This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power Industry
The Christian Science Monitor noted recently:
Just
as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's
Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling
oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in
Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.***
[Russian
nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the
Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to
clean up Chernobyl ] has also accused the IAEA of being too close
with corporations. "This is only a fake organization
because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry –
and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform
properly."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is no better.
As
nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Duane Peterson (president of VPIRG
& coordinator for the campaign to retire Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant), investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman and Paul Gallay
(executive director of Riverkeeper) point out in a roundtable
discussion:
- The NRC won't even begin conducting its earthquake study for Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York until after relicensing is complete in 2013, because the NRC doesn't consider a big earthquake "a serious risk"
- Congressman Markey has said there is a cover up. Specifically, Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake)
- The budget for the NRC comes from the nuclear power companies [just like banks fund the Federal Reserve]
- The NRC is wholly captive to industry
- The NRC has never turned
down the request of a nuclear power plant to be relicensed in the
United States. Relicensing is solely a paper process; there is no
safety review.
- The NRC's assumptions regarding a
worst-case accident are ridiculous. For example, the NRC assumes only
1% of the fuel could meltdown, while 70% melted down at Fukushima. The
NRC assumes no loss of containment, while there has been a major loss
of containment in reactors 1-3 (especially 2) at Fukushima.
- "If
there was a free market in energy, nuclear power would be over ...
immediately". Nuclear plant owners can't get insurance; they can only
operate because the U.S. government provides insurance on the taxpayer
dime. The government also granted a ridiculously low cap on liability
- If we had no subsidies for nuclear, coal or oil, we'd have a clean energy economy right now
- We have 4 reactors in California - 2 at San Onofre 2 at San Luis Obisbo - which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
- No state or federal agency knows who would be in charge in case of an accident at Indian Point. It's like the Keystone Cops
Watch live streaming video from deepakhomebase at livestream.com
Watch live streaming video from deepakhomebase at livestream.com
Note:
The videos appear to rotate, so if the nuclear roundtable is not
playing at first, keep on watching, and it will eventually loop back.
- advertisements -
If nuclear overseers were fake, then it would take a much shorter period to build nuclear power plants.
George-
EVERY agency in this country is controlled by the industry they are supposed to regulate. Who do you think runs the DOEnergy? People from the oil industry!!
In the USDA, nearly all the undersecretary and deputy positions( or whatever their fake title is) are filled with people from big business- whether it's the grain industry or meat industry- every critical decision that has come out of the USDA has favored the Meat Packers, processors, or big business in general. It is a continued, ongoing effort to drive out the small farmer. And that is the way it is thru-out government.
Don't believe me? Look up the positions on the internet, find the names, and google them- you will soon see where they have worked in the past. Don't bother with the Dept of Defense- that's an easy one.
Sod
Why was TEPCO lying from the start to Japanese? Why did Japan reuse all help EXCEPT US Military?
Anyone ever wonder?
obviously it i true, most 'pundits' are paid by the industry and in return their comments are pretty rosy. so you have to find some independent scientists
since i did some research myself over the past week, i would like to share some info all concerning radiation:
*The official forecast from the Department of Atmospheric and Climate Research, The Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU).
sponsored by the norway government with a long and stable track record on these matters, gives you an idea on the fall out direction and densities:
http://transport.nilu.no/browser/fpv_fuku?fpp=conccol_Xe-133_;region=NH
*i'm not sure if you know this interview with chris busby, i consider it pretty revealing and easy to understand even for a layman like myself, a must listen imo:
http://www.radio4all.net/files/PoliticsAndScience@madriver.com/3972-1-Ch...
another busby connected website: http://www.bsrrw.org/
*another person you might like to include in your reseach is prof alexey v. yablokov from the russian academy of sciences very famous for his work on chernobyl and considered the leading man in his field :
http://www.youtube.com/resultssearch_query=alexey+jabokov+chernobyl&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-hHTFWXr90&feature=related
as a real old-style east-block russian, his english is quite rusty, but once you get adjusted to it his content is quite revealing imo.
very insightful imo - here is a download for free i found on the web from yablokov's famous book on chernobyl - not only based on his own research only but also on that of others from the chernobyl hit region:
http://www.euradcom.org/publications/chernobylebook.pdf
curriculum Alexey Yablokov
Dr. A.V.Yablokov (born 1933, Moscow, Russia). MA (Vertebrate Zoology).1959. - Dr.Biol.(Marine Mammals), 1965. - Dr. Sci. (Population Biology), 1984 - Corresponding Member (Biology), the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1988-1991 - Chairman, Commission of Ichthyology, the USSR Ministry of Fisheries. 1989-1991 - People's Deputy (MP) of the USSR, Deputy Chairman, Committee of Ecology, the USSR Supreme Soviet, Moscow. 1991-1993 - Counselor to the President of the Russian Federation for Ecology and Health, Moscow. 1993 -1997 - Chairman, Interagency Commission on Ecological Security, National Security Council of the Russian Federation, Moscow. From 1993 - Founder and President, Center for the Russian Environmental Policy , Moscow. >From 1995 – Founder and member of Council, Russian Marine Mammals Council. Deputy Chairman, Council on the Ecological Problems, Russian Academy of Science, 2001- Vice President, International Union Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2003 – Chair, Working Group on Strategic Planning for Western Gray Whale, Interagency Ichthyologic Commission.
Authors more than 400 scientific papers and 22 books (marine mammals, population biology, radioecology , environmental policy etc) including "Beluha Whale" (1959, 1964);"Whales and Dolphins" (1972); "Conservation of Living Nature and Resources" (1988,1991) , "Population Biology" (1986, 1987) ; "Non-Invasive Study of Mammalian Populations" (2004).
have a look at this as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYgBgkZCobQ yablokov & busby together.
*so the britisch have busby, the russians have yablokov and we in north american it is mrs. helen caldicott from canada (biggest uranium exporter in the world)- although originally from australia . accordingly the habit of the north american continent she is somewhat of an activist/scientist, but that also leads to revealing stuff, straight to the point. worth further investigating imo.
through to her i finally understood why this nuclear problem has spun so heavily over the past decade and all tend to believe this fukushima fall out is not worse than just regular back ground radiation (which in reality and in itself hardly exists by the way).
hear caldicott simply lays it out for all to understand, the way nuclear research is addressed in the world these days through the un/who guided by the aeai, the big world wide nuclear promotors sponsored by all governments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65ptQASTKCk
caldicott: "children are 10 to 20 times more susceptible to nuclear fall out".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpHrBawqQtQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW1W3ZnaSyE
here is some more background info from caldicott:
How nuclear apologists mislead the world over radiation
Posted on April 13, 2011 by Helen Caldicott
Soon after the Fukushima accident last month, I stated publicly that a nuclear event of this size and catastrophic potential could present a medical problem of very large dimensions.
Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation.
That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
Proponents of nuclear power – including George Monbiot, who has had a mysterious road-to-Damascus conversion to its supposedly benign effects – accuse me and others who call attention to the potential serious medical consequences of the accident of "cherry-picking" data and overstating the health effects of radiation from the radioactive fuel in the destroyed reactors and their cooling pools.
Yet by reassuring the public that things aren't too bad, Monbiot and others at best misinform, and at worst misrepresent or distort, the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of radiation exposure – and they play a predictable shoot-the-messenger game in the process.
To wit:
1) Mr Monbiot, who is a journalist not a scientist, appears unaware of the difference between external and internal radiation
Let me educate him.
The former is what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented. [1]
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). [2] After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima. It is inaccurate and misleading to use the term "acceptable levels of external radiation" in assessing internal radiation exposures. To do so, as Monbiot has done, is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide (not to mention other journalists) who are seeking the truth about radiation's hazards.
2) Nuclear industry proponents often assert that low doses of radiation (eg below 100mSV) produce no ill effects and are therefore safe. But , as the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.
3) Now let's turn to Chernobyl. Various seemingly reputable groups have issued differing reports on the morbidity and mortalities resulting from the 1986 radiation catastrophe. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in 2005 issued a report attributing only 43 human deaths directly to the Chernobyl disaster and estimating an additional 4,000 fatal cancers. In contrast, the 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, comes to a very different conclusion. The three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko – provide in its pages a translated synthesis and compilation of hundreds of scientific articles on the effects of the Chernobyl disaster that have appeared in Slavic language publications over the past 20 years. They estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
Monbiot dismisses the report as worthless, but to do so – to ignore and denigrate an entire body of literature, collectively hundreds of studies that provide evidence of large and significant impacts on human health and the environment – is arrogant and irresponsible. Scientists can and should argue over such things, for example, as confidence intervals around individual estimates (which signal the reliability of estimates), but to consign out of hand the entire report into a metaphorical dustbin is shameful.
Further, as Prof Dimitro Godzinsky, of the Ukranian National Academy of Sciences, states in his introduction to the report: "Against this background of such persuasive data some defenders of atomic energy look specious as they deny the obvious negative effects of radiation upon populations. In fact, their reactions include almost complete refusal to fund medical and biological studies, even liquidating government bodies that were in charge of the `affairs of Chernobyl'. Under pressure from the nuclear lobby, officials have also diverted scientific personnel away from studying the problems caused by Chernobyl."
4) Monbiot expresses surprise that a UN-affiliated body such as WHOmight be under the influence of the nuclear power industry, causing its reporting on nuclear power matters to be biased. And yet that is precisely the case.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."
After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry. The IAEA's founding papers state: "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world."
Monbiot appears ignorant about the WHO's subjugation to the IAEA, yet this is widely known within the scientific radiation community. But it is clearly not the only matter on which he is ignorant after his apparent three-day perusal of the vast body of scientific information on radiation and radioactivity. As we have seen, he and other nuclear industry apologists sow confusion about radiation risks, and, in my view, in much the same way that the tobacco industry did in previous decades about the risks of smoking. Despite their claims, it is they, not the "anti-nuclear movement" who are "misleading the world about the impacts of radiation on human health."
mrs. Helen Caldicott is president of the Helen Caldicott Foundation for a Nuclear-Free Planet and the author of Nuclear Power is Not the Answer
[1] See, for example, WJ Schull, Effects of Atomic Radiation: A Half-Century of Studies from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (New York: Wiley-Lis, 1995) and DE Thompson, K Mabuchi, E Ron, M Soda, M Tokunaga, S Ochikubo, S Sugimoto, T Ikeda, M Terasaki, S Izumi et al. "Cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors, Part I: Solid tumors, 1958-1987″ in Radiat Res 137:S17-S67 (1994).
[2] This process is called bioaccumulation and comes in two subtypes as well, bioconcentration and biomagnification. For more information see: J.U. Clark and V.A. McFarland, Assessing Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Organisms Exposed to Contaminated Sediments, Miscellaneous Paper D-91-2 (1991), Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS and H.A. Vanderplog, D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye, Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002 (1975), Environmental Sciences Division Publication, Number 783, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
*here is another interesting article:
The Amount of Radioactive Fuel at Fukushima DWARFS Chernobyl
Science Insider noted yesterday:
The Daiichi complex in Fukushima, Japan ... had a total of1760 metric tons of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site last year, according to a presentation by its owners, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco). The most damaged Daiichi reactor, number 3, contains about 90 tons of fuel, and the storage pool above reactor 4, which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Gregory Jaczko reported yesterday had lost its cooling water, contains 135 tons of spent fuel. The amount of fuel lost in the core melt at Three Mile Island in 1979 was about 30 tons; the Chernobyl reactors had about180 tons when the accident occurred in 1986.
And see this.
That means that Fukushima has nearly 10 times more nuclear fuel than Chernobyl.
It also means that a single spent fuel pool - at reactor 4, which has lost all of its water and thus faces a release of its radioactive material - has 75%as much nuclear fuel as at all of Chernobyl.
However, the real numbers are even worse.
Specifically, Tepco very recently transferred many more radioactive spent fuel rods into the storage pools. According to Associated Press, there were - at the time of the earthquake and tsunami - 3,400 tons of fuel in seven spent fuel pools plus 877 tons of active fuel in the cores of the reactors.
That totals 4,277 tons of nuclear fuel at Fukushima.
Which means that there is almost 24 times more nuclear fuel at Fukushima than Chernobyl.
some trivia but very insightful on the current situation : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
*if i'm not mistaken you mentioned john gofman"Nuclear Witnesses," John Gofman, Medical Physicist the late prof. Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at University of California at Berkeley already on your site.
please find a summarizing article on his elaborated research on the issue:
http://s12-us2.startpage-proxy.com/do/highlight.pl
c=hf&rid=LBLNKKPSMRQR&l=english&cat=web&sp=10c5809a95046d44173206ad6304f1eb&ts=MTMwMDU4NDgxNQ%3D%3D&q=dr.+rosalie+bertell+japan&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ratical.org%2Fradiation%2FCNR%2FRIC%2Fchp1F.html&/file.gz
*another person that has been important and was a collegue of gofman is mrs. rosalie bertell:
YouTube - IICPH's 25th - Rosalie Bertell - part 1
YouTube - IICPH's 25th - Rosalie Bertell - part 2
YouTube - IICPH's 25th - Rosalie Bertell - part 3
http://www.iicph.org/
http://www.youtube.com/user/IICPH2000?blend=23&ob=5
Helen Caldicott has been making a living as an "activist" for decades.
Someone please explain why I'm supposed to treat pro-nuclear people as mere paid shills, yet accept what this woman says as gospel.
Shills always make that argument, but activists make a minute fraction of what scientists or economists who work for the big boys make. Indeed, if the activists stopped criticizing and switched to working for the industry, their paycheck would increase exponentially...
Wait a minute. I don't know how much Caldicott makes, but she's the president of her own foundation, and that sounds like a sweet assed gig to me. Plus she's an actual MD, so if activist didn't pay at least as well as that I figure she'd just hang it up and go doctoring.
And if she actually went to work for the industry as a doctor she'd be tied down to an actual job in one place. Instead as an activist she gets to fly all over the place to give speeches and such. If you think I'm making that up, check her website. She gets around.
Much better than checking radiation badges, IMO.
I'm pretty sure you could do your shilling from any location on the globe, too.
Why don't you head off to Japan and set up a sun lounger near Fukushima? Real pretty this time of year, you could sit there posting your nuclear asslickings while catching some rays.
Also, the issue is NOT pro-nuclear versus anti-nuclear (which is a straw man):
Japan's Nuclear Meltdown, the Economic Meltdown, and the Gulf Oil Meltdown All Happened for the SAME REASONOK, I skimmed over your link. To my surprise I agreed with it.
As far as I'm concerned what we should really take away from Japan's nuclear disaster is this, and I'll grab a quote from you:
"We could build a new, safer generation of nuclear power plants which have inherently safer designs, such as low-temperature reactors and thorium reactors."
We should do so, understand the risks, and stop giving the money we need to make it happen to the bankster thieves.
Good God man, that is one hell of post.... you are going to get your ear chewed on for all the copy and pasting (and then posting it in one place)..... hats off to you for doing your homework...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wauzrPn0cfg&feature=related
reading music. How long, not long
ALL BY DESIGN MY FRIEND!
THERE IS GOOD REASON THOSE NUKES ARE IN CALIFORNIA.
Sorry "NotApplicable". I'm still getting the anger out of my system from all those people who told me my whole life about how affordable and clean and worry free nuclear energy was. It makes me angry to see the gov/ people out in the world who still support it. I just don't understand. Guess money really does make the world go around!
BTW, I agree with you, I just didn't see who you were referencing.
Sorry to bust a few bubbles here but when you add up the cost of nuclear energy ( building the plant, operating the plant and finally enclosing into a tomb, all the costs of the the accidents and the cost to human lives and property, than this is the most expensive energy money can buy. Do the math. I'd rather have the "acid rain" from coal!
It's worse than that. Read up on 'EROEI' - Energy return on energy invested. A purely thermodynamic 'profit ratio' that has nothing to do with money or finance. If an 'energy source' takes more energy to set up than it returns, it's really nothing but an energy loss.
It turns out that nuclear fission power, when you add up the total energy costs to society of plant construction, fuel refining, plant operation, decommissioning, and long term waste containment, is thermodynamically a NET LOSS operation. In other words we'd be better off not doing it at all, and nuclear power plants simply aren't even possible without an oil-based economy to prop them up, energy-wise.
And that's without factoring in any major disasters, like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
That peak oil is real, and all the 'renewables' have pathetically, unworkable low EROEI ratios, so as an industrial civilisation we're fucked unless we can find an alternative energy source, doesn't make any difference to the thermodynamic non-viability and hideous mega-disaster risks of nuclear fission plants.
Unless we can get nuclear fusion working, we're screwed, and WILL be sliding down into a post-industrialised state. Or worse.
The really sad thing is, the Elites seem to have ideologically convinced themselves this is a good thing:
The problem is, as usual the Elites are being stupid and failing to see the 'unintended consequences' of their schemes. If we deindustrialize now, the entire planet's biosphere will die, due to loss of containment of all the nuclear installations and waste repositories, as they weather away over a thousand years or so. It seems very likely that the huge tonnages of long lived radioactives we have manufactured, once spread around the planet by winds and water, will raise the background radiation to levels not survivable by anything. Not even cockroaches or bacteria. Maybe the bacteria in deep geological formations, or locked below ancient glaciers. But not much else.
Half life of plutonium, 24,000 years. Depleted uranium, 4.468 billion years.
We MUST get fusion working, or we as a species, and the entire living Earth, are very likely dead. We've really painted ourselves into a corner this time.
Excuse me, but you've been the victim of the endless bullshit propaganda cranked out by the civilization-hating greens.
The notion that nuclear power is that crazy spensive is ridiculous. If it was true no nuclear would have ever been built anywhere. And since nuclear plants aren't the only sort of large scale industrial complex I submit that none of those would have ever been affordable either.
Yet modern industrial facilities do exist, including swarms of nuclear plants that China is building. Somehow they're quite affordable, in countries that lack an infestation of greens.
Xennady. Member for 4 weeks, has posted comments on two articles, all feverishly boosting nuclear.
Even for a shill fresh out of shill school, you're pretty transparent.
You don't have to be a 'civilization-hating green' to see that nuclear power would never have gotten off the ground without massive government subsidies.
We don't need nukes to have civilization, shill. Natgas will do us fine.
No insurance company will touch a nuclear plant because they can not price the enormous consequences of failure at a level that will allow the plant to be operated at a profit.
That's the fact.
Now you just go back to talking to yourself about how nuke plants are no big woof.
Whose bubble do you think you're busting? I don't see a single comment in this thread promoting the affordability of nuke power.
If you're going to bust somebody's bubble, at least find someone with one, ok? ;)
Look NA - Here's one right here
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nuclear-overseers-are-fake-agencies-fun...
He says children will die without nuklear power. Plenty of children around here do not have electricity in their homes, but they're not dying. In fact they're mostly happy, healthy, spontaneous and kind like their parents.
Bringin it- Your ignorance astounds me. The reason why so many children live to be healthy and spontaneous is because modern technology saves them. Prior to that vast numbers of children died, which is why population of the planet is billions now and not many millenia ago.
Agriculture improved. You're talking about the need for electricity via nuclear power.
As I said, many villages around here have no electricity. They do have a somewhat intact natural environment. No children are dying from lack of sufficiant electricity.
No, I'm talking about the changes technology made to human life. Those children might not have electricity but their lives have had major impacts from technology. As in, they're not dead. Absent technology, including that which made it possible to produce artificial fertilizer via chemistry, the population of the planet would be much smaller.
GW, why did you put quotes around "Fake?"
Wouldn't that make Fake, fake, which logically is not fake at all?
confused...
Because I'm quoting the head of the Chernobyl clean up ... the Rusky quoted in the Christian Science Monitor...
Isn't the job of government to protect first class citizens and their corporations from the public?
There is a very scary clip up at youtube dated april 18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR7-qHXnH4M
Is it fake?
Is it new imagery of an older explosion?
IT IS FREAKIN SCARY.
I cannot find any confirmation. Mabye, hopefully, fake.
It's a genuine video, but mislabelled (probably deliberately.) Nothing to do with Fukishima. Looks like some petrochemical plant. With such delibrate misrepresentation by the poster, there's no telling when it occured either.
Maja sent me the screenshot, from which we get the exact video title:"Fukushima new explosion - April 18 2011"
Googling that in quotes finds several other copies. For eg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDrWav63WiQ
http://shtf411.com/fukushima-new-explosion-t15183-p126352.html
Gone. Would someone who saw it care to post a brief description, or is this going to remain a total mystery?
Don't suppose it was the missing video of Reactor builing #4 blowing up?
Of course, no one thought to download it? When are people going to learn? When you see something uncomfortable to the authorities, SAVE A COPY immediately, because it's going to be disappered. With a speed directly proportional to the amount of official discomfort.
My most painful lesson in this principle was in 2002, when I happened upon a forum discussion of Bush's visit to that school on the morning of 911. Someone who'd been standing out on the kerb near where Bush's limo pulled up, described how Bush got out, then someone still inside the limo called him back. He got back in but left the door open. The guy could see inside, and saw a video screen with an image of a plane flying into a building. Then Bush got out and walked into the school. The poster seemed a simple, ordinary guy, who didn't fully get the significance. And it wasn't till later that Bush (at least twice) mentioned in public that at the school he'd watched a plane impact the WTC. He claimed it must have been on some TV he saw in the school, implying it was the second plane.
But no. It was the first impact. On a live video feed to the POTUS limo. Then in the video the school released of Bush reading about goats, Card whispers in his ear that the 2nd plane has struck, and Bush's body language says 'Excellent! The plan goes well.'
There's also been a claim by a military person that in a US military base they saw a live feed of the first impact.
I read the post about the limo very late one night just before going to bed. 'Put off' saving it. Next morning the entire discussion was gone, and I've NEVER heard any reference to that detail ever again. It was disappeared very quickly.
It is still open and visible on my browser. How do I download it? Can I take a screen shot? How? I don't know how?
It is of a major series of explosions. It is enormous.
I took a digital photo of the computer screen showing the explosion. I cannot upload here but will send it to anyone who wants it majiandsn@yahoo.com
It is gone now. I hope it was fake.
emailed: Hi, thanks for replying. Yes, I'd like a copy thanks.
For downloading videos, I use 'Youtube downloader' (google it)
Freeware, works pretty well. There are others, again a google will find them.
---
I suppose it's more likely to have been the explosions at that oil refinery, if it's recent from Japan.
How frustrating, to have it on your screen still and know it's gone as soon as you refresh.
Except, it's probably still present in your browser's cache, and possible to extract from there if you know how. Methods differ for different browsers. If you'd kept the window open, untouched, while googling 'how to recover videos from cache' in another window you might have had a good chance.
I hope it's fake!!! I can't find any confirmation ...
Can somebody who knows how save it so that in the off event it is true there is a copy.
There's this...but I'm not that tech-savvy either.
http://enenews.com/new-helicopter-drone-footage-shows-smokesteam-rising-reactor-buildings-video
I saw it too. Answer him you little fokker, how did you get it?
I may have shit my pants, but if you think I'm going to run around like chicken-little and interrupt everybody enjoying the warm feeling from their equity enema today.. you got the wrong cowboy.
I did get to see it before they took it down, how did you find the link?
the link is still up. I have no idea of whether it is fake or not.
the person who posted wrote:
"A new explosion at Fukushima.
"The media is reporting new smoke seen rising from the reactors but not that there was a massive explosion prior to the smoke.
Smoke/steam rising from Fukushima, April 18 at 6:00 am
http://enenews.com/smokesteam-rising-fukushima-april-18-600-webcam-photo
Severe Spike In Radiation Around #2 Reactor Fuel Pool
http://enenews.com/severe-spike-in-radiation-in-tank-at-no-2-spent-fuel-pool-...
Energy News is not my favorite site, lots of bullshit headlines that sucker you in.. but they do have some gems from time to time...
The link is now no longer active but I have my page open to it and I can replay it even though if you paste the link into a browser it no longer works.
I am confused.
If I close my browswer will it disappear? can I continue to replay it indefinitely? can i save it somehow? Should I?
If you have a copy of "Real Player" you can save it, put your mouse over the you tube video and right click, if you have real player it will ask you if you want to save it. If you save it email it to GW, he'll do the rest.
majia,
Sorry, I'm a techno-numbskill, so I can't answer that ...
Saw what?
Nothing. This is just how Bullshit gets started. The next thing you know, It's on Fox News and Sarah Palin has an opinion about it.
Hmmm, it looked like a refinery going up... watched it 4 times, was taken from a dock and the ocean was to the right of the screen, so from the south of the plant, boats in the foreground, commercial fishing marina?, taken at sunset (low sun coming from behind/left of the screen). Could be a fake, yes and I was concerned about that when I watched it. I was trying to get some zoom up to see if I could read names of boat etc.... also get a feel for the person who put the video up....
It had "tense/scary" music in the back ground which lead me to be skeptical of it. But not enough facts to draw a conclusion... (it could be a hydrogen explosion).....
Just like
Department of Defense ... warfare subsidies
Department of Energy ... gas subsidies
Department of Agriculture ... farm subsidies
Department of Education ... university subsidies
US Treasury ...bankers bonus guarantee corp....goldman exec tax free on stock cash in corp.
Department of Homeland Security ...full body scanner corp subsidies
Department of Labor ... illegal alien subsidies over citizens union (la raza HQ)
Department of Commerce ... subsidies for offshoring American jobs
Department of Housing and Urban Development ...subsidies for Fannie /Freddie and construction industry to provide luxury homes for the unemployed
Department of Justice ... subsidies for lawyers
Department of Interior ... subsidies for 1/16th native americans to run wall st. of their own (aka. casinos)
They are not fake. They are for real.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Arnie Gunderson is being quoted again - he's all over TV, Youtube and now Zerohedge.
Funny thing, of the literal thousands of retired nuclear engineers how come we only hear from Arnie?
the answer is simple Arnie is the only one spewing the New York Times, liberal media line.
And of course who else wants to bash nuclear power all day long, 24x7, can't stay off of it, that dog with a bone, broken record - George Washington.
Give it a rest George - to be effective intermittant reinforcement works best when used sparingly.
rj