Playing down the harm of Fukushima is not helping the nuclear power industry image - and it dishoners the victims. Admitting the truth would be the better way to go because now we have to reject them altogether.

Date:   3/11/2013 10:36:53 PM ( 11 y ago)

   It certainly does nothing to "grow the love" for someone when they insult their victims by denying that there was any harm done.

    For example, if a drunk driver drove over a group of schoolchildren gathered at the bus stop and then publicly DE CLAREd that "nobody was hurt, it was no big deal", and that "driving drunk is perfectly safe" - wouldn't that just make our rage towards him grow?

   If he showed remorse and pledged to never drink and drive again, and to campaign against drunk driving, we could start to find some small forgiveness towards him.

   Guess which way the NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY has gone on this, the 2nd year anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear accident [which followed the Tsunami]?? Of course, they have decided to deny that anyone was hurt, or that there was or will be anything to worry about. Ahhh, but when they do THAT, when they try to keep the truth from us, then in order to protect ourselves we have to assume the worst.

One of the nuclear industry supporters/spokespeople was interviewed on CBC radio today and claimed that:
 1] there was no harm done due to the Fukushima nuclear accident;
 2] nobody died as a result of the Fukushima nuclear accident;
 3] that nuclear power is safe.

   It has echoes of Holocaust denial - yes, on a much smaller scale, and the harm was not done on purpose, but TO DENY THE HARM is just so wrong, so insulting to the victims.

   The victims - past, present, and mostly future - will number in the 1000s of dead, and are presently in the range of 150,000 displaced people, and include about 100 that have already died of cancers caused by radioactive contamination.

   Furthermore, if the exact numbers of cancer victims is difficult to know precisely, and if the spread of contamination beyond Japan is difficult to know precisely, it is because of the nuclear industry and various governments working hard to keep it from being known.

  Again, this only enrages, and does nothing to restore confidence about the safety of nuclear power - all we really know is that the truth is being kept from us, and so we have to assume the worse because we have not been told differently.

The worst?
 - the Pacific ocean, vast as it may be, will have Fukushima isotopes from shore to shore, and from top to bottom, rendering all fish and food from it as being dangerous for human consumption.
 - that North America's west coast, from Mexico to Alaska, will become gradually irradiated over the next 10 years until living there is equal to a 20% greater cancer risk than before Fukushima.
 - that the Japanese people will have a 50% greater cancer risk over their lifetimes on average, with those closest to the source of radiation being higher than that and those living further away being at somewhat less risk.
 - that 10% of Japan's land will be inhabitable for generations to come.

  YA, SURE, those are off the top of my head, without concrete analysis to back them up - because that analysis is being kept from us. We have to assume the worst when the truth is being kept from us.

  The truth IS being kept from us - many of the radiation monitoring stations were taken down in Canada and the USA within 3 to 6 months of the accident, just when some of the radiation would be starting to arrive here. Some of those stations were temporarily set up after the accident, but many of them were there long before the accident and so taking them down could only mean.... THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT US TO KNOW.... and so we have to assume the worst. Why else would they take them down?? Not because the news was good... but because of possible lawsuits if they remained in place - because the news was bad.

   The authorities are going so far as to say that a low level of radiation poses no risk, and that the Fukushima contamination is about the same as the "background radiation" from natural sources. Well, so life evolved on planet earth in spite of the radiation hazard... we evolved so as to be able to cope with the "background radiation" - why would evolution allow for MORE than the background radiation levels? It would not!!

  Any amount of radiation above, or added to, the background radiation levels is going to cause problems - we did not evolve to be able to cope with any more that background radiation. Even the smallest amount of radiation can cause cancers, but our immune system can protect us from some small amounts.... but not more.

  Because of the nuclear industry fudging of numbers and obfuscation of the facts and their downplaying of the dangers, we have to assume the worst. They would have been better off admitting the truth!!

 

Popularity:   message viewed 2346 times
URL:   http://curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2044727

<< Return to the standard message view