• 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


WHOI says global warming is increasing ocean radioactivity!
#1
Never mind Fukushima, they say...

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/g...tic-ocean/

This ought to ruffle a few feathers...
 
Reply
#2
In a recent survey of glaciers around the world, an international team of scientists discovered elevated levels of fallout radionuclides — radioactive atoms that result from nuclear accidents and weapons tests — in every single glacier studied.

"We wanted to show this is a global issue and not just localized near sources of nuclear contamination," said study researcher Caroline Clason, a University of Plymouth lecturer in physical geography.

The good news is these nuclear contaminants likely pose no immediate threat to the environment,.... However, Clason told Live Science, the contaminants at most sites were found in significantly higher levels than what is considered safe for human ingestion. These contaminants could enter the food chain as glaciers continue to melt into rivers, lakes and seas due to climate change.

The radioactive cryoconite samples came from 17 glaciers spanning locations from Antarctica to the Alps and British Columbia to Arctic Sweden. And these samples didn't just have minor amounts of contamination.

"These are some of the highest levels you see outside of nuclear explosion zones," Clason said in her EGU presentation

Nuclear fingerprints
While some of the detected radionuclides, like lead-210, occur naturally in the environment, two isotopes, in particular, can be traced directly to human nuclear activities.

Americium-241, a radioactive isotope that's produced as plutonium decays, was found at many of the glacier sites in quantities that could be hazardous to human health if ingested, the team found. Meanwhile, cesium-137, an isotope produced during nuclear explosions, was found at all 17 sites in quantities tens to hundreds of times greater than expected background levels.

https://www.livescience.com/65230-nuclea...ciers.html

global warming to blame for increasing radiation?  oh Mr. Magoo, youve done it again!

[Image: mr-magoo1.gif]
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#3
Accumulation of atmospheric radionuclides and heavy metals in cryoconite holes on an Arctic glacier

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...3516308098

Radionuclides and soil properties as indicators of glacier retreat in a recently deglaciated permafrost environment of the Maritime Antarctica

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...9717318181

Kokanee Glacier Beer and the 1962 “Bomb Horizon”

http://williamcolgan.net/blog/?p=352

Cryoconite as a temporary sink for anthropogenic species stored in glaciers

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10220-5

Siren sounds on nuclear fallout embedded in melting glaciers

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-siren-nucl...ciers.html

Whale deaths near Anchorage, Glacier Bay prompt investigation

https://www.ktoo.org/2016/07/02/whale-de...stigation/

[Image: bears-and-fin-whale.jpg]
Humans did not create background radiation...

 
Reply
#4
The glaciers are becoming exclusion zones!  Natural mineral deposits are sources of nutrition. The cryoconite pockets  "range in diameter from a few centimetres to more than a meter, can cover up to 10% of the ablation zone of glaciers and can be considered autonomous micro-ecosystems , inhabited by many Archaea, bacteria, cyanobacteria, protists and micro-invertebrates . They are also considered the most biologically active environments on the glaciers due to the high metabolic versatility of their biological communities"  Its not surprising that they find the extremophile tardigrades and cyanobacteria living in these radioactive holes.  " In investigated cryoconite holes, two groups of invertebrates, both extremophiles, Tardigrada and Rotifera were detected."  It turns out that many ecological nurseries are  deposition zones for fallout.  The kuroshio current is one.  Streams rivers marshes and estuaries.   Mans toxic excretions fall from the sky, flow from the land and concentrate where life gets its delicate start.

"Average (and standard deviation) activities of 137Cs, 241Am and 207Bi in cryoconite found on the Morteratsch glacier are respectively: 2.7(3.8) kBq kg −1, 30(35) Bq kg −1, 12(6) Bq kg −1. The high deviations reflect the significative differences found among the samples. As in the case of 210Pb, also for these artificial nuclides the observed activities are remarkable. One sample in particular (CR3) showed maximum activities for all the 3 considered nuclides: 13.6 ± 0.7 kBq kg −1 for 137Cs, 120 ± 9 Bq kg −1 for 241Am and 25 ± 5 Bq kg −1 for 207Bi. These values are among the highest ever observed in the environment; "

2.7  kbq/kg of cesium would equate to 2,700,000  bq/cubic meter if Im not mistaken.  This is in glacial pockets all around the world.  Where else is cesium accumulating?  Scientists assure us it spreads out evenly for safe dilution.  Obviously not!

Yuri Bandazhevsky did autopsies on his fellow countrymen who were victims of Chernobyl.  Rigorous observation showed morbid, necrotic, metabolic, neurological and cardiovascular effects at 50 bq/kg of Cs137.  He untangled some of the cellular biological processes that are now known as bystander effects to radiobiologists.  But his work and others is denied by our mainstream scientists.   Jay Cullen asks why do citizens deny science, and we can very soundly return that question.  Why do scientists ignore the science of their peers?  Why do they deny and denigrate public observations?

Is the nuclear fallout in glaciers safe?   Obviously not
wild boar meat in Sweden was found to contain more than 10 times the safe levels of Caesium.  And even those safe levels referred to are unsafe.

Is it any wonder that a few citizens and activists feel outrage?  No, the amazing thing is that the whole world and especially our scientists arent in an outrage over the poisoning of the ecosphere.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#5
https://www.stripes.com/for-some-veteran...s-1.586395

For Some Veterans Toxic Exposure Didn't End With Atomic Blasts


https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-c...nches.html

'Bomb Carbon' from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean's Deepest Trenches

Hirondellea gigas is a type of amphipod that lives in the Mariana Trench. It is just one of the deep-sea crustacean species affected by nuclear weapons ...
 
Reply
#6
https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Alaska...02861.html

Alaska up to 22 dead gray whales this season with 7 reported over holiday weekend


I am weep for my brother, the gray whale and my mother, earth. Because it is too late. They could not eat my money.
 
Reply
#7
North Atlantic populations were all killed on the European coast before AD 500.

The North Atlantic population was hunted to extinction in the 18th century. 

The North Pacific population, which is about 1/5 of its pre whaling era size is at the 
 'optimum sustainable population' size, as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. (bust out the beer and hotdogs!)

there are  85 beachings so far in the U.S. and a total of 171 in the US Canada Mexico.  It is estimated that about 10x as many have died but are not seen as they decompose at sea.  The estimate of the pacific population is  22,000 individuals in the eastern Pacific traveling between the waters off northernmost Alaska and Baja California.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_whale#North_Pacific

If we multiply the 171 by 10 that is 1,700 dead whales this season representing  1/13 of the population.  At the same mortality to population ratio,  that would be the same as 500 million human deaths.  I mean if we want to put in perspective the hit on the whale population....not extrapolate the danger to humans.    I know thats a meaningless comparison, to the homosapien mind.  As long as the current whale stocks provide sufficient economic services, the 7 billion killer ape stocks are happy, and thats the only thing that matters

What I found cruising the internet;

a definitive cause was not determined for the grey whale mortality events of 2015 and 1999-2000, although climate change is suspected.


Whales are not the only victims
NOAA Fisheries is responding to several reports of unusually large numbers of dead ice seals along the coast of the Bering and Chukchi seas, in Alaska. At least 60 dead seals have been reported. 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/media-rel...sea-region

People are willing to pay...
Public willingness to pay for recovering and downlisting threatened and endangered marine species;
$40/household for recovering Puget Sound Chinook salmon to $73/household for recovering the North Pacific right whale.

Analysis following the last UME indicated that only 3.9-13.0% of all Eastern North Pacific gray whales that die in a given year are found on land and are observed and reported (Punt and Wade, 2010)

Experts are mystified but suspect climate change 

"It is almost too soon to tell, are we in a new world where we are going to see more mortalities in top predators like sea lions and gray whales, is this the harbinger of things to come?" said research ecologist Elliott Hazen NOAA

"Is this yet another symptom of climate change?" Gulland said.

"It's hard to say, is this the same as we saw in the past? The way I like to describe it is we don't know if we are still experiencing a recovery in the ecosystem from The Blob or are we facing a new normal," Hazen said.

The researchers seem to be defining their intention;

"It's not like we're ringing the alarm bell that this population is threatened or at risk," said John Calambokidis, "As a researcher, I feel that you want to at least understand what is going on."

Funny, as a citizen scientist, I always had a sneaking suspicion that 'knowing what is going on' was one reason for research...and bingo, there it is.

Here a scientist describes visual cues;

Duignan performed necropsies on all of them and determined that four had died of malnutrition.
"Their skeleton seems to stick out more and more," he said.

I immediately think of climate change and nothing else when skeletons stick out more and more.

And then there's the missing calves.

Alisa Schulman-Janiger, director of the Gray Whale Census and Behavior Project, tells The Oregonian’s Williams that there are early signs there could be trouble in the whole population. Calves born this year are equivalent to only one third of last year’s count. 

I found this informative
"Scientists said they suspect the gray whales are malnourished because they didn't eat enough"

"Researchers can't even tell if it's a problem of supply or demand."
"Whether it's not enough prey, too many whales, issues with the habitat—that is what we are currently investigating," Greenman said.

Its hard to study the whales because "Gray whales aren’t exactly the easiest animals for scientists to track. First, they live in the ocean"

NOAA steps up to the plate;
" NOAA researchers on the West Coast are currently surveying the number of calves migrating north, and in the fall they intend to count the number of gray whales that migrate south, including calves."

Other factors, like illness, can also prevent whales from eating as much as they should. "That's a mystery that's still being unraveled," 

"We are concerned because whales are an indicator species for the health of the ocean," Duignan said. "We use them to tell us what's happening out there."

The whales only feed while in Arctic waters, feasting on small crustaceans called amphipods. Turns out amphipods are a good indicator of anthropogenic metal pollution.   Research on polluted sediments near Casey Station (Cunningham et al., 2005) has revealed that benthic diatom communities are good indicators of anthropogenic metal
contamination  My first and only theory is that heavy metal pollution is caused by climate change

The Smithsonian chimes in  “We have to really be on top of: Is there any relationship to climate change? 

So far, researchers have two main theories as to why the animals are starving. One is that the North Pacific gray whale population has become too large, and two, researchers suspect the amphipods the whales prefer, which live in the sediment on the bottom of the sea, are fertilized by algae associated with the sea ice. With the ice melting away, the amphipods may be in short supply.

Other regions of the arctic seem to have increasing populations of amphipods
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00311/full

Like many people, I dont need scientific data to conclude climate is the cause;
"Scientists don’t yet have enough information specific to gray whales to label climate change or declining sea ice as the smoking gun, Foy said. But they’ve seen enough other events that have come along with Arctic warming, like sea bird die offs, that they’re asking questions."

"“[climate change] doesn’t hold water as the sole factor. That doesn’t mean it might not have some role,” Calambokidis said. “I’m totally supportive of this as a key issue that we need to pay attention to."

Not just the Arctic

"Anthropogenically sourced radionuclides stemming from above ground nuclear bomb testing are also present throughout Antarctica, as is evidence of the Chernobyl nuclear accident"

And as we saw in the first post, scientists suspect climate change is causing radioactive increases.  Sounds right to me, in fact climate change is the only thing I can ever think of that causes anything.  I think climate change should be categorized along with the weak and strong nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism as one of the primary forces of the universe. 

They're on it; "Federal scientists from Foy’s research center will be out on boats on the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska this summer and fall, gathering information"  and thats good because as we learned earlier, whales live in the ocean
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#8
I make fun of the climate change theme.  Its not because climate isnt a concern, or that mans activities arent affecting the quality of the biosphere.   Its because there is a myopic emphasis on Co2 to the exclusion of other pressing concerns, like pollution and deforestation.   

If I may make a partial quote of noted marine biologist Jay Cullen;

"“People tend to accept or embrace information that supports their view of the situation of the problem and reject evidence that doesn’t support it..."

He is talking about the public but if you include scientists this sentence has truth to it.  The rest of that quote reads "scientists don’t have an exclusive right or claim to the truth in the public eye,” 
https://www.vicnews.com/news/uvic-oceano...y-science/

Mr Cullen is asking why does the laymen reject science and how can scientists better communicate with the public, especially in light of policy concerns. Whats wrong with the laymen and how can we bypass their emotionally fueled intellectual blindness?  This is not a new question   https://www.sciencealert.com/researchers...-ignorance

 What is not addressed is that science is in fact often biased and often incomplete or even wrong.  I suggest that part of the reason laymen dont accept conclusions from scientists is that they dont match with observation.  They may see the ocean or insect population plummeting.  They have loved ones dying of cancer, and naturally they will be suspicious when scientists say big emissions of carcinogens are safe.  

So this problem of scientific validity is not just a question of laymen ignorance, it is called a crisis in the science world

Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778

Half of scientists cant replicate their own studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

 Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, Britain’s other top medical journal, wrote an editorial  pointing out that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” and drew attention to “an obsession among scientists for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance.”

He went on to say, “The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt their data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”


That is about the same thing scientists are accusing laymen of; cherry picking data to support bias

German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckert Puls;

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

people, including scientists, go along with a status quo.  When the status quo is challenged, people get emotional.

The money going into the study of climate change is about $20 billion dollars a year
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default...ngress.pdf 

From easily found Co2 sequestration of trees one can calculate that re-foresting a deforested planet offsets anthropogenic C02.  Even a partial reforestation can do that.

How trees could save the climate
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...191350.htm

Is there a consensus, a status quo assumption on human Co2 global warming?  There is, but that doesnt necessarily mean its correct.  Before Einstein, the overwhelming consensus was that Newtonian mechanics was unshakable, ultimate truth.  Indeed consensus is the rule before paradigm shifts, and can be seen as a majority bias of incomplete or even false beliefs. The ego is a large hinderance to flexibility of mind.  Scientists attach their ego to their beliefs.

Einstein;

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

 Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. 

    “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI
Abstract. In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report
AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global
temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature
change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house
gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a
very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further
they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order
to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in
the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

But I see a problem if cosmic rays are accepted as the primary climate driver.  This would relax mankinds concern of his influence on the biosphere.  Mankind is a major polluter and consumer of the living world.   Soot blackens the snow, and this black material that melts the snow is also poisonous with nuclear fallout.  Man cut down half the forests and continues this dire destruction at an alarming rate.  The ecosystem of the oceans has been severely altered.  Populations of many species are plummeting.  Scientists myopic focus on Co2 is  kind of reprehensible diversion from a holistic view of our many influences on planet.    Yes, study it, but it shouldn't be the constant default theory on the cause of everything.
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#9
despite increase of vegetation available for grazing, herd populations of caribou and wild reindeer across the arctic tundra have declined by nearly 50% over the last two decades

https://www.arctictoday.com/wp-content/u...rt2018.pdf
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#10
Global Warming, meet Grand Solar Minimum, guaranteed to chill you out.  No sunspots.  They've been counting them for centuries.  Solar researchers are sounding the alarm of a long cold spell over other parts of the Northern Latitudes as the Jet Stream meanders.  Weakening magnetic fields in the sun and earth allowing more cosmic ray energy to hit earth and nucleate more moisture, rain and snow.   Continuous weather extremes will lead to crop failures.  The radiation spilled in has taken its toll on life and will continue to show up as mortality events, malnutrition, low birth rates, like in the reindeer and the whales.  I'd keep my eye on these major EQ's starting at both ends of a long fault line, there's five nuclear power plants on the west coast that might be tested in the Big One.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
 
Reply
#11
Dr Mercola has a video about the forest.  Deforestation is powerfully related to climate change and the Co2 issue.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic...=661890462
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#12
Hirondellea gigas is a type of amphipod that lives in the Mariana Trench. It is just one of the deep-sea crustacean species affected by nuclear weapons ..."

Of note in the flawed notion that anthropogenic fallout can ever be fully measured. Impossible. For the gov authorities to proclaim that conclusions from WHOI NOAA et al that Fukushima has no health impact, is rediculous. Then, they don't talk about any other living creature by any reference other than bq. Since they aren't measuring health, there is a value of zero.  Ocean impact, zero.

Anyone got one of those industry funded studies (or any study, for that matter) that shows one fish, one whale, one tuna, succumbed to Fukushima? Smaller brains? Deformed wings? Ce137? Yes. But has any living thing been counted as a casualty? Any child ever been diagnosed with Fukushima? They say maybe a few will get thyroid cancer, but who? They never identify one victim of Fukushima. "We can't say for sure, why you have cancer." Those kids become a value, a number and frankly, are disregarded for their suffering. 

All those dead animals stinking up pages and pages at ENE? Any one scientist ever proclaim Fukushima caused even one of those emaciated animal deaths? Not one? 
Wow. Nuclear is magic. The most toxic substances on the planet, the longest lived, the most deadly, become instantly safe with exception of undue worry, in the event it pollutes the planet. Poof* It's fairy dust.

The nuclear industry states nuclear causes less mortality than solar, wind, etc..
And rightly so. Because THEY ARE NOT COUNTING. There is no way to count fallout particles lodged in the statistics organs. They assume a dose, scatter it externally across the human population and come up with a value of an X-ray for each human, call it Fukushima, call it safe and recommend more jellyfish and tuna while we new age whale watch...Watch them die.

 I want to see the magic papers they drew up in between Chernobyl and Fukushima, that determine you can melt down reactors and there will be no health impact on the environment or community and that evacuation and iodine pills cause more harm than obesity, smoking and fallout exposure. Show me the money.

So far removed are we. 

And thus...
 
Reply
#13
HHD makes an opinion piece!  I love it.  Keep em coming

Deadly radioactive poison is called harmless.  Governments and scientists everywhere commit an atrocity of lies, cover ups and even self deception.   Whats the matter with our species?  Earth has been transformed to a science fiction nightmare and nobody notices, nobody cares

If its safe, why do they need to slaughter contaminated animals and have huge exclusion zones?   They cant even figure out how to dispose of the stuff.   

"I remember that I was unable to do anything because of the silent scream that, as it seemed to me, filled all the space around me. The silent scream uttered by all things animate and inanimate, even dust and sand, as they try desperately to escape from disaster. This is how elk and wild boar, wolves and deer, hares and squirrels flee from the merciless forest fire, in silence with their eyes wide open in panic. With the same terrifying scream adders and grass snakes, beetles and caterpillars try to crawl away from the fire, and with the same silent scream they die in it..."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/che...rst-month/

in the northern reaches of Scandinavia and the northwestern Soviet Union, scientists have found that 80% of the reindeer owned by Europe’s last nomads, the Lapps, now carry radioactive contamination exceeding official health limits for meat, a development that casts a shadow over their future as a separate people.

Tests on the first reindeer meat from last fall’s roundup revealed radiation levels more than 30 times higher than Sweden’s acceptable limit and 15 times that permitted in Norway.

With the herds’ basic feed expected to remain contaminated for several years, Scandinavian governments have concluded that large-scale slaughter of the reindeer is the only alternative.

In Ukraine, 8,4 million hectares of agricultural soil are contaminated with 137Cs, and are subject to countermeasures, mostly the use of fertilisers:

In total some 150,000 sq km (57,915 sq miles) of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are considered to be contaminated and the 4,000 sq km (1,544 sq miles) exclusion zone – an area more than twice the size of London – remains virtually uninhabited. 


The 54 900 hectares in the exclusion zone and the 35 600 ha contaminated with more than 555 kBq/m2 are exclude from agricultural farming.

excellent articles from Mining Awareness
https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/20...-reindeer/

"Some 31 years after the world’s worst nuclear accident in Chernobyl, a wild boar with more than 10-times the safe limit of radiation has been killed by hunters hundreds of miles away in Sweden."

"In Ukraine, as truckers came in to evacuate rural families, they also loaded 50,000 head of cows, sheep and goats onto flatbed trucks. Most of these animals had remained outdoors after the accident, grazing on contaminated grass under clouds of radioactive gases. Half of the animals were too contaminated to keep, and 25,000 were sent immediately to slaughterhouses."

"Inundated, workers at the Gomel meat factory in Belarus loaded 600 tons of the ‘hot’ flesh into four refrigerated train cars and sent the cars rolling south to the Caucuses. There, radiation monitors waved dosimeters over the freight cars and quickly rejected the load. Town after town refused to receive the radioactive goods. For the next four years, the homeless train cars rolled around the western edge of the USSR, leaving a trail of radioactive exposure. Finally in 1990, KGB officers took charge of the freight, burying the meat where it came from, inside the zone of alienation."
we are healthy with background radiation but unhealthy with the same dose from fallout
 
Reply
#14
Fukushima: Just a number. Just an X-ray.

The victims do not succomb to "an X-ray".

Fukushima fallout and the path of destruction will never be counted.

The folks in the path, will never be counted.

Workers, monkies, trees, butterflies, birds, whales, they are all dying to be counted.

Their numbers are ignored while the nuclear industry releases numbers that say fallout trespass is perfectly fine in your person and environment because smoking and obesety are riskier behaviors and a lot of people do it anyways. Another study says, if you flush a well three times and measure the fallout, you get better numbers for suggesting the Awatok drink the water and not sue in Bikini, like France is getting sued for poisoning atolls. Many more studies say cesium137 is everywhere, but that's ok. It will flush out with the numbers.

The whales downed some plutonium and strontium. The numbers says it fine, because it's there for the taking. Free, too.

Probably a global warming number now. Definitely weren't counted in the obesity statistics...

The nuclear industry turns their back on the mortalities, libeling their death by addressing the world with "No one died. It's harmless. No environmental or health impact", the gov adopts the position, saving itself and its industry from untold compensation for their murderous acts and the deceased workers and radiated citizens will never be counted. No, not one. Even till the end of time.

"GE, we bring good things to living. We bring good things to life."
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Pacific Ocean is Dying vital1 5 6,817 12-05-2017, 08:52 PM
Last Post: vital1
  The Ocean is dying. Horse 4 7,814 07-18-2017, 11:04 AM
Last Post: Horse
  WHOI - Ken Buesseler Horse 2 7,487 10-20-2015, 09:17 AM
Last Post: LWH

Forum Jump:


Browsing: 1 Guest(s)