Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

50 reasons we should fear the worst from Fukushima

Fukushima’s missing melted cores and radioactive gushers continue to fester in secret.

Japan’s harsh dictatorial censorship has been matched by a global corporate media blackout aimed – successfully – at keeping Fukushima out of the public eye.

But that doesn’t keep the actual radiation out of our ecosystem, our markets … or our bodies. Speculation on the ultimate impact ranges from the utterly harmless to the intensely apocalyptic.

Reporters allowed close to Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant 022214 by CNN
CNN reports Feb. 24 that Japan will allow 350 residents and eventually as many as 31,000 to return to their homes near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. On Feb. 22, reporters were given a tour of the facility. – Photo: CNN
But the basic reality is simple: For seven decades, government bomb factories and privately-owned reactors have spewed massive quantities of unmonitored radiation into the biosphere.
The impacts of these emissions on human and ecological health are unknown primarily because the nuclear industry has resolutely refused to study them.

Indeed, the official presumption has always been that showing proof of damage from nuclear bomb tests and commercial reactors falls to the victims, not the perpetrators. And that, in any case, the industry will be held virtually harmless.

This “see no evil, pay no damages” mindset dates from the bombing of Hiroshima to Fukushima to the disaster coming next … which could be happening as you read this.

Here are 50 preliminary reasons why this radioactive legacy demands we prepare for the worst for our oceans, our planet, our economy … ourselves.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), the U.S. military initially denied that there was any radioactive fallout or that it could do any damage. Despite an absence of meaningful data, the victims – including a group of U.S. prisoners of war – and their supporters were officially “discredited” and scorned.
Likewise, when Nobel winners Linus Pauling and Andre Sakharov correctly warned of a massive global death toll from atmospheric bomb testing, they were dismissed with official contempt … until they won in the court of public opinion.
During and after the bomb tests (1946-63), downwinders in the South Pacific and American West, along with thousands of U.S. “atomic vets,” were told their radiation-induced health problems were imaginary … until they proved utterly irrefutable.
When British Dr. Alice Stewart proved (1956) that even tiny x-ray doses to pregnant mothers could double childhood leukemia rates, she was assaulted with 30 years of heavily funded abuse from the nuclear and medical establishments.
But Stewart’s findings proved tragically accurate, and helped set in stone the medical health physics consensus that there is no “safe dose” of radiation … and that pregnant women should not be x-rayed or exposed to equivalent radiation.
More than 400 commercial power reactors have been injected into our ecosphere with no meaningful data to measure their potential health and environmental impacts and no systematic global data base has been established or maintained.

More sfbayview.com

Share

Leave a Reply