Translate

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

SKYSHINE RADIATION AT FUKUSHIMA, U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTINUES ITS COMPLICITY WITH JAPAN

WE KNEW IT WAS COMING IN 2011 AND NOW, BECAUSE OF LEAKING BARRELS ON SITE AT FUKUSHIMA'S DAIICHI NUCLEAR FACILITY, IT'S DEFINITELY HERE...
GAMMA RADIATION IS POURING OFF THE CRIPPLED PLANT.
"The fuel rods could still get hot enough to damage their cladding and release radioactive particles into the air. And a completely dry pond would expose the rods to the open sky. If this happens gamma rays, which can pass through air much more easily than other radiation does, could pose a threat to anyone in the line of sight. That may explain why the army's helicopters seemed reluctant to linger over the site for long, and are reported to have been fitted with extra shielding. Gamma rays scattered off particles in the air—a phenomenon known as "skyshine"—could contribute to the raised radiation levels around the plant. At the site of the dried pond radiation of various different sorts, some with shorter ranges, would in all likelihood be too high for plant workers to get anywhere near, further hampering efforts to keep the situation under control. "



MORE EASIL
Y SEEN AT NIGHT ON TEPCO WEBCAMS, WHEN WE HAD THEM, THE INCESSANT RISE OF STEAM TELLS US THE UNIT 4 REACTOR IS STILL HIGH AND DRY, ITS FUEL MERELY BEING SPRAYED, NOT COVERED, WITH WATER, AS WE NOW KNOW.

WHERE ELSE ALL THE STEAM IS COMING FROM IS A COMPLETE UNKNOWN AS NO ONE CAN GET CLOSE ENOUGH TO INSPECT THIS ABOMINATION, NOR CAN ROBOTS STAND UP TO THE HIGH RADIATION!

THIS FACT WAS FIRST REPORTED ON MARCH 31, SHORTLY AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI, BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE!


SUCH SCENES AS THE ABOVE AND THE STRANGE GLOW OF THE BUILDINGS, TOWERS, AND EQUIPMENT USED TO BE COMMONPLACE, BUT THEN TEPCO WAS CAUGHT REPLAYING THE SAME SCENES OVER AND OVER, EVEN MANUFACTURING MINIATURIZED SCENES THAT WERE ILL-STAGED AND EASILY SPOTTED AS FAKES, LYING THAT WE HAD "LIVE CAMS" ON THE FACILITY. 

ONE OF THE FEW INSIDE LOOKS AT THE DAMAGE SHOWS AN EERIE GREEN GLOW THAT MANY HAVE NOTICED IN THE YEARS SINCE THE DAIICHI NUCLEAR PLANT FAILED.

THE CORROSION INSIDE IS OBVIOUS, AS IS THAT SAME GREEN GLOW IN THIS MORE RECENT PHOTO, TAKEN BEFORE THE LAST ROBOT FAILED AND STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS.


TEPCO TRIED TO TELL US THIS "GREEN GOO" WAS MERELY REFRACTED LIGHT.
DOES REFRACTED LIGHT CORRODE METAL LIKE THAT?
WHY ISN'T ALL THE METAL "REFRACTING LIGHT"?  

ONE NUCLEAR EXPERT WAS QUOTED AS SAYING, “Without a qualitatively different regulatory system, and in light of how Japan/Tepco responded to this crisis, Japan has not earned the right to have nuclear energy.
No critically minded and informed person can evaluate this disaster and look at how Japan has responded in the aftermath and have any confidence that Japan will use nuclear energy safely.
And in the most seismically active country in the world, even if Japan had a robust regulatory structure and thoroughly integrated crisis protocols, nature conspires against the best-laid-plans of human institutions.
What Japan has is certainly not the best plan by any measure.”


WE KNOW THIS, BUT NO ONE IS MAKING ANY POSITIVE CHANGES!
NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS TEPCO FIASCO!
ABC REPORTED ON THE FILM TAKEN BY THE ROBOT INSIDE THE UNIT 1 REACTOR BACK IN APRIL THIS YEAR (2015): 

"One of the main objectives was to collect data on radiation levels inside the reactor.
On the video’s onscreen display, the radiation levels ticked up as high as 9.7 sieverts per hour, which is high enough to kill a human within an hour. 


Three hours into the operation, TEPCO said the robot became stuck and stopped operating. The robot developed by Hitachi was made to withstand high levels of radiation but it remains unclear why it stopped working. After attempts to retrieve the probe, TEPCO said it decided to cut off the cable connected to the device and abandon the robot inside. "


OTHER ROBOTS PRIOR TO THIS ONE ALSO FAILED.
THIS IS ONE REASON TEPCO IS SAYING IT MAY TAKE 100 YEARS TO DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY TO EVER BEGIN CLEANING UP THE DAIICHI FACILITY... 100 MORE YEARS!


( VIDEO OF ROBOT  <HERE>)


SKYSHINE... 

IT'S CALLED BREMSSTRAHLUNG PHENOMENON AND WHAT IT MEANS IN THIS INSTANCE IS THAT GAMMA RAYS, X-RAYS, ARE EMANATING FROM THE STORAGE TANKS AND BARRELS HOLDING CONTAMINATED WATER AT THE DAIICHI NUCLEAR FACILITY.

AN EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF GLOW SEEN COMMONLY IN NUCLEAR REACTORS CAN BE SEEN <HERE>.



TEPCO TOLD THE WORLD BACK IN JANUARY, 2014, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO TO STOP IT.

Tepco Press Conference with summary translation by Fukushima Diary, Jan. 10, 2014: 
There is no way to shield Bremsstrahlung from contaminated water tanks," Tepco stated, "It is technically impossible to shield each tank. 

Even if they put the shielding material inside of the tanks, it also causes Bremsstrahlung."


Because multiple spent fuel pools at Fukushima lost their insulating water covers, intense skyshine radiation was the result from those as well, because a regular building will not shield from this type of radiation. 


Nor do those thousands of barrels of contaminated water offer any shielding of anyone from gamma radiation.
Neither inspectors nor daily workers are safe, but most are unaware how bad the situation is. 


Having the contaminated water endlessly increasing, contaminated water tanks are also increasing. The workers involved in tank construction, leakage patrol, and maintenance are significantly exposed even without touching the contaminated water directly.  
It would take at least three feet of earth or a heavy lead barrier to shield them.

TEPCO is doing almost nothing to protect its workers or the public...AGAIN!

They know that no one is going to force them to do more, or do things safely or better, so they are simply taking the cheapest way out!


WHAT IS A SAFE DISTANCE FROM FUKUSHIMA RADIATION PRODUCED GAMMA RAYS AND SKYSHINE? 

When it was Chernobyl emitting this type of radiation, we were told then that,
""The whole idea of "safe distance" is useless in a situation like this. Instead, there are going to be areas that are safe, areas that are hazardous, and areas that are flat out toxic. 
And it's going to be more or less random, depending on what comes out when, and which way the wind is blowing at the time. As you can see from the map of the Chernobyl region, there are places that are twenty miles away that are relatively safe, and places 150 miles away that are as hot as Pripyat. It's all random.  

It only takes one hot particle to cause cancer, after a latency period where the hot particle initiates the cancer of course.


FOR SKEPTICS:
  • The BBC points out that Fukushima reactor 3 was highly unusual in that it burned a plutonium and uranium fuel mixture called “MOX
  • A Japanese nuclear reactor designer and various scientists think that the explosion of reactor 3 – the one with plutonium – was a nuclear explosion
  • As discussed above, the jet stream wind current goes straight from Fukushima to the West Coast of North America. So if material from the explosion made it up the jet stream, it could be carried thousands of miles from there.  
OTHER HOT PARTICLES
"In 2013, a hot particle was discovered 250 miles [400 kilometers] away from Fukushima. It was so radioactive that if it were a pound of material instead of just a particle, the pound would be giving off 20 billion disintegrations per second [44 billion becquerels per kilogram] […] That small speck could easily be lodged in someone’s lung. 

July 10, 2013: Marco Kaltofen, President at Boston Chemical Data Corp. & Doctoral student researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute: [...] We kept hearing reports about something unusual, a black dust  [...] we finally got a very small sample [...] It’s a single substance. It’s not a mix of mineral particles and pieces of dead bugs and plant matter and dust particles [...] it doesn’t look like the surrounding soils. And it is much more intensely radioactive than any other soil or dust sample we’ve gotten from around Fukushima Daiichi. [...]  There’s something unusual happening with this stuff. [...] this particle contains not only fission waste products from the reactor but very likely contains a concentrated unburned nuclear fuel. And that’s unusual. This sample had by far the highest level of uranium daughters that we’ve seen in a dust or soil sample. We’re actually seeing material that might well have come from inside a failed fuel assembly."

FROM MAY OF 2014, FROM NSNBC: 
"Civil Engineer and Ph.D. Candidate Marco Kalthofen found a cancer causing hot particle in a dust sample from Nagoya, Japan, 460 kilometers from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. 

80% by weight of this particle was made up of pure reactor core materials. 


Kalthofen said about 25 % of dust samples from Japan contained at least some hot particles. 


"Hot particles have made their way across the Pacific, and at least the data for the Pacific NW indicates very high concentrations, the average person in Tokyo breathed about 10 hot particles a day, and the average person in Seattle breathed in 6."
“Two of the three monitoring stations in the United States did show hot particles in the air in April. Since then, there have not been any , but in April (OF 2011), it is clear that, at the worst of the accident, hot particles were wafted across the Pacific and deposited in Seattle and in Boston at least. There is also data that indicates contamination on the ground in the Cascades, the mountain range right up against the Pacific Ocean."

IN NOVEMBER OF 2013, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN, JUNICHIRO KOIZUMI, BROKE HIS LONG SILENCE ABOUT THE FACTS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AND BECAME A PUBLIC, VOCAL ACTIVIST AGAINST IT.
IN JANUARY, 2014, HE CALLED THE DESK OF MAKI OKUBO OF THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, AND, EVENTUALLY, THAT LED TO AN INDIRECT INTERVIEW IN WHICH SHE EXPLORED HIS REASONS FOR TURNING AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY.

HERE, IN PART, IS WHAT HE SAID: 
""Denjiren (the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan) has been telling a pack of lies," he began. "When experts say nuclear power generation is safe and doesn't cost much and this is the only way to go if we want to stop relying on coal, well, we believe them. But they've been lying to us for years. And the point is, we've never really known anything about nuclear power generation. We had little interest in it before 3/11, and we certainly had no idea how difficult it is to control nuclear energy."  

 So, he switched sides when he realized he had been deceived by bureaucrats and nuclear experts. 

Here was a man who held Japan's highest political office for five and a half years, lamenting now--and openly admitting--that he'd been lied to.  

When you think about it, Japan is really a dreadful country where critical information is deliberately withheld from the prime minister who determines the fate of the country, and even he is made to believe the "myth" of nuclear safety. I felt I could understand Koizumi's defection as a person.  


Koizumi's "zero-nuke" statement gained national attention in late August, when Takao Yamada, a senior writer at The Mainichi Shimbun, mentioned it in his column.
Koizumi recalled, "That reminded me anew of the power of newspapers. I mean, I'd been saying the same thing in my twice- or three-times-a-month lecture meetings (before Yamada's column came out), but my comments were completely ignored. The column must've made it impossible to ignore them anymore."   
HERE IS A ONCE-POWERFUL MAN, A MAN WHO LED A NATION, AND HE REALIZES THE POWER OF THE PRESS, IF, WHEN THE PRESS PRINTS FACTS.  
OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, EITHER IS NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO, OR CHOOSES NOT TO.
I MAY HAVE FOUND ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THAT. 
FROM 'JAPAN TIMES', APRIL, 2014  

IT'S A COMBINATION OF "SAVING FACE" AND LYING TO US ALL, AGAIN, WITH THE EXCUSE THAT PREVENTING PANIC IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT ECONOMIC DISASTER, WHICH PRIME MINSTER ABE HAS BEEN QUOTED AS SAYING WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF HE HAD EVACUATED TOKYO AS MANY ADVISED HIM TO DO. 
"Kyle Cleveland, [of ] Temple University Japan, recently published a report in the online Asia-Pacific Journal, “Mobilizing Nuclear Bias: The Fukushima Nuclear Crisis and the Politics of Uncertainty” that has drawn widespread media attention.
Based on numerous interviews with government officials, military officers and nuclear energy experts, along with documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests to U.S. government agencies, Cleveland has pieced together a critical, but nuanced picture of a crisis that was closer to careening out of control than is generally acknowledged.
There was a great deal of confusion in the early weeks of the crisis as different actors had different information and made varied assessments about what the information indicated.
Cleveland elucidates the yawning chasm between the minimizing and downplaying efforts of Tokyo Electric Power Co. and the U.S. government’s assessments of the nuclear crisis. Because the Japanese government was reliant on Tepco for information this also created a gulf of perceptions between the two governments.
The USS Ronald Reagan, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, arrived off the tsunami stricken coast of Tohoku on March 13, 2011, to provide rescue and relief assistance. Naval officers, according to Freedom of Information Act documents scrutinized by Cleveland, discovered the level of radiation was far worse than they anticipated. Radiation gauges on the ship measured levels of radiation at 100 nautical miles off the coast that were 30 times greater than normal. Aircrews that ventured closer to the stricken plant were found to have high levels of radiation on their shoes and clothing. Tepco’s downplaying of the crisis and misleading information is at issue in a lawsuit filed by sailors from the U.S.S Reagan, who claim that they have had significant health problems due to exposure to radiation during their rescue efforts. Had Tepco acted responsibly by clarifying the scale of the crisis, the plaintiffs assert, they would not be suffering various cancers they attribute to exposure to high doses of radiation.
The higher than expected radiation readings created a delicate diplomatic situation as the U.S. did not want to embarrass or offend its ally, but it also wanted to ensure the safety of its military and government personnel, their dependents and American civilians. Cleveland finds that there was considerable disagreement between various U.S. agencies about the severity of the risk, but in the end the Defense Department ruled that there were no adverse health consequences from the reported radiation doses."
QUITE FRANKLY, THE BASTARDS LIED, AND NOW, THEY MUST CONTINUE LYING, OR ABE LOOKS LIKE A GREEDY MONSTER AND SO DOES THE U.S.!
THE ARTICLE CONTINUES AND WE SEE HOW BOTH THE JAPANESE AND AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS WERE TRAPPED BY THEIR INITIAL LIES!  
"Jeffrey Bader [wrote a] 2012 article in Foreign Affairs, “Inside the White House During Fukushima”. 
Bader served as the senior director for East Asian Affairs on the U.S. National Security Council from January 2009 until April 2011, but he would not be the first insider to put a gloss on what happened on his watch.
Bader explains that the U.S. decided to expand the exclusionary zone to 80 km, exceeding the Japanese government’s 20-km evacuation zone, because the available data indicated that this is what the U.S. government would do in a similar situation at home. Washington also authorized a voluntary departure for dependents of U.S. personnel and issued a travel advisory recommending U.S. citizens consider leaving Japan. 
John Holdren, the president’s science adviser, argued that U.S. Navy nuclear experts were overstating the risks, but as Cleveland explains, when science meets policy, politics prevails.

Bader acknowledges that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from bases in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture, and Yokota in western Tokyo would have stoked panic among Japanese and gravely damaged the alliance.
CLEVELAND suggests that Bader,”downplays the level of discord and debate among the radiation experts and privileges interpretations by State Department folks whose guiding concerns were the diplomatic impact of expanding evacuation/exclusionary zones, the implications of an actionable worst-case scenario and military departures. State essentially refereed the decision-making and pushed for less conservative measures to align more closely with the Japanese, with a close eye on implications for the American nuclear industry.”
"TO ALIGN MORE CLOSELY WITH THE JAPANESE, WITH A CLOSE EYE ON IMPLICATIONS FOR THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY"!!!
GOT IT?
DO YOU SEE WHY THE U.S. NUCLEAR ENERGY CROWD, ALONG WITH GOOD OLD WALL STREET AND THEIR MEDIA WHORES ARE DOWNPLAYING THIS NOW, WHY PERFECTLY RESPECTABLE, WELL-CREDENTIALED SCIENTISTS AND NUCLEAR EXPERTS (PRIOR TO THEIR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, EPA, FDA, AND OTHER AGENCIES) MUST BE RIDICULED AND DISCREDITED NOW? 
AND WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS COVERUP? 
WHO IS SUFFERING BECAUSE JAPAN AND THE U.S. DECIDED THE ECONOMY WAS THE BOTTOM LINE,L THE ONE THING THAT MUST BE SAVED?
THE JAPANESE PEOPLE, AND THE REST OF US ALL OVER THE GLOBE!
WE'RE NOT WORTH AS MUCH AS A HEALTHY STOCK EXCHANGE TO EITHER NATION'S GOVERNMENT!
"Kyodo News also reported that 88 plaintiffs – Fukushima residents at the time of the March 2011 meltdowns – have sued the Japanese government and the prefect government for damages for governmental failure to protect children from radiation. Each plaintiff seeks $9,600 (100,000 yen) in compensation: “They said in a written complaint that the central and prefectural governments failed to promptly release accurate data of radiation levels in the air after the nuclear crisis was triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011, neglecting their duty to prevent residents’ radiation exposure as much as possible, and exposed children to unnecessary radiation.”

BUT JUST RECENTLY, A HOUSEWIFE THERE WAS THREATENED WITH JAIL BECAUSE SHE MADE DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY!
NO, ONE MAY NOT SUE THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT CLAIMING RADIATION DAMAGE!
IT IS FORBIDDEN!
A year ago a Japanese professor was detained 20 days without trial for speaking out against the open-air incineration of radioactive waste.
 The powerful Asahi Shimbun newspaper compares it to “conspiracy” laws passed by totalitarian Japan in the lead-up to Pearl Harbor, and warns it could end independent reporting on Fukushima. 
TO ITS MINOR CREDIT, THE NEW YORK TIMES CARRIED A PHOTO-ENHANCED ARTICLE ABOUT THE HUMAN CRISIS UNFOLDING IN JAPAN, BUT NEGLECTED THE REST OF THE WORLD.
WHY?
WHO KNOWS WHY!

THEN THEY DID AN ARTICLE IN 2013 ABOUT THE SURVIVORS OF THE RADIATION BEING "STILL STUCK IN LIMBO", AND NOW, TWO MORE YEARS LATER, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HAVE DIED QUIETLY, WAITING, BUT NOTHING OF THE CANCERS, THE ILLNESSES, THE ABORTED BABIES, THE BIRTH DEFECTS, THE FACT THAT SOME CHILDREN ARE WARNED THEY CAN GET RADIATION BURNS FROM TOUCHING METAL ON PLAYGROUNDS WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED OUT FOR 30 MINUTES PER DAY, AND TOLD NEVER TO GO BAREFOOT FOR THE SAME REASON, AS SOME HAVE BEEN SEEN BY PHYSICIANS WITH LESIONS ON THEIR FEET.
WE ONLY READ ABOUT THOSE THINGS ON WEBSITES THAT COME AND GO, TAKEN DOWN/BLOCKED, PUT UP BY CITIZENS INSIDE WHAT AMERICA WOULD HAVE SET AS AN EXCLUSION ZONE, BUT IN WHICH JAPAN HAS ALLOWED HUMAN HABITATION!
THEY TRY, THEY DO TRY TO BE HEARD, BUT I HAVE TO ASSUME THE WORLD SEES THEM AS "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" AND "FEAR-MONGERS", THOSE WHO REPORT FROM GROUND ZERO!
“The national government orders us to go back, but then orders us to just wait and wait,” said Tamotsu Baba, the mayor of this town of 20,000 people [NAMIE] that was hastily evacuated when explosions began to rock the plant. “The bureaucrats want to avoid taking responsibility for everything that has happened, and we commoners pay the price.”  
THE TIMES DIDN'T REPORT THE NUMEROUS JAPANESE MOTHERS BEGGING FOR SOMEONE TO COME AND TAKE THEIR CHILDREN OUT OF THERE.
THAT MIGHT CAUSE "PANIC", YOU SEE..."PANIC" WOULD BE BAD FOR BUSINESS!  "PANIC" WOULD PERHAPS MEAN CHANGING THE OLYMPICS TO SOMEWHERE FAR AWAY FROM TOKYO!

HOW MANY OF OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTED ON THIS..?
"
Well aware that fetuses, children under five, and women are at the greatest risk from radiation exposure, mothers have emerged as a powerful voice in Japan’s growing anti-nuclear movement.
To call attention to their message, the mothers have organized marches, petitioned government officials, fasted, and held months-long sit-ins in public locations."
OR THIS...?
"Many worried mothers leave Fukushima with their children while fathers remain behind. “Often husbands don’t want to support two households and they tell the wives to come back to Fukushima, or they’ll stop sending them money,” says Izumi. “As a result, we’re seeing an increase in divorce rates.” 

OR THIS...?
I live in Yokohama. From my observation, everyone is getting sick.
They don’t take it seriously because NHK and Yomiuri newspaper do never admit it. 


In Japanese school, students are banned to talk. No question, no thinking.
This way of discipline might have been useful to sustain the economy based on mass production, but it’s killing ourselves. Moreover, time of mass production was over decades ago.
Leaf mold was banned to sell. However, ignorant companies restarted selling it."

WELL WATER WITH VERY HIGH STRONTIUM LEVEL
"
On 1/27/2015, Tepco announced they measured high density of Strontium-90 from groundwater in the seaside of Reactor 2.
It was 31,000,000 Bq/m3. The sampling point was the boring well, which is the closest to Reactor 2.
This is the highest density measured from this boring well, which is 10% more than the previous highest record.
The sampling date was last December. No Sr-90 data of January has been published."

HOW MANY PRIVATE WELLS AND OTHER WATER SOURCES ARE CONTAMINATED?
WHO CARES, RIGHT?
IT'S ALL "PANIC", ALL "CONSPIRACY THEORY", YES?
THE PEOPLE LIVING IN IT ARE LYING TO US, DO YOU THINK???
I AM SICK OF COMMON SENSE AND TRUTH BEING LABELED AS "PANIC" AND "FEAR-MONGERING"!
SOME ARE TRYING TO WARN, WARN, AND TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE, SOMEHOW, FOR SOMEONE TO FIND A WAY TO STOP THIS! 
TO HELL WITH PANIC AND FEAR-MONGERING !
LET'S JUST HAVE SOME FACTS!
LET'S JUST TAKE TEPCO AND JAPAN OUT OF THE MIX AND LET OTHERS STEP UP WHO CAN FIX THIS THING! 
WILL ONE MORE YEAR OF THIS MAKE IT TOO LATE?A MONTH MORE?  
HOW LONG?
WE NEED TO KNOW!

"By all accounts, whatever clean-up is possible will span decades. The town of Fairfax, CA, has now called for a 
global takeover at Fukushima. More than 150,000 signees have asked the UN for such intervention."
WHY DON'T WE ALL DO THAT?          
THE FANTASY CONTINUES!WE'RE ASKED TO BELIEVE THAT "ONLY" ABOUT 82,000 PEOPLE HAD TO BE EVACUATED IN JAPAN AFTER THE DAIICHI DISASTER.
DO YOU SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS MAP, WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT, GIVEN FLUCTUATING WINDS AND RAIN  IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE DISASTER, AND, AFTERWARDS, ALL THE TYPHOONS, CONTINUAL RADIOACTIVE STEAM RISING INTO THE AIR, CONTINUAL RADIOACTIVE WATER LEACHING INTO THE AQUIFER BENEATH DAIICHI, CONTINUAL DUMPING OF HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE WASTE INTO THE BAY THERE, CONTINUAL BURNING IN SITES ALL OVER JAPAN OF RADIATED MATERIALS GATHERED EVEN TODAY FROM THE AREA AROUND DAIICHI THAT WAS HIT BY THE EARTHQUAKE/TSUNAMI/MELTDOWN THAT "ONLY" 82,000 IN THIS SMALL AREA WERE AND ARE IN DANGER?    

LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY...
IF THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT OFFERED YOU A FREE HOUSE AND LAND IN SAY, MINAMISOMA OR TAMURA (SEE ABOVE MAP), WOULD YOU GO LIVE THERE AND TAKE YOUR CHILD TO LIVE THERE?

IN THE TIMES ARTICLE, ONE RESIDENT MENTIONED...
"The terraced rice paddies are overgrown, and although her home’s thick wooden beams have held out longer than her neighbors’, they, too, are starting to rot."
STARTING TO ROT?
JUST TWO YEARS AND THE HOUSES ARE ROTTING? 
FROM WHAT, WHY? 
WHAT COULD MAKE THEM ROT IN JUST 2  YEARS?THINK!

AFTER ONLY 2 YEARS (AT THE TIME THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN)?   
IS A FORMER AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.
, A MAN WHO AGREES WITH HIS FORMER PRIME MINISTER, TO BE CONSIDERED A "CONSPIRACY THEORIST"? 

"Akio Matsumura, former Japanese ambassador to the United Nations, discussed the continuing crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi site, and came to the conclusion that Tokyo Electric must be removed from the clean-up process. "

WHO CAN REMOVE THEM? 
WILL IT TAKE A CIVIL UPRISING IN JAPAN?
IS IT TOO LATE?
IS THERE NO ONE WHO CAN STOP TEPCO?
IS THERE NO ONE WHO CAN STOP THE FUKUSHIMA PLANT FROM POISONING ALL OF US FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS WHILE THEY SAY THEY WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP THE TECHNOLOGY TO STOP THE LEAKS AND CLEAN UP THE SITE?

THESE ARE QUESTIONS WE NEED ANSWERED, BUT THE HARDER I LOOK FOR ANSWERS, FOR A WAY TO KEEP THIS FROM BEING WHAT SO MANY ARE PREDICTING IT WILL BE, AN EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT FOR OUR SPECIES, OUR WORLD, THE LESS I FIND TO ENCOURAGE ME.

SOMETHING, SOMEONE MUST BE OUT THERE WHO CAN CORRECT THIS DISASTER!

I FOUND THIS ON THE WEBSITE OF A UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, SOMEONE INTERESTED IN TRUTH AND FACTS. 

"JUST ANOTHER "CONSPIRACY THEORIST", RIGHT?  

WRONG!

MAP OF DISPERSAL OF PLUTONIUM FROM FUKUSHIMA, THE HEAVIEST, DARKEST AREAS ON THE TOP MAP ARE THE U.S. WEST COAST (ON THE UPPER LEFT OF THE MAP) AND THE GULF OF MEXICO (A BIT OFF-CENTER, WITH THE 'SWIRL'), PARTIALLY DUE TO A SLOW-DOWN OF THE JET STREAM AFTER AMERICA'S BP OIL DISASTER, DEEP HORIZON, IN THE GULF (WHICH IS STILL LEAKING, BTW).




The Environmental Research Department, SRI Center for Physical Sciences and Technology in Vilnius, Lithuania reported in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity:
Analyses of (131)I, (137)Cs and (134)Cs in airborne aerosols were carried out in daily samples in Vilnius, Lithuania after the Fukushima accident during the period of March-April, 2011.  
The activity ratio of (238)Pu/(239,240)Pu in the aerosol sample was 1.2, indicating a presence of the spent fuel of different origin than that of the Chernobyl accident.
HOT PARTICLES, A LA FUKUSHIMA
Hot particles, nuclear fuel fragments, were detected in air samples taken in Svalbard, Norway (Paatero et al. 2012).  

On April 2, 2011,  the Norwegian Institute for Air Research modeled releases from Fukushima hitting Norway and other parts of Europe:



(CLICK ON MAP TO, HOPEFULLY, SEE ANIMATION)
And a March 2011 model from the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety showed the same thing (click link for video animation).  

Robert Schoch, Ph.D,  (Professor and Geologist,  Boston University, PhD Geology & Geophysics, Yale Univ.),
“I hate to bring it up, but I will because I think it’s serious — the nuclear power plants that we have around the world, we’ve seen what can happen. Fukushima was not that long ago. When you knock out power to a nuclear power plant, the cooling systems don’t necessarily function… If you lose power to a nuclear power plant, we’ve seen what the results can be — and it could be a lot worse than Fukushima.… I don’t want to be alarmist, but on the other hand, I think we have to call it the way we see it. I think we really need to be talking about the evidence — which I believe is very good evidence — of what’s happened in the past, and the ramifications for this in the present and future.

...we saw a little foreshadowing [at] Fukushima… a nuclear power plant loses electricity… If that happens to hundreds of nuclear power plants… or even just a couple, you’ve got major concerns”.

ANOTHER "NUTCASE", DO YOU THINK?
"FEAR-MONGER"?
OR JUST ONE OF MANY THOUSANDS OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE HEARD? 


ALL OF THESE (AND MORE THAN I CAN COUNT) ARE TRYING THEIR DAMNEDEST TO EDUCATE THE DUMBED-DOWN POPULATION ALL OVER THE GLOBE, BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO THINK ABOUT SUCH SERIOUS MATTERS.

WHY BE EMPOWERED WITH FACTS WHEN WE CAN BE LULLED BY LIES, RIGHT?



Soon after the accident, Tepco slashed the Fukushima workforce. It has since restored some of it, but has cut wages. Shady contractors shuttle in hundreds of untrained laborers to work in horrific conditions.

Reuters says the site is HEAVILY infiltrated by organized crime, raising the specter of stolen radioactive materials for dirty bombs and more.
Thousands of tons of radioactive water now sit in leaky tanks built by temporary workers who warn of their shoddy construction. They are sure to collapse with a strong earthquake.
Without global intervention, long-lived isotopes from Fukushima will continue to pour into the biosphere for decades to come. 

NOTHING WRONG HERE...MOVE RIGHT ALONG...
NEVER MIND THAT "GLOW-IN-THE-DARK" LOOK AROUND ALL OUR NUCLEAR FACILITIES, THAT 'SKYSHINE'...

ALL IS WELL...GO BACK TO SLEEP...

Sunday, May 24, 2015

KILLING INFANTS AFTER BIRTH, THE NEW ABORTION?

A trend was said to be developing among college students, on campuses nationwide, which I learned of last year and went back to explore recently - the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing an infant AFTER birth.  

This idea has been discussed in many forums, online journals, news sites, etc, but I was interested in what our college students thought.

Some campuses where the high school, college students, local activists and staff members of 'Created Equal' have encountered this opinion and videotaped or recorded conversations, interviews include Ohio StatePurdue, University of MinnesotaCal Poly San Luis ObispoGolden West College in Huntington Beach, Pomona College in ClaremontUC San Diego, and University of Central Florida. 

Reporter Joe Biggs got a number of students at the University of Texas in Austin to sign a petition for “post-birth abortion” that would allow killing children up to five years old. His efforts were captured on video.

[ NOTE: THE INTERVIEWS LISTED ABOVE WERE RECORDED AND TRANSCRIPTED, NOT INVENTED.]

One young man at the University of Minnesota thought it was alright to kill children if they were under the age of 5 years old, as he did not consider them persons until that age. 

FIVE? A FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD?
IF THEY AREN'T 'PERSONS', WHAT ARE THEY, I WONDER? 


As for the trend on campuses, Kristina Garza said there’s an explanation for it. 
For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.
Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”   

YES, SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT.
SOME PEOPLE DON'T HOLD LIFE AS SACRED.
THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT, RIGHT?
I came across this completely by accident and, at first, thought it must be a sick hoax.
NO, IT ISN'T A HOAX.
IT'S A CURRENT ETHICAL QUESTION BOTH HERE AND ABROAD.

IN CANADA, THIS IS REFERRED TO AS "LIVE BIRTH ABORTION".

"
“These incidents appear to be homicides,” wrote MPs Maurice Vellacott, Leon Benoit and Wladyslaw Lizon, in their Jan. 23 letter to the RCMP commissioner.
The MPs are right about the fact that between 2000 and 2009, 491 aborted fetuses indeed exhibited “evidence of life” following their removal from the womb — be it a momentary heartbeat, a sudden gasp or, in rare cases, crying.
But, while the statistic may speak to one of the most uncomfortable grey areas of Canadian law, doctors say that it is too much to assume that this represents the killing of otherwise healthy babies that the MPs allege."
IN THE U.K. IT'S REFERRED TO AS "THE HEROD PROCEDURE".

"Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued."

Now, some of what I will present here comes from what we call "pro-lifers", but if you simply look up, search for, what they present as facts, you will see they ARE facts.
  
I searched, fully expecting to find no such evidence of Americans, young or old, who would agree that killing a newborn was acceptable.

i was wrong. 

SLATE magazine did an article on this "trend" , 

"After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide".


That article came out in 2012...3 years ago! 

“Partial-birth abortion” is a term invented by pro-lifers. But “after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose

"[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. 
Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. 
Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

That entry into the Journal was submitted 25 November 2011.
I had no idea this was being discussed so long ago! 

Let's examine the abstract...


Abstract

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. 
By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

And in their introduction: 
"A serious philosophical problem arises when the same conditions that would have
justified abortion become known after birth. 


In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human. "


After discussing the failure to diagnose rare diseases in utero and a child being born with a "surprise" affliction, they go on to say...

"However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. 

An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 

This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. 

Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth." 

WAIT!

OF COURSE THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE CHOICE TO "KEEPING THE CHILD"... SURRENDER THE CHILD, JUST TURN THE BABY OVER TO A STATE AGENCY OR AN ORPHANAGE.

THE JOURNAL ARTICLE CONTINUES: 

Abortion and after-birth abortion   
Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering. 

Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child. 
In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4 

Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is 
against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to 
the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those 
pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. 

It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of 
the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’.3 
But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. 

On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. 

Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."

FOR ME, THAT READS LIKE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PUPPIES, OR KITTENS, OR....? 
IT'S SHOCKING!

CONTINUING THE SLATE ARTICLE:

"The case for “after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t.
Let’s look at some of those assumptions.
1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. I often hear this argument from pro-choicers in the context of time limits on abortion. In a debate last fall, I drew up a timeline of fetal development, week by week. 
The response from Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, was that it would be arbitrary to use any point in that timeline to draw a legal limit on abortion rights. 
Giubilini and Minerva seem to share this view. “Abortions at an early stage are the best option, for both psychological and physical reasons,” they write, conspicuously omitting the idea that abortions at an early stage are better than late ones for moral reasons. “Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life,” they write. “Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life,” such as “spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted” or “fetuses where abortion is permitted.”
Furedi accepts birth as the first logical time limit, though not for reasons of fetal development. (See her comments 44 minutes into this video.) But Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Accordingly, they reason, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”
2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. 
I’ve seen this position asserted in countless comment threads by supporters of abortion rights. 
Giubilini and Minerva add only one further premise to this argument: Personhood doesn’t begin until sometime after birth. 
Once that premise is added, the newborn, like the fetus, becomes fair game. They explain:
[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.
You may find this statement cold, but where’s the flaw in its logic? If the neurally unformed fetus has no moral claims, why isn’t the same true of the neurally unformed newborn?
3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child.Giubilini and Minerva note that philosophers such as Peter Singer have presented arguments for neonaticide for many years. Until now, these arguments have focused on what’s best for the baby—in the words of recent Dutch guidelines, “infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” 
Giubilini and Minerva merely push this idea one step further, calling their proposal “‘after-birth abortion’ rather than ‘euthanasia’ because the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice.”
“Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of,” they observe. 
Accordingly, “if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” 
An after-birth abortion might be warranted by any “interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being”—including “the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption.”
4. The value of life depends on choice. Pro-choicers don’t accept the idea that the path from pregnancy to maternity, being natural, must be followed. They argue that the choice is up to the woman. Some assert that the life within her has no moral status until she chooses to give birth to it.
Again, Giubilini and Minerva simply extend this logic beyond birth. 
Since the newborn isn’t a person yet, its significance continues to hinge on its mother’s decision. Neonates “might or might not become particular persons depending on our choice,” the authors argue. Until then, the newborn imposes no obligations on us, “because we are not justified in taking it for granted that she will exist as a person in the future. Whether she will exist is exactly what our choice is about.”
5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. 
Fetal development can turn tragic at any point. 
Most people agree that abortion should be permitted when a grave defect is discovered at amniocentesis. In the partial-birth abortion debate, pro-choicers extended this rationale, arguing that abortions in the third trimester should be permitted when horrible defects were identified at that stage. Giubilini and Minerva take this argument to the next level, noting that defects often remain undiscovered until birth:
An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before birth.
The authors conclude that “if a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if something went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.” 
And it isn’t clear where the line against infanticide would be drawn. 
“We do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible,” Giubilini and Minerva write. They doubt that “more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child.” But critics are already noting that many defects are discovered later.
In sum, the authors argue:
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.
I don’t buy this argument, in part because I agree with Furedi that something profound changes at birth: The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at stake. But I also think that the value of the unborn human increases throughout its development. 
Furedi rejects that view, and her rejection doesn’t stop at birth. As she explained in our debate last fall, “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms it from a fetus into a person.”
The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: 
How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? 
What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?"  
DISTURBING ARTICLE, THAT.
THE STATS ARE DETERMINED BY SEVERAL GROUPS/ORGANIZATIONS THAT COLLECT DATA EACH DAY.   
U.S. ABORTIONS SINCE 1973: ROE vs WADE?


JUST SHY OF 58 MILLION.

WORLDWIDE ABORTIONS? 

ALMOST ONE AND A HALF BILLION, BILLION, WITH A "B". 

LOOKING AT THE STATS FOR WHO USES CONTRACEPTION IN THE U.S. AND WHO IS "AT RISK FOR UNWANTED PREGNANCY", CAN IT BE THAT PERHAPS ONLY 10% OF AMERICAN WOMEN ( THE 10% WHO USED NO FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL) HAD ALMOST 58 MILLION ABORTIONS IN THE PAST 30+ YEARS? 

DID ABORTION TAKE THE PLACE OF CONTRACEPTION HERE? 
HAS IT SIMPLY BECOME A "QUICK FIX" FOR SOME WHO DON'T USE CONTRACEPTION? 

DID WE VOTE FOR A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE JUST SO ANYONE CAN BE LAX ON BIRTH CONTROL AND THEN JUST GO HAVE AN ABORTION?   

I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT AS ETHICAL. 

SURE, IF A WOMAN NEEDS AN ABORTION TO SAVE HERSELF, OR TO TERMINATE A HEART-BREAKING PREGNANCY IN WHICH THE FETUS HAS NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL ANYWAY, OR TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY DUE TO INCEST, RAPE, OR ONE THAT WILL BE TOO GREAT A BURDEN FOR THE FAMILY TO BEAR EMOTIONALLY OR IS INCAPABLE OF BEARING FINANCIALLY, WHEN ONE MUST ADMIT THE SAD FACTS AND END A PREGNANCY, SURE, OKAY.

BUT TO USE ABORTION INSTEAD OF COMMON SENSE BIRTH CONTROL?
NO! 
THE ETHICS OF THAT IS NONEXISTENT. 

AND TO EVEN HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ALLOWING THE MURDER OF A SINGLE NEWBORN, OR A ONE-YEAR-OLD, OR, AS THE SEVERAL INTERVIEWED SAID, UP TO AGE FIVE? 

THAT IS CRIMINAL, AND BEYOND ABOMINABLE!