Message URL: http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2124645

Fukushima: Health Propaganda Blitz
(Plant Your Dream!)

Fukushima: Health Propaganda Blitz

Date:   11/16/2013 11:02:02 AM ( 11 y ago)

Fukushima: Health Propaganda Blitz


BILL MOYERS TAKE
http://billmoyers.com/2013/11/15/what-you-need-to-know-about-fukushima/


WED OCT 30, 2013 AT 12:22 PM PDT
Fukushima: Health Propaganda Blitz
byJoieauFollow

As Fukushima goes from bad to worse, the worldwide coverup of health effects goes into overdrive

In the very week of the UN's release of UNSCEAR's report on health effects of the catastrophe at Fukushima Daiichi, an op-ed appeared in the New York Times, Fear vs. Radiation: The Mismatch.

Coming as it does in the midst of the last few months' worth of ever worsening conditions and increasing radioactive releases at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility, it isn't difficult to understand the purpose of this bit of reassuring fluff. It was written by David Ropeik, an instructor of risk perception and risk communication at the Harvard Extension School. Ropeik also created and directs a training program for journalists - Improving Media Coverage of Risk. Thus we begin with the understanding that Ropeik's subject of expertise is not radiation or the health effects of radiation exposures. It is the "management" of public risk perception.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/30/1251849/-Fukushima-Health-Propaganda...


comments are powerful

It's a constant battle (5+ / 0-)
to refute the dangerous misinformation about Fukushima and radiation that industry and its sycophants continue to pour into the public consciousness.

The nuclear industry, like chemical manufacturers, has a bad habit of pretending that its product is harmless if symptoms do not immediately appear although delayed impacts are well-documented.

Some houses provide better protection from radiation than others, government studies show, but even the best provide only partial protection. Thus, the US government's written policy (NUREG-0654) is to recommend evacuation within 10 miles downwind of a plant. Sheltering in place is recommended in situations where a speedy evacuation is not possible; for example, during a snowstorm, because a vehicle provides less protection than a building.

by Deep Harm on Wed Oct 30, 2013 at 03:01:31 PM PDT


the new york times story has beeb picked up all over


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/opinion/fear-vs-radiation-the-mismatch.html...



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Fear vs. Radiation: The Mismatch
By DAVID ROPEIK
Published: October 21, 2013
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
SAVE
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts — It has been more than two and a half years since the Fukushima nuclear disaster began to unfold, and still the world watches events closely, fearfully. The drumbeat of danger seems never ending: Earlier this month, to take just one example, international news reports spread word that six workers at the plant had been accidentally doused with radioactive water.
Enlarge This Image

Mitch Blunt
Related

After Storm, Toxic Water Overflows in Japan (October 22, 2013)
Opinion Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Yet leading health scientists say the radiation from Fukushima has been relatively harmless, which is similar to results found after studying the health effects of Chernobyl. With all that evidence, why does our fear of all things nuclear persist? And what peril does that fear itself pose for society?

Our anxiety about nuclear radiation is rooted in our understandable fear of the terrible power of nuclear weapons. But in the 68 years since those weapons were first used in anger, we have learned, from the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki themselves, that ionizing radiation — the type created by a nuclear reaction — is not nearly the powerful carcinogen or genetic mutagen that we thought it was.

ABOUT DAVID ROPEIK

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_P._Ropeik




At Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
In a circa-2006 email to a SourceWatch editor, Ropeik listed his clients while at Harvard. Some of these clients were:
Office of the White House Communications Director
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Public Affairs Council
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
American Meat Institute
Consumer Federation of America
American Nuclear Society (northeast chapter)
Dow Chemical
DuPont
Entergy Power Corp.
Edison Electric Institute
Electric Power Research Institute


Bayer CropScience

http://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/Crop-Compendium/Pests-Diseases-Weeds.aspx


National Nanotechnology Initiative

http://www.nano.gov/about-nni

SPIN
http://nanogloss.com/nanotechnology/the-potential-disadvantages-of-nanotechno...

DANGERS OF NANOTECH

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/maynard-nanotech-au.html



Foundation Coal Company
Nuclear Energy Institute

 

Popularity:   message viewed 1704 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2124645

<< Return to the standard message view