• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fukushima Tweet Storm August 11, 2018
#1
Hello! I'm a new poster at Cafe Rad Lab, and I'm initiating a Fukushima tweet storm for August 11, 2018 (New Moon in Leo partial solar eclipse).

Some fairly ridiculous subjects hit the "Trending" list on Twitter, so why can't we try to make Fukushima, a critical and life-or-death subject for this entire planet, a Twitter Trending subject?

On August 11, 2018, please tweet any Fukushima-related stories or facts you feel are pertinent under the hashtag #Fukushima, and keep tweeting throughout the day. Encourage your followers to share your tweets or to make tweets of their own. Please let people know about this Fuku Tweet Storm through your social media channels. Share on Facebook, as well.


Spread the word. See you on Twitter!

Willow's Web Astrology on Twitter: https://twitter.com/WillowsWebAstro


Willow
 
Reply
#2
Hi, Willow. What is your twitter name?
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#3
Yes, but only to reserve it in case we decide to use it in the future. I tweet through my account the vast majority of the posts, typically with the poster's name in front.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#4
I read Pia's tweets every day.
https://twitter.com/Cecalli_Helper

You should also check out her paper.
Your Nuclear Messenger
https://paper.li/Cecalli_Helper/1494769642#/
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#5
I dont use facebook or twitter.  Never will. 
  
My thought is that a few cogent well written articles need to be pointed to, say here at caferadlab or some other good source. You cant just say go to ENEnews or CafeRadlab.  People need the instant juice.

And juice there is.  With an estimated sixty million killed by the bomb test era and a billion from nuclear in total, thats the biggest story since man invented gunpowder.

But what articles?  Or said another way, how to engage the people?   Appeal to their sense of indignation for having been lied to, killed, used as guinea pigs, their money taken, and their world turned into a rotten apple of dead and sick zones.

Give them the feeling that something can be done.  Some inspirational story of how a grass roots effort changed something (if you think thats true).  If people cant become angry and harness that energy, then there is no hope for civilization, in my humble view. In rat experiments, confined (powerless) rats first are responsive to shocks, then lassitude and depression sets in, then they make no effort and die.

 Maybe some people will like Kevin Blanch.  I love his spirit, the ultimate ranter.  There is Dana Durnford also.   

Prove to the people that there is a real conspiracy. A conspiracy to blackout the news, downplay the deaths and deformities, collude with governments and get taxe subsidies and endemnities.  Its not a particularly easy task.  For example, Michael Van Broekhoven  has a blog, alledgedly apparent,   https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/ which has meticulously kept records of apparent rigging of radiation monitor data around the world. But for my taste he never came out with a single, accusatory, succinct paragraph explaining this.

ENEnews is down again.  Not the first time, but maybe the last, who knows.   But except for the lively chat room of ENE, CafeRadLab is quite superior anyway.  The momentum is the thing
 
Reply
#6
Great ideas. About 'apparent rigging of radiation data around the world' one only needs to examine the data access & sharing policies of the CTBTO to understand the oppressive control of information.

This is the email I received after requesting access to their data:


"Dear Ms Jensen,
 
Please find attached the vDEC template describing all terms which need to be fulfilled in order to get an access to the data.
I guess for you the important are points 7-9, which explain the rules concerning confidentiality, publishing and presenting the results.
 
If your intention is to publish the raw data from CTBTO it is against the rules (please see the vDEC template).
As it is explained in point 16 of Annex1, before publishing you should send to us your publication for the approval.
 Please also note that the vDEC contract is between the CTBTO and the institution you are employed.
 
I hope that the attached template  will help you to find an answer for your hypothetical question.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
 
Kind regards
Jolanta Kusmierczyk-Michulec"

Here's the contract (shared from my google drive): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t9sCNQA...sp=sharing
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#7
Yes, I write and research my own articles, so I'll be posting those, as well as research links and links to Dana Durnford's videos and site. And yes, I've directed people to Enenews, but I will add a link to CafeRadLab, as well.

This is my most recent article on Fuku: "Deconstructing the Worldwide Media Blackout on the Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: California Wine is Just the Tip of This Radioactive Iceberg"  http://willowsweb.blogspot.com/2018/07/d...ckout.html

This is the post about the Tweet Storm: http://willowsweb.blogspot.com/2018/08/f...-2018.html

I would say - start with the basics and work up from there. Start with some basic facts about Fukushima that anyone could understand. Basic research. That someone could use if he/she were learning about this from scratch.

Tweets debunking the established lines will be helpful. The fact that there is no safe level of man-made radioactive isotopes to ingest, the difference between internal and external radiation, the dangers of even low-level radiation, etc.

Pointing out the flaws in testing sea water (Cullen, Buesseler, and gang) rather than testing sea life where the radioactivity accumulates.

Tweeting documented examples of Fukushima fallout being found in produce, fish, kelp, sand, etc. 

This is moreso an experimental solidarity exercise. It helps people to feel they aren't alone with this (or any conspiracy) subject. But if we can push Fuku onto the Trending Topics section, that would be very cool.

I would say it might be worth it to join Twitter just for this event! ;-)

Just FYI: I also just got a bunch of phony comments on my blog about the tweet storm. Every time I post on Reddit, I get Fuku trolls/establishment mouthpieces. That place is crawling with them.

One of them posted about the Enenews site being suspended this morning.
 
Reply
#8
I'm preparing tweets for the tweet storm to copy paste on the 11th and thought of a few tips to increase volume easily.

1. Have a document of tweets preformatted,e.g.:
#Fukushima Oct 2015: Lucas - I always watch the webcams on tepco's website http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/f1-np/camera/index-e.html as a preference because the zoom feature is available caferadlab.com/thread-99-post-350.html#pid350 #energy #tech #video #docu #data #infosec #genpatsu #health #security #engineer #climate #Share RT

2. Search twitter for specific users who tweet about Fukushima by user name with Fukushima, like @microcarpa1, @asuka_SGP, @HealthRanger, @lot49213749, @NuclearHotseat, @DoomsdaysCW, @reinharduhrig, @DiaNuke_org, @SimplyInfoOrg etc. and copy paste their Fukushima tweets w/#Fukushima and RT noted.

3. Search twitter for any Fukushima tweets and tweet those with #Fukushima in the tweet comment section which will appear above that tweet.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#9
Is everyone getting a message that the Enenews.com site has been suspended when they go to the site?
 
Reply
#10
Yes as of reading Horse's post: http://caferadlab.com/thread-2288-post-5...ml#pid5696
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#11
I hope to see CafeRadLab posters and lurkers on Twitter for the Fukshima Tweet Storm August 11!

Let's have some fun.
 
Reply
#12
As some of you already know, @cecalli_helper got locked out of twitter during the tweet storm today. Using the CRL twitter now (https://twitter.com/CafeRadLab). Have requested twitter support unlock my account and they tell me to use a process that requires a phone for sms messaging. I don't have a phone and I informed them of that. No response from them yet.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#13
LOL...then twitter kicked my arse! Glad we set up the CRL account.
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#14
Big Grin 
Good job tweeters!   Smile

https://www.hashtags.org/analytics/fukushima/
   
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#15
Hey, that's a cool 'tool' I didn't know existed. Thanks, Horse!
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#16
tweet storm. Did Ken Buesseler show up? Jay Cullen? Kevin Blanche?

Theres one huge problem; The level of education of the mainstream; its considerable, and they have iron clad faith in their beliefs. Not only that, they could argue circles around 'alarmists'. The general public sees this. Its like bailing out the titanic with a teacup as the experts, authorities and passengers party on, assured the ship cant sink.

Ive read some papers by Cullen and Buesseler. Cullen is smart and rigorous. There is no way for a layman to argue with those guys. It will make no dent.

The way to do it is present the OTHER bright scientists' papers. Of course they will be dismissed with contempt as well. But at least you get on equal scientific footing.

Its not easy. One would have to have all your other data and papers on hand, easy access, of course read and understood as best as one can.

I know PhD's in science. Its quite normal that the more you study, the higher you rise in your field the more convinced you are that your foundation is the correct one, and all others are false. The history of science is a repeating story of the rare individual breaking new ground that goes against the establishment. The establishment, as scientifically minded as they pride themselves to be, just cant open their minds to the stuff that sounds like heresy, voodoo, crackpot and so on. Yes, its true, the scientists beliefs are all pinned in their consciousness by emotional hooks and triggers.

Having talked with these scientists at length, some highly placed and accomplished, I can tell you they are not invincible. Its astonishing to hear them make mistakes, get confused, unable to answer questions and so forth. Dont get me wrong, a brilliant well educated scientist or physicist is a force to behold. When they are stumped, they go back to ask a professor. The lineage of the scholastic world is like a hierarchy of gods.

The information required to build a cogent argument is still vanguard biology. Microbeam studies, the bystander effect, radionuclide specific biological effects. The ecobiology of fallout is just in its infancy. For example Mosseau found the impact from a given radiation level is six times higher in the natural setting than in the lab.

From my perspective, one of the biggest things is proving that background radiation is not the same as nuke fallout. And in fact it isnt the same. This is probably the single largest mental hurtle for mainstream scientists like Cullen and Buesseler and the public as well. Simply put, not all radiation has the same effect. Of course they think they know this...giving a factor of about 20 for alpha emitters and some dose coefficients for different organs and so on.

But the huge elephant in the room of the anti nuker is that the ocean is 1000 times more radioactive naturally than it is from nuclear fallout, and your body is about five times more radioactive than the ocean. Since scientists have neatly placed all electromagnetic radiation above UV...the ionizing radiation spectrum....into a categorical box, it is absolutely incomprehensible to them that fallout in the ocean that is one five thousandths 1/5000 the natural level in your body can do any harm at all.

This point can be argued however. And it must be argued and won if there is going to be any headway against the Woods Hole, NOAA theme of "our radioactive ocean" which rests its argument on this very point.

Simply raising a few points of alarm wont do anything to these scientists except see them shut down and head to the bar with some contempt for the great uneducated masses. You have to hit them with the stuff that pushes their reality buttons. Papers by other scientists....peer reviewed if possible with stuff that shakes the foundation of their belief systems. For example if you said a HUGE amount of radiation escaped Fukushima, they would come back with an actual number. "Of the 500 tons of contaminated wastewater only five pounds was the actual radionuclides (Im making that up) with the most dangerous being cesium which disperses quickly in water. The levels in fish are thousands of times lower than any intervention standard, 1000 times less than background radiation and of zero concern"

End of argument, the highly educated authority has spoken. An argument CAN be made, but you have to be good at it. You have Yablokov, Bandazhevsky, Busby and the ECRR group.

The ground around Fukushima contains 48 to 318 radioactive hot particles per gram of soil. A gram of soil is like 1/4 teaspoon. Imagine how many hot particles there are! These hot particles represent 8 to 31% of the radioactivity, yet they may do the most harm. This is completely different than background radiation. The butterflies beetles and birds are deformed around fukushima. This is true in Chernobyl. There is a lot of deformity....yet our great scientists believe firmly that there is no harm because they believe their radiation measurements and the ICRP dose model

Thats freaky, its even despicable. Deformed insects at their feet, while they say there is no harm. But are you making a dent in the minds of those scientists with your tweets? Or the public who of course will believe them?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29782160
 
Reply
#17
You're probably right about the scientists; they won't be convinced until the scientific community adopts a new paradigm.  That won't happen until the money and power quits investing in and supporting nuclear power production.  Scientists of the ECRR have not been able to change the minds of the ICRP scientists.  Far slower and more agonizing is educating people to the hazards of ionizing radiation.  This has already created pushback against the pollution and waste problems created by the nuclear industry.  I agree that "one of the biggest things is proving that background radiation is not the same as nuke fallout."  Stated another way; water and gasoline are both liquids and the industry wants us to believe gasoline is just flavored water.  People will eventually learn the difference no matter what the industry says and we need to share that information with  others.  Native Americans have learned the difference the hard way from mining all that safe uranium and experiencing the terrible health consequences.  Some military veterans have learned that those safe DU munitions killed the enemy quickly but left them to die a slower death.  We can continue to educate the public and maybe save more lives from poor health and a shorter life.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#18
(08-13-2018, 02:07 AM)Code Wrote: "are you making a dent in the minds of those scientists with your tweets? Or the public who of course will believe them?"
Of course not and that is never my intention when engaging with the likes of Cullen. What I found most interesting about that debate with him on 811 was that there are three organizations that he is associated with that are testing for signs of Fukushima radiation.

Is that to create the appearance that there are three independent organizations making the same findings? Their very own peer review consortium?
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
#19
" There is no way for a layman to argue with those guys. It will make no dent."

That isn't true at all!!! And to be frank, this is one of the ideologies that really turned me off about interacting on ENEnews. That everyone has to be coming from an "establishment science" background or they don't know what they're talking about. (Anne comes to mind on that front...)

That is absolute garbage! Sorry to say, but it is.

The "establishment scientists" are the ones who don't have a clue about the real horrors and dangers of uranium...or if they do, they are lying about it. And this is the same perspective you think we have to come from to "beat them at their own game"? No. The opposite, I would say.

The "layman" can absolutely nullify what these guys are doing and saying. It's intuition and common sense; it's the ability to tell a manipulation when one comes into contact with one. All the clever talk and wordplay in the world can't overcome a person who intuitively knows the truth.

There are many simple ways to poke holes in what these guys are saying:

There is no safe level of man-made radioactivity/isotopes to ingest on a continual basis. They are finding the fallout themselves! And then declaring it "harmless." Human logic and common sense can tell that this is at the very least an over-statement, something they simply cannot declare. They do not know what the health ramifications are now or what they will be in future. This is an unprecedented situation.

So the very basis of their argument - "Fukushima fallout is no biggie!" - is false and is known to be false by human beings on an intuitive level. Humans would naturally reject food or drink they knew was radioactively contaminated. This is what all animals do - reject food that would make them sick. Again...very simple, fundamental, intuitive thing. You don't need a PhD for that.

These tiny doses and combinations of man-made isotopes bio-accumulate in the body becoming bigger doses over time. This is another simple thing for people to understand that can nullify these inane "Fuku fallout is harmless" arguments.

There is also a big difference between internal sources of irradiation (like from eating food, drinking water, breathing air) which are then absorbed by our bodies...and external sources, but these scientists are generally using things like X-rays and airplane rides and background levels to discount Fuku fallout.

There is also NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS that low-level radiation is harmless, as they are falsely putting forth. Many scientists and people in the health field believe just the opposite - that there is NO LEVEL of low-level radiation that is perfectly safe to be around, that it is having SOME effect on our biological systems at any level, and often not a good effect. Low-level radiation exposure can cause catastrophic health damage. It just can't often be correlated according to "scientific" standards.

Again, human intuition and understanding of the truth trumps all of it. ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL of it.

Also - it isn't just Natives who are mining uranium and suffering the consequences of nuclear. It's all of us! Uranium miners in Saskatchewan are mostly Caucasion. Turning it into a race-based thing is a mistake, as well.
 
Reply
#20
Reminder:

The Big Lie-Deception In The Trump-Pruitt EPA Document- Comment Deadline Extended To August 16th https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...gust-16th/

Comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA...-2018-0259
Pia
just pm me if needed.
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)