Scientific Paper: “The Fukushima Radioactive Plume Contaminated the Entire Northern Hemisphere During a Relatively Short Period

George Washington's picture

Scientific Paper: “The Fukushima Radioactive Plume Contaminated the Entire Northern Hemisphere During a Relatively Short Period of Time”

We warned mere days after the Japanese earthquake that the West Coast of North America could be hit with radiation.

Our concerns – unfortunately – have been validated.  See this and this.

The peer-reviewed scientific journal Science of the Total Environment reports:

Massive amounts of anthropogenic radionuclides were released from the nuclear reactors located in Fukushima (northeastern Japan) between 12 and 16 March 2011 following the earthquake and tsunami. Ground level air radioactivity was monitored around the globe immediately after the Fukushima accident. This global effort provided a unique opportunity to trace the surface air mass movement at different sites in the Northern Hemisphere.




The analysis of the air mass forward movements during 12th -16th March showed that the air mass was displaced eastward from the Fukushima area and bifurcated into a northern and a southern branch outside of Japan (Fig. 3). This eastward bifurcation of air masses is in agreement with the simulation of the potential dispersion of the radioactive cloud after the nuclear accident of Fukushima (Weather OnlineWebsite of United Kingdom, UK, 2012).




This work clearly demonstrates how little dissipation occurred during this time due to the nature of the rapid global air circulation system, and the Fukushima radioactive plume contaminated the entire Northern Hemisphere during a relatively short period of time.

Note:  The West Coast of North America is also at risk from ocean radiation.

The Department of Homeland Security and National Nuclear Security Administration recently sent low-flying helicopters over the San Francisco Bay Area to test for radiation. But they almost certainly will not make their findings public.


Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineers Charge Government Coverup: Reactor Meltdown “Absolute Certainty” If Dam Fails … 100s of Times More Likely than Tsunami that Hit Fukushima

Numerous American nuclear reactors are built within flood zones:

NuclearFloodsFinal Highres Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineers Charge Government Coverup:  Reactor Meltdown “Absolute Certainty” If Dam Fails ... 100s of Times More Likely than Tsunami that Hit Fukushima

As one example, on the following map (showing U.S. nuclear power plants built within earthquake zones), the red lines indicate the Mississippi and Missouri rivers:

 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Engineers Charge Government Coverup:  Reactor Meltdown “Absolute Certainty” If Dam Fails ... 100s of Times More Likely than Tsunami that Hit Fukushima

Reactors in Nebraska and elsewhere were flooded by swollen rivers and almost melted down.  See this, this, this and this.

No wonder, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen said:

Sandbags and nuclear power shouldn’t be put in the same sentence.

And the Huntsville Times wrote in an editorial last year:

A tornado or a ravaging flood could just as easily be like the tsunami that unleashed the final blow [at Fukushima as an earthquake].

The Hill notes today:

An engineer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) says the agency has withheld documents showing reactor sites downstream of dams are vulnerable to flooding, and an elevated risk to the public’s safety.


Richard Perkins, an NRC reliability and risk engineer, was the lead author on a July 2011 NRC report detailing flood preparedness. He said the NRC blocked information from the public regarding the potential for upstream dam failures to damage nuclear sites.


Perkins, in a letter submitted Friday with the NRC Office of Inspector General, said that the NRC “intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public.” The Huffington Post first obtained the letter.


He added the NRC “may be motivated to prevent the disclosure of this safety information to the public because it will embarrass the agency.” He claimed redacted documents in a response to a Freedom of Information Act request showed the NRC possessed “relevant, notable, and derogatory safety information for an extended period but failed to properly act on it.”


The report in question was completed four months after … Fukushima.


The report concluded that, “Failure of one or more dams upstream from a nuclear power plant may result in flood levels at a site that render essential safety systems inoperable.”


Eliot Brenner, an NRC spokesman, told The Hill on Monday that the flooding report has been rolled into the agency’s “very robust” body of work on lessons learned post-Fukushima. He declined to comment directly on the letter.


“We cannot discuss the reasons for the redactions,” Brenner said. “The NRC coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security, the Army Corps of Engineers and FERC on the necessary redactions.”

Huffington Post reported:

In a letter submitted Friday afternoon to internal investigators at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a whistleblower engineer within the agency accused regulators of deliberately covering up information relating to the vulnerability of U.S. nuclear power facilities that sit downstream from large dams and reservoirs.




These charges were echoed in separate conversations with another risk engineer inside the agency who suggested that the vulnerability at one plant in particular — the three-reactor Oconee Nuclear Station near Seneca, S.C. — put it at risk of a flood and subsequent systems failure, should an upstream dam completely fail, that would be similar to the tsunami that hobbled the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan last year.




The engineer is among several nuclear experts who remain particularly concerned about the Oconee plant in South Carolina, which sits on Lake Keowee, 11 miles downstream from the Jocassee Reservoir. Among the redacted findings in the July 2011 report — and what has been known at the NRC for years, the engineer said — is that the Oconee facility, which is operated by Duke Energy, would suffer almost certain core damage if the Jocassee dam were to fail. And the odds of it failing sometime over the next 20 years, the engineer said, are far greater than the odds of a freak tsunami taking out the defenses of a nuclear plant in Japan.


“The probability of Jocassee Dam catastrophically failing is hundreds of times greater than a 51 foot wall of water hitting Fukushima Daiichi,” the engineer said. “And, like the tsunami in Japan, the man?made ‘tsunami’ resulting from the failure of the Jocassee Dam will –- with absolute certainty –- result in the failure of three reactor plants along with their containment structures.


“Although it is not a given that Jocassee Dam will fail in the next 20 years,” the engineer added, “it is a given that if it does fail, the three reactor plants will melt down and release their radionuclides into the environment.”



In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, Richard H. Perkins, a reliability and risk engineer with the agency’s division of risk analysis, alleged that NRC officials falsely invoked security concerns in redacting large portions of a report detailing the agency’s preliminary investigation into the potential for dangerous and damaging flooding at U.S. nuclear power plants due to upstream dam failure.


Perkins, along with at least one other employee inside NRC, also an engineer, suggested that the real motive for redacting certain information was to prevent the public from learning the full extent of these vulnerabilities, and to obscure just how much the NRC has known about the problem, and for how long.


“What I’ve seen,” Perkins said in a phone call, “is that the NRC is really struggling to come up with logic that allows this information to be withheld.”

Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the Ocean

Government Dumping of Nuclear Waste Still Poses a Threat … Decades Later

Governments – including both Russia and the United States – have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for 50 years and covering up the dangers of radiation for 67 years.

Governments have also covered up dumping of nuclear waste in the ocean. As the International Atomic Energy Agency notes,  13 countries used ocean dumping to “dispose” of radioactive waste between 1946 and 1993.

Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by agreement through a number of international treaties, including the London Convention of 1972, the Basel Convention, and MARPOL 73/78.

Wikipedia notes:

According to the United Nations, some companies have been dumping radioactive waste and other hazardous materials into the coastal waters of Somalia [well after the treaties were signed], taking advantage of the fact that the country has had no functioning government from the early 1990s onwards. This has caused health problems for locals in the coastal region and poses a significant danger to Somalia’s fishing industry and local marine life.

Wikipedia also provides a breakdown by region:

[North Atlantic]  78% of dumping at Atlantic Ocean is done by UK (35,088TBq), followed by Switzerland (4,419TBq), USA (2,924TBq) and Belgium (2,120TBq). Sunken USSR nuclear submarines are not included.




137 x 103 tones were dumped by 8 European countries. USA did not report tonnage nor volume of 34,282 containers.




[Pacific Ocean] USSR 874TBq [i.e. terabecquerels], USA 554 TBq, Japan 15.1TBq, New Zealand 1+TBq and unknown figure by South Korea. 751×103m3 were dumped by Japan and USSR. USA did not report tonnage nor volume of 56,261 containers.


[Sea of Japan]  USSR dumped 749TBq in the Sea of Japan, Japan dumped 15.1TBq south of main island. South Korea dumped 45 tones (unknown radio activity value) in the Sea of Japan.

As the Norwegian environmental group Bellona Fondation reported last month, Russia has just admitted that it dumped 19 radioactive ships plus 14 nuclear reactors – some of them containing fissible material – into the ocean:

The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.




Per Strand of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority told Aftenposten that the information on the radioactive waste had come from the Russian authorities gradually.


“No one can guarantee that this outline we have received is complete,” he said.


He added that Russia has set up a special commission to undertake the task of mapping the waste, the paper reported.


A Norwegian-Russian Expert Group will this week start an expedition in areas of the Kara Sea, which the report released by Russia says was used as a radioactive dump until the early 1990s




Bellona’s Igor Kurdrik, an expert on Russian naval nuclear waste, said that, “We know that the Russians have an interest in oil exploration in this area. They therefore want to know were the radioactive waste is so they can clean it up before they beging oil recovery operations.”


He cautiously praised the openness of the Russian report given to Norway and that Norway would be taking part in the waste charting expedition.


Bellona thinks that Russia has passed its report to Norway as a veiled cry for help, as the exent of the problem is far too great for Moscow to handle on its own.




Kudrik said that one of the most critical pieces of information missing from the report released to the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority was the presence of the K-27 nuclear submarine, which was scuttled in 50 meters of water with its two reactors filled with spent nuclear fuel in in Stepovogo Bay in the Kara Sea in 1981.


Information that the reactors about the K-27 could reachieve criticality and explode was released at the Bellona-Rosatom seminar in February.


“This danger had previously been unknown, and is very important information. When they search and map these reactors, they must be the first priority,” said Kudrik.


Researchers will now evaluate whether it is possible to raise the submarine, and attempt to determine if it is leaking radioactivity into the sea.

(Here is a slideshow of one of Bellona’s earlier expeditions to research Russian nuclear ocean dumping in the same region.)

Wikipedia provides details of nuclear submarine accidents, including the K-27:

Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident or extensive damage: two from the United States Navy, four from the Soviet Navy, and two from the Russian Navy.




K-27: The only Project 645 submarine, equipped with a liquid metal cooled reactor, was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure) on May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled her in shallow water of the Kara Sea on September 6, 1982, contrary to the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Nuclear scientists might defend previous ocean dumping by saying “we thought it was safe”.   And this may be true.

But a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report found that the ocean may not adequately “dilute” nuclear materials.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Teabunny's picture

Thank you. The MSM refuses to tell people about this. Reasearch shows that the mutations begin to show up 2-3 generations out from the event. It damages the dna in your cells. this includes reproductive cells. 

Cosimo de Medici's picture

The Official Motto of the Zerohedge Comments Section:

"I'd be so depressed if I couldn't be miserable all the time."

Pejorative Requiem's picture

You do not worry, comrade. Soon China vill own Japan island, then capitalist threat will be over. Communist regulations will make whole world cleaner place. East Germany good example.

TDoS's picture

All capitalism is crony capitalism.  Capitalism requires private property, which transates as to privileged access to land and resources, a privilege backed by deeds and essentially, the state's police, courts, and jails.  Capitalists love the state, because the state grants them monopolies, corporate status (limited liability), privileges of all kinds, and ultimately, juicy contracts to provide for all of the states needs, whether real or imagined.


George Washington's picture

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe in this little thing called

F-R-E-E- M-A-R-K-E-T  C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M ...

I also believe that financial fraud must be vigorously prosecuted ...

I know, I know ... crazy stuff (you'll never hear CNBC, Obummer or Mittens talking about it) ...

tnquake's picture

Gee, just when I thought it was safe to take my head out of the sand! Glad it wasn't up my @SS!

Teabunny's picture

George... try Radchick Radiation research and mitigation on facebook. she has been following the disaster for a while now. she does an internet radio show as well. there are children showing signs of thyroid cancer in japan now. there are fasciation mutations, like 3 mile island, showing up in the USA and in Canada, heavy in michigan (really spooky stuff) and many other articles available throughout her posts. they have mutant butterflies in japan now as well. You might find some interesting pieces on there. 


again, thank you for telling the truth.

Slightly Insane's picture

GW -I feel sorry for those that live in Tokyo

I do not feel sorry for those folks anymore than I feel sorry for folks that live in Chicago, Manhatten or Los Angeles. I feel sorry for the "group think" mentality that caused the Japanese to think that they built a safe plant.  (I am familiar with the designs used .... past experience in that industry).  It is the same "group think" that allowed the Federal Reserve to come into being and create the mess that we will all see and experience.  It is the same "group think" that exists in the psychology of the "central planner" or "statist" mentality which pervades all liberal college thinking.  Call it narrow mindedness, or lack of understanding of "unintended consequences".  The "experts" are  expert in "group think" .... the same logic applies with the "standard testing methodology".  

(I am a proponent for nuclear power .... it is the best green tech we have til they can get fusion to work).

George Washington's picture

Nuclear power is the best green tech we have???

Um ...

Bad for the Environment

Alternet points out:

Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Vermont Law School … found that the states that invested heavily in nuclear power had worse track records on efficiency and developing renewables than those that did not have large nuclear programs. In other words, investing in nuclear technology crowded out developing clean energy.

Many experts also say that the “energy return on investment” from nuclear power is lower than many other forms of energy. In other words, non-nuclear energy sources produce more energy for a given input.

And decentralizing energy production and storage is the real solution for the environment … not building more centralized nuclear plants.

BBC notes:

Building the [nuclear] power station produces a lot of CO2 ….


Nuclear power … would do nothing directly to reduce CO2 from transport ….

Indeed, an International Forum on Globalization report – written by environmental luminaries Ernest Callenback, Gar Smith and Jerry Mander – have slammed nuclear power as catastrophic for the environment:

Nuclear energy is not the “clean” energy its backers proclaim. For more than 50 years, nuclear energy has been quietly polluting our air, land, water and bodies—while also contributing to Global Warming through the CO2 emissions from its construction, mining, and manufacturing operations. Every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, milling, shipping, processing, power generation, waste disposal and storage—releases greenhouse gases, radioactive particles and toxic materials that poison the air, water and land. Nuclear power plants routinely expel low-level radionuclides into the air in
the course of daily operations.While exposure to high levels of radiation can kill within a matter of days or weeks, exposure to low levels on a prolonged basis can damage bones and tissue and result in genetic damage, crippling long-term injuries, disease and death.

David Swanson – discussing the report – writes:

The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.


Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.


Also not counted is any mitigation of the relatively routine damage done to the environment, including human health, at each stage of the process.




Nuclear energy is not an alternative to energies that increase global warming, because nuclear increases global warming. When high-grade uranium runs out, nuclear will be worse for CO2 emissions than burning fossil fuels. And as global warming advances, nuclear becomes even less efficient as reactors must shut down to avoid overheating.

geekgrrl's picture

Thanks GW. This post has me thinking of Pandora's box. Is it just a matter time before all the nuclear material ends up in the environment and food chain? And what don't we know? It seems like there are a lot more nuclear skeletons in the closet waiting to emerge.

Deathrips's picture

Well..there were safer mass generation systems developed. Mainly Molten Salt reactors and they were developed prior/durring nuclear experementation. But guess salt doesnt kill people and they needed a reason to mine all that uranium. Fucking idiots.



Thorium, MSR and others shunned so we could mine poison and release it into the world.

snblitz's picture

You might find it funny to learn that most alerts from are from people coming back home from medical imaging tests with a belly full of cesium.

snblitz's picture

There used to be three sites in Japan which never really showed anything unusual going on in Japan.  Now there is only one, which I suppose could mean they got shut down to hide the truth, but that is just speculation.

Nothing scary has shown up in the US.

Divine Wind's picture





Follow AlertsUSA and Threat Journal.

They have been all over this disaster since Day 1 and have broken a hell of alot of news not covered by the MSM until weeks or months later.

The also sponsor free radioisotope testing of your home and car air filters.


Use them. Most of their stuff is free.


Cazzi amari's picture

I heard rumours that japanese people would be relocated to China's ghost towns...but I guess that ship has sailed.

Gully Foyle's picture

Cazzi amari

What is lacking in all this are reports of increasingly large Cancer clusters.

That's where the pay off in proof is.

I've seen a few from Japan, and two from the US. But the US two involved infant mortality and could have been speculation.

Where is the Cancer statistics research?

Trying to Understand's picture

Northwest sees 35% infant mortality spike post-Fukushima
June 17, 2011, Q13 FOX-TV (Seattle FOX Network affiliate)…

Physician Janette Sherman, M.D. and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published a report Monday highlighting a 35% spike in northwest infant mortality after Japan’s nuclear meltdown. The report spotlighted data from the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on infant mortality rates in eight northwest cities, including Seattle, in the 10 weeks after Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown. The average number of infant deaths for the region moved from an average of 9.25 in the four weeks before Fukushima’ nuclear meltdown, to an average of 12.5 per week in the 10 weeks after. The change represents a 35% increase in the northwest’s infant mortality rates. In comparison, the average rates for the entire U.S. rose only 2.3%.

Note: For details of this very important analysis of the CDC’s data on US infant mortality after the Fukushima meltdowns:

Son of Loki's picture

Washington, Oregon and parts of the California Coast were bathed in radiation from what I remember the color charts and air streams showing. 


Maybe they still are?

MrBoompi's picture

It seems electricity is just the byproduct of what the government really needs reactors for, generating fuel for nuclear bombs.  The health and safety of life on earth do not seem to be of major concern here.

George Washington's picture

Unfortunately, you are right.  The archaic uranium reactor designs developed more than 40 years ago are good for making bombs.

And see this.

Getting Old Sucks's picture

I've posted this link a few times here on ZH.  For anyone interested in following Fukushima, the U.S. and the world on these matters, bookmark this

Also take note of the disaster in LA. with that sink hole and 150 million barrels of liquid butane in the salt mine.  Hope that never blows up.

Gully Foyle's picture

Getting Old Sucks

"Hope that never blows up."

Fuck that biggest fireworks ever. Well next to Yellowstone.

George Washington's picture

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... Enenews is the best news aggregator on nuclear issues anywhere on the intertubes ...

SmittyinLA's picture

No problermo, the US edukatin system haz equipped the peoples to perfectly deal with the problem by never defining the term "northern hemisphere", alot of Americans are happy they don't live in northern hemisphere and will still received their medicare & medicaid stuff.


Sleep tight America, your pink slime is safe!


What doi they test pink slime for? I dunno 

donsluck's picture

Just keep cutting the budget and include religious curriculum and I'm sure we'll get better results.

fuu's picture

Fukushima, the gift that keeps on giving.

Bicycle Repairman's picture

"Numerous American nuclear reactors are built within flood zones on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (indicated in red):"

That is a map of earthquake zones, and not flood zones, I believe.

SmittyinLA's picture


Meet the new Madrid fault (the red blob in the middile of the country) 

George Washington's picture

Correct, but red indicates big rivers.

NewWorldOrange's picture

"Numerous American nuclear reactors are built within flood zones on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (indicated in red):"

then a map of EARTHQUAKE zones.

Very misleading (at best) GW. You may have seen that I often defend you against unwaranted criticism. In this case, it was warranted. Can we leave the Alex Jones-like rhetoric to Infowars? A little more intellectual rigor would go a long way to decreasing the criticism so often heaped on your articles, which I usually enjoy and, like I said, often defend against critics.

mayhem_korner's picture



Game, set, and matched to the man with the maimed mug.

mayhem_korner's picture



Actually, the red indicates two rivers.  Apparently, in your mind the Ohio, Susquehanna, Grande, Colorado, Connecticut, Hudson, Snake, Brazos, Chattahoochee, Arkansas, Yellowstone, Platte, Tennessee, and Columbia rivers aren't "big".

George Washington's picture

Yes, you have made my point for me. Thank you ...

NewWorldOrange's picture

GW, as much as I've tried to defend you against unwarranted criticism...I'm beginning to understand the source of it. Your flippant accusations that one warranted critic above was engaging in scripted talking points, combined with your hubris and lack of intellectual rigor in this article and in your ensuing comments.

And how did he make your point for you? Was your "point" that there is no difference between a basin of many rivers and an earthquake zone?

Get over yourself GW. When you're at your best, you're an asset to the site. I've said it often. Today, you're being a complete jackass. One Alex Jones is more than enough.

Cathartes Aura's picture

you're a tad puffed up with yerself for someone who has only been posting here six months. . .

unlike GW.

Heavy's picture

Goof ball! He's saying that these are not the only two rivers that my pose a danger to nuclear plants in the event of an earthquake or otherwise.  He's also saying that the danger is under researched, and under reported to the public.  I tend to agree.

Absinthe Minded's picture

What was wrong with what he posted? He got the point, he used the wrong map. No need to rub his nose in it. I'm sure you've never made a mistake. You're peeeeeerrrrrrrfect.

Stuck on Zero's picture

Meanwhile, natural erosion into natural deposits of Uranium around the earth is moving a hundred times that much radioactivity into the oceans.  Natural erosion into layers of strata containing arsenic is moving tens of millions of tons of this toxic element into the oceans.  At the same time, black smokers all around the world are dumping billions of tons of radioactive and toxic elements into the oceans.  Alas.  We're all doomed.


mayhem_korner's picture



LOL.  I think the FDA should establish a daily allowance standard for uranium, cesium, and other trace 'minerals'.  I might want to up my shellfish intake if I'm a little short...

donsluck's picture

Stuck and Mayhem, many of the toxic materials released during meltdown and waste fires do not occur naturally. Joking about sickness and death is low. Please write back when you are sick and dying, then maybe your perspective can be taken seriously.

takinthehighway's picture

All right, donsluck...

I have terminal rectal cancer. My remaining life span is reckoned by the physicians to be measured in days, perhaps weeks.

Most of your posts here today have consisted of, "Go back to church", which implies that persons of faith are obviously too stupid to contribute anything of value to any serious discussion. Yet your life as an atheist is based on faith as well, but without foundation. You went to bed last night trusting that tomorrow would come about as every previous tomorrow had come. What was that faith based on? If the universe is truly random, then you cannot be secure in anything. Your next breath may not come; in the space between breaths, the atmosphere may have become poisonous; yet you live as though this could not happen, but that the world should continue on as it has throughout living memory. Everything you do of a day involves "faith" - you assumed that the chair would support you; you assumed that hitting various keys on the keyboard would produce a desired result; you moved on your own without conscious thought; yet you cannot produce any logical reason that these events and a million others in your day should occur as you expect.

Now, can I prove the existence of God as I can prove that two plus two equals four? No - but neither can His existence be disproven. It all comes down to "faith". I can provide much evidence of a Lawgiver by the presence of Laws governing the universe. I do not propose to advance arguments for the existence of God; my mind is not up to the task; fortunately, there are many who have undertaken this challenge. May I suggest "Mere Christianity" by C.S.Lewis as a starting point.

I can state that my faith provides me with a tremendous degree of comfort and security as I stand on the edge of the unknown soon to be known.

Getting Old Sucks's picture

Sorry, man, thanks for still posting.

mayhem_korner's picture



A+ post.  Those with faith look to the apocalyptic discourse in Matthew 24 as encouragement, not condemnation.