When the economy imploded in 2008, how did the government respond?
it crack down on fraud? Force bankrupt companies to admit that their
speculative gambling with our money had failed? Rein in the funny
Of course not!
The government just helped cover
up how bad things were, used claims of national security to keep
everything in the dark, and changed basic rules and definitions to allow
the game to continue. See this, this, this and this.
now that Japan is suffering the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl -
if not of all time - is the government riding to the rescue to help fix
the problem, or at least to provide accurate information to its
citizens so they can make informed decisions?
Of course not!
The EPA is closing ranks with the nuclear power industry:
EPA officials, however, refused Critics said the public needs more information. "It's disappointing," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "I
to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the
exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation,
if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.
Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA's regional
headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency's written statement
would stand on its own.
have a strong suspicion that EPA is being silenced by those in the
federal government who don't want anything to stand in the way of a
nuclear power expansion in this country, heavily subsidized by
EPA officials, however, refused
Critics said the public needs more information.
"It's disappointing," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "I
The EPA has pulled 8 of its 18 radiation monitors in California, Oregon and Washington because (by implication) they are giving readings which seem too high.
Remember, for the sake of context, that the government has covered up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear power industry.
And now, the EPA is considering drastically raising the amount of allowable radiation in food, water and the environment.
As Michael Kane writes:
the wake of the continuing nuclear tragedy in Japan, the United States
government is still moving quickly to increase the amounts of
radiation the population can “safely” absorb by raising the safe zone
for exposure to levels designed to protect the government and nuclear
industry more than human life. It’s all about cutting costs now as the
infinite-growth paradigm sputters and moves towards extinction. As has
been demonstrated by government conduct in the Gulf of Mexico in the
wake of Deepwater Horizon and in Japan, life has taken a back seat to
cost-cutting and public relations posturing.
The game plan now appears to be to protect government and the nuclear industry from “excessive costs”… at any cost.
1992, the EPA produced a PAGs manual that answers many of these
questions. But now an update to the 1992 manual is being planned, and
if the “Dr. Strangelove” wing of the EPA has its way, here is what it
means (brace yourself for these ludicrous increases):
- A nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90;
- A 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and
- An almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63.
new radiation guidelines would also allow long-term cleanup thresholds
thousands of times more lax than anything EPA has ever judged safe in
And see this.
some government scientists and media shills are now "reexamining" old
studies that show that radioactive substances like plutonium cause
cancer to argue that prevent cancer.
other words, this is a concerted propaganda campaign to cover up the
severity of a major nuclear accident by raising acceptable levels of
radiation and saying that a little radiation is good for us.