Images above and directly below show the newly discovered prevalence of this birth defect in sharks.
PICTURED ABOVE, 2015:
HISTORIC FIRST: GREAT WHITE SHARK WITH CANCEROUS TUMOR.
Recently, researchers in Australia noticed a large tumor protruding from the mouth of a great white shark, as well as another mass on the head of a bronze whale shark.
UNTIL NOW, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT SHARKS NEVER HAD CANCER.
THERE WERE ONGOING STUDIES TO DETERMINE WHAT MADE THEM IMMUNE TO CANCER.
WHY SHOULD THIS MATTER, THESE SHARK ANOMALIES?
SO WHAT, IT'S SHARKS, RIGHT?
BECAUSE AS OTHER LIFE ON PLANET EARTH GOES, SO GO WE ALL, MY FRIENDS.
THEY ARE THE "CANARIES IN THE MINE" THAT WARN US OF THINGS TO COME.
WE DO WELL TO PAY ATTENTION TO SUCH.
AND BECAUSE AS I HAVE LONG POINTED OUT BY MY REFERENCES TO THE CHILDREN'S BOOK "TERRIBLE THINGS", WHEN WE HUMANS, WHO ARE AT THE TOP OF EVERY 'FOOD CHAIN', ARE THE LAST SPECIES AFFECTED BY SUCH ANOMALIES, ALL OTHER SPECIES WILL LIKELY EITHER BE GONE OFF THE EARTH OR SOON WILL BE.
THERE WILL BE NO ONE THEN, AS NOW, TO"SAVE" US FROM THE "TERRIBLE THINGS"...ONLY WE, OURSELVES, CAN DO SO.
Two-headed sharks are becoming more and more common, according ...
MIAMI HERALD, NOV. 6, 2016
On Nov. 5, National Geographic published an article saying that not only do two-headed sharks really exist, there seem to be more and more instances of them on the record.
SO, IT ISN'T NEWS FROM "WHACKED-OUT ALTERNATIVE MEDIA SOURCES", THERE IS VALID DOCUMENTATION.
Two-Headed Sharks Keep Popping Up—No One Knows Why
A 2011 study described conjoined twins discovered in blue sharks caught in the Gulf of California and northwestern Mexico.
Blue sharks have produced the most recorded two-headed embryos.
Now, Spanish researchers have identified an embryo of an Atlantic sawtail catshark with two heads, according to a new study in the Journal of Fish Biology.
The catshark embyro was not your average two-headed beast—it's the first such specimen known from an oviparous shark species, or a shark that lays eggs.
(See more shark photos.)
In another recent study, marine scientist Nicolas Ehemann examined two such specimens: A smalleye smooth-hound shark and a blue shark, found by fishermen off Venezuela's Margarita Island. The animals, which would not have survived, are the first two-headed sharks found in the Caribbean Sea
Galván-Magaña, author of a 2011 study, has seen other bizarre sharks, too, including a "cyclops" shark, caught off Mexico in 2011, with a single, functioning eye at the front of its head.
The dusky shark fetus's single eye is the hallmark of a congenital condition called cyclopia, which occurs in several animal species, including people."
AS EACH SCIENTIST HAS SAID WHO HAS OBSERVED THIS ANOMALY AND OTHER BIRTH DEFECTS IN MARINE ANIMALS, IT SHOULD BE STUDIED FURTHER TO DETERMINE LIKELY CAUSE.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY RECENT BIRTH DEFECT SEEN MORE OFTEN IN MARINE LIFE, IN ALL ANIMALS ACROSS THE GLOBE.
NEITHER THESE MARINE LIFE ANOMALIES NOR SIMILAR BIRTH DEFECTS SEEN IN HUMANS ARE THE RESULT OF 'ZIKA, ZIKA, ZIKA, BUT OF RADIATION AND/OR PESTICIDES.
SEE "New Diseases, Toxins Harming Marine Life." ... BUT BE AWARE THAT RADIATION WILL NEVER BE IDENTIFIED OR ADMITTED TO BE THE CULPRIT OR EVEN ONE OF THE CULPRITS.
ALSO NOTE THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SOME OF THE VERY SAME DEFECTS THAT THE CDC IS STRUGGLING TO PIN ON THE OLD ZIKA VIRUS.
SAME DEFECTS...NOT FROM ZIKA...THE SAME DEFECTS WE'RE BEING TOLD ARE CAUSED BY THE ZIKA VIRUS, ALTHOUGH THE DEFECTS ZIKA ALLEGEDLY CAUSES HAVE BEEN AROUND BEFORE ZIKA WAS IDENTIFIED IN AFRICA OVER 60 YEARS AGO.
DARE WE IMAGINE THAT WHATEVER IS CAUSING SO MANY MORE SUCH 'ANOMALOUS DEFECTS' IN MARINE ANIMALS (AND LAND ANIMALS) JUST MAY ALSO BE WHAT'S CAUSING THEM IN HUMANS AND NOT ZIKA AT ALL?
DARE WE BELIEVE THE RESIDENTS UP IN THE ARCTIC REGION, ALONG THE PACIFIC COAST FROM THERE TO THE BAJA PENINSULA WHO SAY THEY HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE, DURING/AFTER NUCLEAR TESTS IN THE 1950s?
WHY NOT AT LEAST EXPLORE THAT POSSIBILITY?
SOME SAY WE DON'T MENTION THIS DISTINCT POSSIBILITY SO THAT THE MASSES DON'T PANIC
AFTER ALL, WE CAN'T STOP RADIATION LEAKS, CAN WE?
OR CAN WE?
IN THE ANIMAL WORLD, MASS DEATHS ARE BEING RECORDED ALL OVER THE GLOBE.
NOW THIS IS NOTHING NEW, BUT THE SHEER NUMBERS ARE.
I FOUND THIS AS I WAS RESEARCHING FOR THIS BLOG POST, BUT HAVE USED THE LIST BEFORE HERE:
"Mass death lists by year: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014.
At the time of this writing, the list for 2015 up to the end of March is about as long as the list for all of 2011."
THE LINKS GIVEN TO EACH OF THOSE REPORTS ARE TO MAJOR NEWS MEDIA ACROSS THE PLANET, WHICH IS WHY I WAS COMFORTABLE OFFERING THEIR SITE AS A VALID SOURCE FOR REPORTING SUCH THINGS.
STILL, FOR ANY WHO PREFER A DIFFERENT SOURCE....
The U.S Geological Survey also has a website that reports wildlife mortality events in the U.S.
NEXT, FOR THOSE WHO DEMAND THOSE 'PEER REVIEWED' STUDIES...HAVE SOME...HAVE HUNDREDS IF YOU WANT THEM AND ARE WILLING TO DO A SIMPLE WEB SEARCH FOR THEM, BUT HERE ARE A FEW:
Scientists report genetic abnormalities in birds, insects, plants near Fukushima Published time: 15 Aug, 2014
[NOTE: The above is a news article, but gives the link you may desire.]
Another study showed the impact of radiation on rice.
Healthy seedlings were exposed to low-level gamma radiation at a contaminated site in Fukushima Prefecture.
After three days, such effects as activation of genes involved in self-defense, ranging from DNA replication and repair to stress responses to cell death were observed.
"Global Change and Integrated Coastal Management: The Asia-Pacific Region" is an entire BOOK, full of such studies.
Access it online and follow all the links you care to.
In some cases wildlife populations have suffered severe losses or even faced extinction due to pollution.
THE ABOVE SITE IS SPECIFIC FOR MARINE AND COASTAL LIFE AND THEIR ANOMALIES.
The REALITY is that "something out there" is screwing up LIFE ON EARTH at the cellular level, in the DNA strand itself.
WE MUST DETERMINE WHAT THAT "SOMETHING" IS.
IT DAMNED SURE IS NOT ZIKA VIRUS.
AS I HAVE POINTED OUT BEFORE AND AS THE HEALTH MINISTRIES OF OTHER NATIONS REPORTED IN STUDY AFTER STUDY, THE DEFECTS OF MICROCEPHALY AND SMALLER TESTES WAS FIRST OBSERVED YEARS, DECADES BEFORE ZIKA WAS EVEN NOTICED, BEFORE ZIKA EVER 'ESCAPED' FROM AFRICA, WHERE IT WAS FIRST DISCOVERED, WHERE THE BIRTH DEFECTS THE CDC WANTS US TO BELIEVE ARE CAUSED BY ZIKA ALMOST NEVER APPEARED AND APPEARED IN FAR FEWER NUMBERS THAN IN EUROPE AND THE USA.
TO BE HONEST, MOST OF THOSE HEALTH MINISTRIES BLAME CERTAIN PESTICIDES FOR THE MICROCEPHALY AND REPRODUCTIVE DISORDERS.
SOME POINTED TO VACCINES AS THE CAUSE.
MOST RECENTLY, MICROCEPHALY WAS FOUND IN 'POCKETS' AROUND THE WORLD THAT WERE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PAST NUCLEAR 'ACCIDENTS', TO NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES TO THE HANFORD 'SUPER-SITE' IN THE U.S. AND YET STUDIES INTO THOSE RECEIVED ALMOST NO FUNDING AND ALMOST NO ATTENTION BY OUR NEWS MEDIA.
SHORTLY AFTER SUCH BIRTH DEFECTS WERE REPORTED IN NEWBORNS WITHIN OUR MILITARY FAMILIES WHERE ONE OR MORE OF THE PARENTS HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO DEPLETED URANIUM, AND AFTER HAWAII BEGAN QUESTIONING IF THEIR RISE IN SUCH ABNORMALITIES WAS CAUSED BY THE SEVERAL SITES WHERE DEPLETED URANIUM WAS USED OR STORED OR LEFT BEHIND, THE CDC BEGAN ITS CAMPAIGN TO MAKE ZIKA THE CAUSE OF ALL THAT.
NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS THAT WERE SHOWING UP IN HANFORD EMPLOYEES IN THE 1970s TO 1980s WERE STUDIED AND, AS NOW, RADIATION EXPOSURE WAS DENIED.
ODDLY, OR NOT, SUCH NEURAL TUBE DISORDERS WERE NOT SHOWING UP IN OTHER COUNTIES WHERE HANFORD RADIATION DID NOT REACH.
[AS AN 'ASIDE': I WAS MORE THAN A LITTLE SURPRISED TO FIND FUKUSHIMA AND WARNINGS ABOUT FUKUSHIMA APPEAR MANY TIMES IN THE WIKILEAKS-RELEASED CLINTON EMAILS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS.
IT SHOWED ME THAT WE WERE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT CRISIS AND THAT IT WARRANTS A DEEPER LOOK INTO EACH OF THOSE RELEASED TIDBITS TO SEE WHY THAT WAS THE CASE.
ONE CAN ACCESS THE LISTS OF THOSE FUKUSHIMA REFERENCES <HERE> , <HERE>, AND <HERE>.]
SUCH ANOMALIES IN MARINE LIFE IN THE PACIFIC WERE REPORTED YEARS AGO. ...DURING AND AFTER THE NUCLEAR TESTS OF THE 1950s.
CREWS OF FISHING VESSELS HAVE ALSO PREVIOUSLY REPORTED THESE SAME THINGS DURING THE NUKE TESTS AND TODAY.
IS THAT MERE COINCIDENCE?
THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, 20 YEARS AGO, FUNDED A STUDY AS TO WHAT EFFECTS THE RADIATION FROM NUCLEAR SUBMARINES AND RUSSIA'S DUMPING OF OLD REACTORS, ETC, WAS HAVING ON THE ARCTIC.
[PDF]Contamination from Nuclear Wastes in the Arctic ... - Princeton University
DOESN'T THAT TELL US THAT THEY SAW A CORRELATION 21 YEARS AGO?
WHY DENY THE CORRELATION NOW?
AS IT TURNS OUT, ONE 'SCIENTIFIC STUDY' DID INDEED POINT TO THIS LINK IN RECENT TIME.
IT CAME FROM A CANADIAN TEAM.
"According to North Slope’s pdf AMSS2014_seaicescenario_Dasheretal_final ,
“Pinnipeds [seals] may have been exposed while on ice [in 2011] to the following [radiation]: Near surface air I^131 range of 1,000 to 100,000 uBq/ M^3.”
This is not surprising since “Hot particles, nuclear fuel fragments, were detected in air samples taken in Svalbard, Norway, more than 10,000 KM from Fukushima."
THE LARGE ANIMALS WHO LIVE ON THE SEA ICE, SEALS, WALRUSES, POLAR BEARS, WERE ALL HIT AND HIT HARD BY THE INITIAL FALLOUT FROM FUKUSHIMA LESS THAN 2 WEEKS AFTER THE REACTORS BLEW UP.
WHAT DID SCIENTISTS NOTICE THEN?
EXACTLY WHAT THE NATIVES HAD BEEN TELLING THEM WAS HAPPENING, JUST AS IT HAPPENED IN THE 1950s-1960s.
ONLY AFTER THE CANADIAN REPORTS DID WE READ SUCH AS THIS:
"NBC reported “Wildlife experts are studying whether fur loss and open sores detected in nine polar bears in recent weeks is widespread and related to similar incidents among seals and walruses … The bears were among 33 spotted near Barrow, Alaska, during routine survey work along the Arctic coastline. Tests showed they had ‘alopecia, or loss of fur, and other skin lesions,’”
“Despite extensive testing for a wide variety of well known infectious agents, the cause(s) of the observed condition in walruses and ice seals remains unknown,’ the USGS stated. ‘Advanced testing techniques for unidentified infectious agents is continuing as well as further testing for potential causes including man-made and natural biotoxins, radiation, contaminants, auto-immune diseases, nutritional, hormonal and environmental factors.’”
CAUSE UNKNOWN?
THEN HOW DID THEY HAVE THE AUDACITY TO REPORT THAT THE CAUSE WAS NOT RADIATION, IF CAUSE WAS UNKNOWN?
THEY STATED TESTING WAS STILL UNDERWAY.
Having reported that the causes are unknown and further testing is required, NBC assured us that, “Reuters noted that preliminary studies do not support a theory that the disease is due to contamination from the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.”
How would they know if the cause is unknown?
This is what one would expect from two tightly controlled, propagandist news agencies like: Reuters and NBC.
THE SYMPTOMS IN THE ANIMALS ON THE SEA ICE JUST WOULD NOT GO AWAY, HOWEVER.
Two years later, Alaska Dispatch News reported that “Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea area are suffering hair loss due to a condition called alopecia syndrome… but the precise cause of that is yet to be determined.”
In other words, two years later and they still haven’t determined the cause.
AND ONE GROUP HAD NO REAL CHOICE BUT TO REPORT THAT CALIFORNIA'S BABY SEALS HAD LEUKEMIA.
LEFT UNSAID WAS THAT THE LEUKEMIA COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED ONLY BY IN UTERO EXPOSURE TO RADIATION AS NONE OF THE BABIES HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO THE OTHER 2 POSSIBLE CAUSES WE KNOW PRODUCE LEUKEMIAS:.CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS AND BENZENE.
FROM: Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 2013
"A causal association with leukemia has ONLY been documented to date FOR IONIZING RADIATION, benzene, and treatment with cytostatic drugs.
A large number of studies included in the review referred to the effects of ionizing radiation, where new data suggest that the effects of exposure to small doses of ionizing radiation should probably be reevaluated."
WHAT IF ALL SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DEAD SEAL PUPS HAD BEEN TESTED, ALL MARINE SPECIES THAT WERE FOUND DEAD, EN MASSE, ON PACIFIC BEACHES THESE PAST 3 YEARS?
WHY WERE ONLY A HANDFUL OF ALL SPECIES, TOTAL, TESTED, JUST A FEW?
LIKE THE STORIES OF THE HUMAN GUINEA PIGS BACK DURING EARLY NUCLEAR TESTS HAVE FINALLY COME TO LIGHT, SO ARE THE COVER-UPS IN OTHER AREAS REGARDING RADIATION'S EFFECTS ON LIFE.
A VERY FRANK BOOK WRITTEN IN 1960 NOT ONLY LISTS THE WARNINGS FROM THE DAWN OF THE ATOMIC AGE ABOUT IONIZING RADIATION BUT SHOWS ITS TRUE EFFECTS ON LIFE, REPRODUCTION, OVERALL HEALTH.
WOULD THAT EVERYONE IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD WOULD READ THIS BOOK!
The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Report to the Public Volume 1, By National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
IT'S ALL THERE...ADMISSION AND WARNINGS THAT THE LOWEST AMOUNT OF RADIATION EXPOSURE IS TOO MUCH EXPOSURE, DANGEROUS, DEADLY.
WE CAN FIND SUCH FACTS IN WRITINGS FROM THAT TIME FRAME BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE NUCLEAR PLANTS EVERYWHERE AND CHERNOBYL, FUKUSHIMA AND OTHER 'ACCIDENTS' HADN'T HAPPENED YET, THERE WAS NOTHING TO COVER UP, NOTHING TO GLOSS OVER, SO THOSE WHO WROTE JUST WROTE (MOSTLY) THE TRUTH.
AFTER ALL, IT WAS THE ERA OF EXPECTING NUCLEAR BOMBS TO DROP ALL OVER US, THE 'COLD WAR', WITH FALLOUT SHELTERS EVERYWHERE, A TIME OF A SEMBLANCE OF CARING BY OUR GOVERNMENT, A TIME WHEN IT WAS JUST INFORMING THE PEOPLE AND HELPING THEM FACE THE POSSIBILITIES OF RADIATION CONTAMINATION.
"THE INHERITANCE MECHANISM IS FAR MORE SENSITIVE TO RADIATION THAN ANY OTHER BIOLOGICAL SYSTEM."
IT'S OUR HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM AND CYCLE THAT IS MOST EASILY AFFECTED BY RADIATION, THE FETUS, IN UTERO, IS THE MOST FRAGILE TARGET OF ALL.
From 1979, a peer-reviewed study of how easily DNA is harmed by low-dose radiation.
"Distribution of radiation induced lesions in human chromosomes and dose-effect relation analysed with G-banding"
Governments Have Been Covering Up Nuclear Meltdowns for Fifty Years to Protect the Nuclear Power Industry.
And, Japan is no exception.
As a History Chanel special notes, a nuclear meltdown occurred at the world’s first commercial reactor only 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles, and only 7 miles from the community of Canoga Park and the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles.
Specifically, in 1959, there was a meltdown of one-third of the nuclear reactors at the Santa Susana field laboratory operated by Rocketdyne, releasing – according to some scientists’ estimates – 240 times as much radiation as Three Mile Island.
But the Atomic Energy Commission lied and said only there was only 1 partially damaged rod, and no real problems. In fact, the AEC kept the meltdown a state secret for 20 years.
There were other major accidents at that reactor facility, which the AEC and Nuclear Regulatory Commission covered up as well.
See this.
Two years earlier, a Russian government reactor at Kyshtm melted down in an accident which some claim was even worse than Chernobyl.
The Soviet government hid the accident, pretending that it was creating a new “nature reserve” to keep people out of the huge swath of contaminated land.
HAVE YOU READ ABOUT THIS:
At least thirty times between 1957 and 1985—more than once a year—the Savannah River nuclear weapons plant near Aiken, South Carolina, experienced what a scientist subsequently termed “reactor incidents of greatest significance.” These included widespread leakage of radioactivity and a meltdown of nuclear fuel. But not one of these was reported to local residents or to the public generally. Nor was action taken when the scientist submitted an internal memorandum about these “incidents.” The story did not come to light until exposed in a Congressional hearing in 1988.
In 1982, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs received a secret report received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2”.
In that report and other reports by the NRC in the 1980s, it was estimated that there was a 50% chance of a nuclear meltdown within the next 20 years which would be so large that it would contaminate an area the size of the State of Pennsylvania, which would result in huge numbers of a fatalities, and which would cause damage in the hundreds of billions of dollars (in 1980s dollars).
USING HALF-LIFE TO MAKE IT ALL SEEM LESS DANGEROUS...
An element decays away below detectable levels in about ten to fifteen half-lives...and, for some radioactive particles, this means in hundreds, thousands to millions of years.
Examples of half-lives:
Cesium 137……… 30 years
Cobalt 60 ………….5 years
Plutonium 239 ……24,000 years
Strontium 90 …..…29 years
Uranium 235……..704 million years
Uranium 238……….4 billion years
There are charts online of hundreds of examples of half-lives in alphabetical order.
.
The Woods Hole Institute admits that “The ocean and its denizens continue to bear traces of cesium-137 that date from the atmospheric weapons testing during the Cold War era of the 1960s.”
The Environmental Effects of French Nuclear Testing found “iodine131 concentration of 22,000 picocuries per kilogram …” and “the concentration of plutonium-239 and plutonium 240 … for dry plankton [at] 9,700 picocuries/kilogram.” And, “Greenpeace found cesium-134 in plankton…” We know from the above that phytoplankton are contaminated with low levels of radionuclides."
We also know from those original "nuclear scientists" that there is no safe level of radiation....none.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT RADIATION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO ACCELERATE AGING, DEGENERATIVE HEALTH CONDITIONS AND HUMAN MORTALITY.
WITHOUT RADIATION WE WOULD LIVE LONGER AND HAVE FEWER CONGENITAL DEFECTS.
A VERY EXHAUSTIVE STUDY HAS SHOWN THAT ... "IONIZING RADIATION CAN INDUCE MULTIPLE SYMPTOMS OF PREMATURE AGING AT LOW DOSES AND LOW DOSE RATES."
EVEN THE RADIATION IN SUNLIGHT AFFECTS HUMAN CELLS AS WE SEE IN THE STATEMENTS FROM THE WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION:
"There would be no life on Earth without lots of sunlight, but we have increasingly recognized that too much of it on our persons is not a good thing. In fact it may be dangerous, so we control our exposure to it.
Beyond ultraviolet are higher energy kinds of radiation which are used in medicine and which we all get in low doses from space, from the air, and from the earth and rocks. Collectively we can refer to these kinds of radiation as ionizing radiation. It can cause damage to matter, particularly living tissue.
It has been known for many years that ... ionizing radiation can cause cancers and leukemias ('cancer of the blood') after some years delay. It must also be assumed, because of experiments on plants and animals, that ionizing radiation can also cause genetic mutations that affect future generations.
The degree of damage caused by radiation depends on many factors - dose, dose rate, type of radiation, the part of the body exposed, age and health, for example. Embryos including the human fetus are particularly sensitive to radiation damage."
[NOTE: WE ARE DEFINITELY SEEING THAT THIS IS TRUE IN HUMANS BY LOOKING AT CHERNOBYL...TODAY, ALMOST 50 YEARS AFTER THAT DISASTER, CHILDREN WITH HORRID BIRTH DEFECTS ARE BEING BORN TO THOSE WHO WERE CHILDREN THEMSELVES WHEN CHERNOBYL BLEW.
WE ARE ALSO SEEING RETURNING VETERANS WHO WERE EXPOSED TO DEPLETED URANIUM SIRING CHILDREN WITH TERRIBLE BIRTH DEFECTS.]
3 mSv/yr (approximate) is the typical background radiation from "natural" sources in North America, including an average of almost 2 mSv/yr from radon in air.
The minimum dose received by all humans anywhere on Earth is about 1.5 mSv/yr.
In addition to both these, we collect some radiation doses from artificial sources such as X-rays. We may also collect an increased cosmic radiation dose due to participating in high altitude activities such as flying or skiing. The average adult contains about 13 mg of radioactive potassium-40 in body tissue - we therefore even irradiate one another at close quarters."
WANT TO SEE HOW MUCH RADIATION YOU "NORMALLY"GET IN A YEAR?
GO <HERE>.
The average dose per person from all sources is about 620 mrems per year. It is not, however, uncommon for any of us to receive less or more than that in a given year (largely due to medical procedures we may undergo).
International Standards allow exposure to as much as 5,000 mrems a year for those who work with and around radioactive material.
MY TOTALS FOR THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF MANY CT SCANS, PET SCANS, ETC, WAS 6327.12...HIGHER THAN FOR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WORKER.
SO WHERE ARE WE HEADED, MY FRIENDS?
THE WAY OF THE TWO-HEADED SHARKS, WITH BABIES BORN WITH MORE AND MORE BIRTH DEFECTS?
I SINCERELY HOPE NOT.
I HOPE THAT SOMEHOW, SOME WAY, SOMEONE CAN FIND A WAY TO REVERSE THE THINGS WE'RE SEEING AROUND US AND STOP THESE THINGS THAT HARM US BECAUSE OF "NUCLEAR ENERGY".
WE DON'T NEED IT.
IT'S FAR TOO COSTLY IN TERMS OF LIVES.
"BLESS THE BEASTS AND THE CHILDREN."
______________________________
FURTHER READING, AND ONLY BECAUSE THE AUTHOR MAKES REFERENCE TO MANY VALIDATING DOCUMENTS AND POINTED ME IN A COUPLE OF NEW DIRECTIONS (BUT ONE OF HIS MAPS IS NOT ACCURATE):
"FUKUSHIMA FOREVER...THE PACIFIC OCEAN IS DYING"
No comments:
Post a Comment