Years later, the site of the Fukushima nuclear disaster remains a post-apocalyptic landscape of empty houses, massive health risks, and 20,000 workers moving bags of lethal soil from one spot to another. Polish photographer Arkadiusz Podniesinski gathered his courage and hazmat suit to searingly document a catastrophe he blames not on earthquake, tsunami or technology, but humans - "an immense experience, not comparable to anything else (where) only the wind answers."
For some reason, those photos reminded me of the final scene from the film On the Beach.
* The camera pans across Sydney, I believe. Nobody there, nothing moving, no animals, papers blowing around in the wind and ends with the camera fixed on the Salvation Army banner which says, "There is still time, brother."
* Is there?
From the moment Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was clear that the US had behaved immorally toward civilians in Japan.
The McCarthy Era purged liberals from government --
And we were left with "nuke 'em La May" and the other Joint Chiefs who gave us "Operation Northwoods" we have failed to call them sociopaths.
Generally, MIC paranoia and war planning sweep government because it profits industrialists who have long had strong control and influence over our government -- right now they own it.
And they own our free press -
See: Operation Mockingbird which was being drafted two years before the end of WWII and which converted journalists to "CIA journalists" -- something our Congress has failed to stop.
Obama was elected to office by liberal voters -- but very soon was pushing a new generation of nuclear reactors.
There are 500 across the globe -- about 100+ in the US -- and they require about one year to properly shut down.
They are as vulnerable to the catastrophes of Global Warming as humanity is -- as Louisiana was with Katrina -- or NJ was with Sandy.
And rather than representing the anti-war sentiments of the liberal voters, he has supported the Bush wars of aggression.
Pax America rules --
About five years or so before Fukushima, the government in Fukushima were being warned by Japanese scientists of increasing threats of earthquakes on this earthquake-prone island. They moved to shut down the reactors permanently.
The United States immediately sent a team to Fukushima and when they left the reactors were still operating but the government had been changed.
We are all threatened by Fukushima and its pollution of the Pacific Ocean.
We are all threatened by nuclear reactors everywhere --
and by politicians who "run from the left and govern from the right" --
even if they do carry Democratic Party credentials.
We are all further threatened by voting computers which are hackable and which began to come in during the late-1960's when we first began to notice the very odd and unlikely results of elections they were delivering.
The large computers used by MSM came in during the mid-1960's and we saw what they can do in 2000.
Basically, they call winners and losers based on less than even less than 1% of the votes, actual tallied votes.
The article in RT by Cynthia (pointed at by the link under "reports") surprises and disappoints me by its reliance on innuendo and fear-porn sources.
Fukushima is deserted largely because the government panicked and can't admit it.
There are people living in the area who've been doing so almost from the beginning. Naoto Matsumura went back to rescue as many of the abandoned non-humans as he could, and has been living there ever since. The cops tried to make him leave, but he refused, and they've since given up. He's healthy. The only concession he makes is that (last I heard) he doesn't yet eat food or drink water that originates there.
There's a veterinary clinic that, last I read, operates several days a week to care for the non-humans.
And there are other people living there under the radar because they don't want a constant ration of crap from the government.
This has nothing to do with Fukushima or radiation, but it does show something about the intelligence and sociability of magpies, and the decency of humans. I found it charming.
Your defense of nukes is someone likely to die from cancer due to living in a contaminated area might live for decades before showing the effect?
NEARBY NUCLEAR DISASTER MIGHT NOT KILL YOU FOR YEARS.
Oh yeah, build that plant near me. I feel perfectly safe now.
Sorry, but unless you are getting classified information from inside sources, you won't be getting real data.
And the anecdotal stories like Matsumura are scrubbed and disseminated purposefully.
Do you have supporting evidence for those claims?
Fukushima Design = Diablo Canyon Design = Same Disaster Coming Our Way.
When you build a twin GE reactor with the same documented design flaws and it is still in operation
in San Andreas earthquake fault zone, Expect the Expected.
And guess what, our government has no cleanup plans either.
For those without a security clearance, the point is moot.
So I would reference you to the the National Archives.
There was for a long time, a regular email update service which would notify you of newly declassified data released to the Archives pertaining to whatever subject you are researching.
This ranges across all activities of the Federal Government including the
Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Energy.
Read their history of data and it will give you belated evidence of methodology. There is plenty there.
Specifically reference the only lawsuit ever won against the US Gov't brought by Stewart Udall and John Glenn for radiation poisoning of American Citizens in the yellow-cake mines in New Mexico and the yellow cake processing in Ohio which for decades released tonnage of radioactive yellow-cake into the local population.
And YES people got sick and DIED prematurely.
The one that got me was the General's statement regarding why AEC built Hanford reactor where they did ....simple
The indigenous people of Washington were law abiding people of simple intelligence who did not question authority and were willing to accept the Gov't story regarding anything associated with operations, including unexplainable phenomena.
Like your whole family has some form of thyroid cancer.
Also watch NOVA's "The Bomb, The Lethal Legacy"
It will clue you
No, my "defense", if you want to call it that, is that people die from all kinds of effects all the time.
We can say with some certainty whether we'll die this evening, but, except for people my age and older, not whether we'll still be alive 30 years from now!
Nor can we say what will finally kill us - there are too many possibilities! I know something will get me, but it might be something as banal as being hit and knocked off my bike by some nitwit downloading ringtones.
I live near the coal-fired Brayton Point power plant. 40,000 TONS of coal every 3 days. It pollutes around the clock! I would much rather be living the same distance away from the Pilgrim nuke because it doesn't do that. It's only a danger if something really bad happens.
Matsumura-san decided he didn't want to be a refugee the rest of his life, and he felt awful about abandoning the non-humans who depended on him. So he went back, and he's fine both emotionally and physically. As he says, he'll probably die of something else before he starts having cancer problems. 30 years is just too far in the future to worry about.
(I just today read a snippet about how university staff are beginning to notice that the incoming population of kids look great on paper, but don't actually know how to take care of themselves.
Their "helicopter" parents, determined to live forever while making sure their kids are the ultimate in success stories, have never let them become autonomous.
So they get sick because they weren't allowed to play in the dirt, they don't know how to be creative because every waking hour was pre-formatted, and they don't know how to be adults because they were never allowed to learn how to take chances and recover from mistakes.)
There are a zillion problems connected to nuclear reactors and they should NEVER have been built -- but there are times when it's important to be able to shut them down.
(See "Key Facts" re decommissioning below ...*)
Also, US is spending heavily on developing new atomic weapons --
But also look at this -- (Includes a Petition) . . .
No U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe
To: The Governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey
Do not upgrade the U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe. Remove them. People in the United States and around the world would support you in this.
Why is this important?
The United States keeps nuclear weapons in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey, in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which bans the transfer of nuclear weapons from a nuclear weapon state to a non-nuclear weapon state. Now, the U.S. wants to upgrade its nukes in Europe, to make them "precision" and "guided," and therefore more likely to be used, even as tensions build between the United States and Russia.
The U.S. plans to deploy newly designed type B 61-12 nuclear bombs. Instead it should remove existing nuclear bombs. The NATO strategy of so-called "nuclear sharing" is a violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the NPT. Those provisions state that every party to the treaty promises "not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly" and also promises that every "non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons."
The policy of placing U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe also violates local laws. For example, the German Parliament (the Bundestag) voted in March 2010, by a large majority, that the German Government should "press for the withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany." UNQUOTE
Decommissioning is the process by which nuclear power plants are retired from service. To ensure that it is safe and environmentally sound, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established regulations and associated guidance outlining the requirements and process companies must follow. The NRC’s decommissioning process facilitates participation by state and local authorities at several points along the way.
The process involves decontaminating the facility to reduce residual radioactivity, dismantling the structures, removing contaminated materials to appropriate disposal facilities and releasing the property for other uses. The owner remains accountable to the NRC until decommissioning has been completed and the agency has terminated its license.
To prepare for eventual decommissioning of a nuclear power plant, the NRC requires the companies that operate them to put aside funds throughout the plant’s operating lifetime. Companies work with federal and state regulators to ensure that enough money will be available. Decommissioning funds are not under the direct control of the companies and cannot be used for any other purpose.
The closure of more than 70 test and power reactors since 1960—including 17 power reactor sites that are undergoing decommissioning—shows the strength and flexibility of the NRC’s approach to the process. UNQUOTE
Our problems begin with male paranoia and "the bird with one wing" =
patriarchy and its violence which is the only way it can come to power or hold power.
This is why it is reasonable to suggest that Global Warming has the potential to wipe out humanity but that the planet may also not keep turning.
Yes, tobacco also took decades to kill you --
your last years spent in suffering and pain and years waiting for it.
Once the public got the truth, they understood it wasn't too smart to smoke.
Had the public had the truth of nuclear reactors -- or even now of Fukushima and what is actually happening there and across the Pacific because of it -- they'd also demand they be closed down.
The larger reality is that these decisions were based in suicidal Capitalist schemes and MIC efforts to try to make nuclear weapons look less harmful.
We will never recover from the harm done by having built them.
Capitalism is an evil which cannot be regulated.
How could anyone be persuaded that anyone could set a price on the planet?
Nature? Or ever entertain that anyone could "repay" us for the loss of it?
Our elected officials engaged in fraud and crime in order to have these nuclear rectors built.
So you're saying we should just "lay back and enjoy it" ... ???
RADIATION FROM A NUCLEAR DISASTER: JUST ONE OF MANY WAYS YOU CAN DIE.
Not so much that, as that it's not healthy to live in fear. Even if the fear is fully supported by evidence, it's not healthy. And when it's not supported by good evidence, it's REALLY unhealthy. The healthiest thing to do is to size the problem in a realistic way, and do things that have a big payoff in terms of the real size (likelihood of something happening x cost if it does) of the problem.
I'm a committed utility cyclist and pretty cautious--I still have, and wear, my grotty-but-unharmed 30yo ANSI-certified helmet. But those I've to share the road with seem to be nuts sometimes.
While the likelihood of my being hit is small -because I'm cautious- the cost would be very large (everything!), so I've invested about $120 in things (ANSI II safety vest, multiple strong taillights/flashers) that make me much more visible on the road. That feels like the right level of response, and I'm comfortable with it.
I could quit cycling, but since some driver could have a heart attack and run me over while I was walking on the pavement, I still wouldn't be safe, and in addition would lose the benefits of exercise, not polluting, etc. Or I could have a heart attack! So it would be unhealthy to keep chasing the Perfect Safety phantom.
coal-fired Brayton Point = mercury poisoning
"Pilgrim nuke is only a danger if something really bad happens."
This really is anecdotal...
as you say there are many ways to die, but we know these quite well.
by Harvey Wasserman it really illustrates the problem quite clearly.
"The situation at Pilgrim has long been critical. Nearly a
quarter-century ago the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was forced
to advise Pilgrim’s owners (back then it was Boston Edison) that the
plant did not meet basic safety standards. The nuke opened in 1972. The
commission recently renewed its license for 20 more years."
1972 "anything" is grossly aged.
For a reactor, it's suicidal.
Coal-fired Brayton Point = lots more than mercury.
(Wasserman is an unethical fear-monger. If you actually read about Pilgrim, you find that it doesn't have modern safeguards. So if an ACCIDENT happens, it's likely to be very bad. But the risk of an accident is not worse, and it doesn't spew crap as part of its normal operation!)
Some nuke proponents like Democrat Presidential candidate Jim Webb, Energy Secretary Moniz as well as the Republican Clown Car have evidently not received this memo.
Yep. And the operative words there are "one of the many" and "can". There's no guarantee that it will be radiation unless you go around with a chunk of radium in your shirt pocket. That would probably guarantee a radiation death!
But a "nuclear disaster"? Nope. The likelihood is higher that you'll die from a lightning strike, and MUCH higher that you'll die from a fall!