks Jim, looking forward to the next report. Will we be seeing it soon?
» * reply Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-21 08:30.
Jim, it's starting to click. Thinking this scenario could be the path of least resistance.
» * reply Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-22 05:19.
I am going to release a preliminary version of the report tomorrow before I go on the air, for people to look at for reference.
I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked for GE and designed the reactors at Fukushima. He had nothing new to contribute about the reactor design, ect (not that the public would understand) but after answering my questions he went on to tell me something very interesting.
You guys probably might find this hard to believe, but I am going to tell you exactly what he told me.
He said that the team he was on at GE succeeded in closing the "nuclear loop". I did not know what that was, and he went on to explain -
When fuel is consumed in a boiling water or other water cooled reactor it produces isotopes which poison the chain reaction and produce unfavorable conditions. Once the isotopes build up to a certain level - he said about 5 percent depletion of fuel, their presence becomes dominant and it interferes with proper reactor operation. So the fuel has to be pulled out.
GE was working on a technology to do away with this problem, and here is exactly how he described it. He said NOTHING about re-processing, NOTHING AT ALL. HE SAID IT JUST LIKE THIS:
You take the fuel out of the water cooled reactor and put it in a sodium cooled breeder reactor. Because the materials used in the breeder reactor favor the burning of the isotopes, (one of which was liquid sodium for cooling) and also because the reactor runs much hotter(1100 farenheit vs 550 in a BWR (I filled that in, I studied them well enough) ONLY the isotopes are burned off in the breeder reactor, and once their interfering characteristics are removed from the reaction, the fuel, at 5 percent depleted works perfect when put back into the boiling water reactor, with NO REPROCESSING NEEDED AT ALL. He said that this process could draw the fuel almost all the way down. He said it was good for 20 cycles. I don't know if 1 BWR cycle and 1 breeder cycle equals 2 cycles, it would make sense, but he was also adamant that you get a LOT of performance out of the breeder reactor, which can produce substantial power by vaporizing water in a heat exchanger during the isotope burn out. The impression he left indicated that the fuel was almost completely dead at the end of the process, though I don't know how you could get any performance out of it once it was used past 50 percent. I would expect reprocessing to be needed at that point, but that is not how he phrased it.
Carter banned this technology by executive order on his third day in office, and as a result, 25 tons per gigawatt per year have been building up in fuel pools across the country. GE never intended to have the fuel pools filled, they expected to have the technology fully perfected by the mid 70's and succeeded in this goal, only to have a political decision shut it all down.
He lamented the buidup of so much fuel at American nuclear facilities, mostly from an economic standpoint. I lamented the buildup because it is a FREAKING HAZARD. The fuel pools were NEVER designed to have so much fuel in them, GE's original intention was to have maybe TWO reactor core's worth of fuel in a pool, not 40. So the fuel pools are overloaded now, and if ANYTHING happens, a war, a collapse, ect, and the nuclear facilities are not maintained, these fuel pools will go ballistic and wreck the country.
SO
My main focus will be to try to convince people to do something about it - to overturn that executive order and allow the miracle GE created to be used to burn this fuel off, which absent selling so much fuel would require America to run on ONLY nuclear power for at least 80 years. My fear is that the legislation was put in place to weaponize America's nuclear program to be used against us in the future. It's a little hard to argue with because:
1. This technology would have extended the life of the fuel by 20X according to this engineer, which would mean that after all these years AT MOST there would be two cores sitting in each fuel pool as opposed to sometimes 40,
2. France offered to pay us billions for our "spent" fuel which is in fact very valuable, while our government instead opted to just let it build up and then pump the nuclear waste propaganda endlessly, to make people fear and hate nuclear power. There was never a need for this; with reprocessing and the "closed loop" cycle, there should not be ANY nuclear "waste" ANYWHERE. It's all a scam and hoax. According to this engineer, the reprocessing he spoke of is NOT what the French are doing now. It was a better solution.
I will be back to see if this passes muster on this forum, if anyone has any comments, NOW IS THE TIME FOR THEM, I will discuss this on THRUSDAY.
Thanks,
Jim Stone
The post got a real venomous shill response, which follows
* reply this is a fantasy
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-22 05:49.
Like Dr. Chivers, R. Cromack and at least one other person who has posted here, I am a former U.S. Navy 'bubblehead' (submariner) who served aboard nuclear boats. I'm no longer in the service but my civilian profession keeps me "in the loop" and I deal with Electric Boat on a weekly basis, as well as techreps from GE and other defense contractors. I've heard this sort of rumor before, and it is b.s.
I've also heard scuttlebutt about some sort of "nuclear inhibitor" technology that was supposedly developed by DoD and which is now being deliberately withheld by the Navy from TEPCO and he IAEA as part of some vaguely defined U.S. power play or blackmail or the like. This is also bullshit. This sort of cockamamie nonsense always seems to follow disaster, always has, ever since JFK was shot in Dallas I've been listening to some damn fool or other spout off about the Mafia or the CIA or little green men. Hard times bring the nuts falling right out of the trees.
Problem is, these idiots used to always be relegated to their bar stools or their soup kitchens or their own family's kitchen tables, and now the Internet allows them to spin their crap for all the world to see, and there are always a few fools who'll listen to them and encourage them to keep spreading lies, fallacies and hysteria. Just look at this bunch here: HAARP. That European conference. Gaia ascending whatever the hell that means. And now Jimmy Carter! Give me a break.
If I were BRAWM I'd shut this forum down and tell everyone to go screw themselves. They've been nothing but upfront with you people and all you can do is bitch and piss and moan, and question their motives and undermine them. You people are ungrateful, pathetic asses.
For the record, NO fuel cycle exists without the production of undesireable by-products. Might as well.wish for a difference engine, for all the good it'll do you. But, then, I suppose you think that big, bad private enterprise or the military or the government covered up that invention, too, right? Maybe that was President Peanut's FOURTH executive order - the first being outlawing the tooth fairy, and the second ordering an assassination of Kris Kringle.
This is the typical shillage you expect. Lots of insults, little substance.
It is important to note that President Carter was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine. The fact that the only people shilling this "nuclear loop" are reactor operators from nuclear submarines makes their efforts reek of a psy op. Perhaps Carter himself posted to this blog, for a payoff, I am being closely watched now by powerful political figures, I have recieved notice that the Pentgon, Russia's military, India and China, those four countries are taking my Fukushima report to heart at an official level. The Pentagon probably is a threat, they have GOT to know Fukushima was a set up. I think Russia was suspicious and India and China learned from me.
My response to sub guy follows
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-22 18:40.
So now I know what the lying opposition is. This nuclear engineer was a friend of the family, positively identified, and not some scammer. You are a bold faced liar, a psy op shill sent to shoot this story down.
Go lie elsewhere, I do not pump garbage and my facts are verified back to original sources, not second hand scoops.
You might believe the lies you have been told via an SCI level clearance, but lies are lies and that is that.
This man did not lie.
If there are any REAL nuclear engineers willing to come forward and fill in REAL details rather than be a scamming shill, I am still open to response.
Jim stone
» * reply
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-22 19:04.
Jim, ignore the shill. It might be Cromack actually.
Keep posting please. Keep posting please. All discussions are allowed.
» * reply
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2011-06-22 18:56.
It is my worry that this technology did indeed get swept under the rug, and only his team knew about it. If so, it is the job of those who work for the corrupted government to keep the truth buried.
He was very clear about it - the fuel was safe to handle directly after being burned down to virtually zero. This does make sense, because before being put in a reactor to begin with, it is not all that dangerous. If you could burn every last isotope out of it, it simply would not be that dangerous. He did not fill in these guesses of mine, but it does make sense; logical progression supports his story.
And, as a shill, it would be your job to rip me for this "guess". Go ahead, I am now in a position now to ram it down your throat anyway. It got back to me this morning that the Chinese DOD, Russian Defense forces, Indian defense forces and the Pentagon picked up my story and are analyzing it as I write this. So the French, Saudis and even the Island of St Lucia will be onto it soon. I figured that would happen after page views hit about 50,000 which happened LONG LONG AGO.
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html
by The Consul » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:31 am
coffin_dodger wrote:I'm not sure if this blogger has been referenced at RI before - he's doing a sterling job of keeping us informed about fukushima, where the msm is failing miserably.
http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/
by seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:32 pm
Major earthquake strikes off the northern coast of Japan
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 9, 2011 10:22 p.m. EDT
(CNN) -- A major earthquake struck off northeastern Japan Sunday, prompting tsunami advisories for several coastal regions, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) said.
There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage, according to the Japanese news agency Kyodo.
The U.S. Geological Survey said the earthquake struck at 10:57 a.m. at the epicenter, about 130 miles east of Sendai.
The earthquake was more than 20 miles deep and had a magnitude of 7.0, the USGS said.
The JMA measured the magnitude of the quake at 7.1.
Tsunami advisories were issued for the coastal regions of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima, the JMA said.
The areas were among the hardest hit by this year's devastating earthquake and tsunami.
Officials in Ofunato, a city in Iwate, advised residents to evacuate.
The JMA forecast the height of the tsunami could reach half a meter (about 20 inches).
No immediate abnormalities were reported at nearby nuclear facilities, according to Kyodo.
Three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered meltdowns after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that devastated northern Japan. The tsunami swamped the plant and knocked out cooling systems that kept the three operating reactors from overheating, leading to the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl.
Tremors from Sunday's quake were felt as far away as Tokyo.
"It's just a continuing of the aftershocks of that devastating 9.0," said Dale Grant, a geophysicist with the USGS, referring to the March quake. "These kinds of aftershocks are likely to occur for some time."
by StarmanSkye » Sat Jul 09, 2011 11:45 pm
by Stephen Morgan » Sun Jul 10, 2011 2:46 am
by eyeno » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:01 pm
Report: North Carolina nuclear facility with superheated uranium leaking ten gallons of radioactive cooling water per hour
Ethan A. Huff
Natural News
A nuclear research reactor at North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, NC, was recently shut down after it was discovered that the plant has been leaking about ten gallons of nuclear cooling water per hour for at least the past week. Officials from the university, however, claim that the leak, which stems from the 15,000 gallons of water used to cool the superheated uranium reactor core, poses "no public health threat."
The announcement comes on the heels of several others involving US nuclear plants, including the potentially ill-fated Fort Calhoun Nuclear facility near Omaha, Neb. (http://www.naturalnews.com/032870_F...), and the Los Alamos National Laboratory that was threatened by wildfires last week (http://www.naturalnews.com/032871_w...). In the NC case, reports do not indicate why radioactive cooling water is leaking from the facility, but its operators insist, just like the experts associated with the other nuclear plants are doing, that everything is just fine.
"The leak is the size of a pinhead," said NCSU spokeswoman Caroline Barnhill concerning the incident, in an attempt to quell concern. The school insists that the radioactive water poses no threat whatsoever to humans or to the environment because exposure to it is allegedly the equivalent of undergoing an X-ray. The school also says that because the leak is under 350 gallons per hour, it did not even have to notify the public about it (but decided to anyway).
It is interesting how every time there is a radioactive discrepancy, experts insist that it is harmless -- and they almost always, especially in recent days, refer to it as being no different than an X-ray.
Worried about the radiation emitted by naked body scanners at the airport? Do not worry, they say, it is just like getting an X-ray. Radioactive water is leaking from a nuclear facility? No worries -- it is no different than an X-ray.
Even in Japan, just after the massive earthquake and tsunami hit Fukushima, experts basically ordered people not to worry because the radioactive fallout was no different than "a chest X-ray," they falsely said (http://www.naturalnews.com/031759_r...).
If radiation was not the serious, deadly substance that it is, such idiotic propositions about its safety would be humorous. Every disaster, after all, whether it is a small water leak or a three-core nuclear meltdown, ends up being the equivalent of an X-ray and nothing more. And as silly as it sounds, experts routinely use the line about X-rays in their attempts to placate the public and rock it back to sleep.
Reports do not indicate very many details about the situation at NCSU, other than to denounce that it is of any danger whatsoever. But clearly this statement alone is untrue based on the X-ray explanation, because X-rays themselves are dangerous and are known to cause cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/X-rays.html).
So to suggest that the radioactive water leak in NC poses absolutely no threat is itself a lie by default. And if experts are willing to lie about the little things, there is no telling what else they might be hiding from the public.
Sources for this story include:
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?secti ... id=8236927
by Nordic » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:14 pm
by coffin_dodger » Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:06 am
by StarmanSkye » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:35 pm
by crikkett » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:50 pm
Nordic wrote:All these leaks and meltdowns are just a conspiracy to get us to go big on the Thorium reactors.
by norton ash » Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:08 pm
The Nut Island effect describes a human resources condition in which a team of skilled employees becomes isolated from distracted top managers resulting in a catastrophic loss of the ability of the team to perform an important mission. The term was coined by Paul F. Levy, a former Massachusetts state official, in an article in the Harvard Business Review published in 2001. The article outlines a situation which resulted in massive pollution of Boston Harbor, and proposes that the name of the facility involved be applied to similar situations in other business enterprises. The work is used as a source in human resources management case studies and is featured on the websites of several business management consulting firms and health care institutions.
by coffin_dodger » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:11 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 154 guests