radioactive
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- animatedgif0
Been taking anything that mentions Gundersen with a pinch of salt.
- set0
Right, well then, Goodbye everyone
- GeorgesIV0
when msm reports something of this kind it's always either too late or they can't contain the story anymore,...
here's a site I've been following since the incident, anyone with at least some interest in what really happened and how tepco fucked it up for all of us wouldn't have waited until rt made this report to realize we're in a huge messhttp://fukushimaupdate.com/
from james corbett of http://www.corbettreport.com/btw: good link mg33, but most peeps will stop reading glp once they come in contact with deep conspiracies (eg, fukushima was hit with a stuxnet like virus, etc, etc..) and realize it's a limited hangout
- detritus0
‘Oh my God, we're all going to die ... of cancer in 30–70 years ... like we would've anyway, Gaaawd, make it staawp’
- cancer was quite rare 100 years ago, but anyways, google "Henrietta Lacks"GeorgesIV
- I'll give you a healthy bump though :) get the pdf or ebook from the "bay"
http://www.goodreads…GeorgesIV - Actually. It wasn't rare. It was called "natural causes"monospaced
- No, it was rare.set
- For example - skin cancer originally was only a female thing. Now men wear cosmetics too, it's common for men to get it.set
- As great as all this banter is, I'd love to see some stats or references to support your claims.detritus
- detritus0
“cancer was quite rare 100 years ago”
You have a source for that?
The ‘1-in-3’ cancer rates we labour under are predominantly a function of our increased longetivity - sure, people probably died of cancer less a hundred years ago, but only because they dies of something far more prosaic 30 years before they'd've gotten cancer...
Don't forget - ‘Cancer’ is a hugely broad spectrum term and many cancers found in old age are simply an increasingly statistical likelihood of DNA unravelling and unable to sustain itself.
Google telomeres, then YouTube 'cloud chamber' to see a neatly-described image of how totally at the whim of universal radiation we are anyway, regardless of human meddling.
- I googled "cancer rate 1400 years ago"
first response "http://wiki.answers...
there tons more out thereGeorgesIV - http://wiki.answers.…
also just look at rates of ADHD in europe compare to US, or autism, everything is linked to our diet, which is a lot diverse than it was 100 years agoGeorgesIV - our diet, which is a lot diverse than it was 100 years ago,GeorgesIV
- You are joking right georges? You can't believe some wiki rant.monospaced
- I don't know why I mentiend telomeres here - they're really not relevent to cancer. I blame the tired.detritus
- Maybe the radiation is getting to you.nb
- I googled "cancer rate 1400 years ago"
- GeorgesIV0
@ mono,
I just picked the first thing I found, there are tons of research out there that proves that the rate of cancer skyrocketed in the last 50 years,
I do not have the time to look them up because I'm busy right now, I never said cancer didn't exist before, just that the rate of it is a lot more that it was 100 years ago, but if you want to know more just google it, wiki it, look into the cancer industry or hemp oil,
I'm not here to change anyone's mind. I'm building my ark and couldn't care less what everyone point of view is about anything right now,
sorry to be blunt but we're sleep working into hell and being right on the internet won't change the course we're onso yeah, have a nice day mate :)
- WrappedInBooks0
Did I read correctly that Tokyo might have to be abandoned if radiation pollutes the aquifer?
- mg330
Cancer rates absolutely are higher now than they were a long time ago. I'm sure there's some sliding scale they is somewhat proportionate to population growth, but think of all the causes of cancer that exist now that didn't before: cell phones, deodorant, radiation exposure, etc. I'm sure the list is extensive.
- WrappedInBooks0
I also just realized this is an interview with a person who's knowledge or credentials are unknown. She has an online radio program, but I don't see any scholarly articles or research she's been a part of.
- mg330
Any of you read stuff on Godlike Productions?
There's a whole topic set on Fukushima:
http://www.godlikeproductions.co…FYI - if you are using a phone on a public network or non-wifi connection, it might alert you that you are blocked from viewing the site. I guess they get attacked a lot. I can only get on via wifi.
- ESKEMA0
so how long do we have?
I'm actually scared at the extremely complex and difficult manual process that has to be repeated 1300x without incidents...fuck
- GeorgesIV0
* Empties browser cache
- colin_s0
it's really sad how japan is getting hit for the fukushima disaster. like, the country endured a huge earthquake / tsunami and extraordinary circumstances resulted in a nuclear disaster.
the united states had a natural disaster in katrina that resulted in prolific costs, both monetary and human, to which there's been relatively little follow up and the entire new orleans basin still remains problematic if not destroyed.
it'd be a thing if american journalism started qualifying native disasters as worth following up on. not saying japan's predicament isn't worth international attention, but at least they're actually attempting to fix a major problem, while nations like ours are more willing to sweep this sort of shit under the rug while we concentrate on someone else's news.
- albums0
"Across the Pacific, we have at least two peer-reviewed scientific studies so far that have already provided evidence of increased mortality in North America, and thyroid problems in infants on the west coast states from our initial exposures."
combine this with the decaying coral (the bottom of the food chain) life from increasing the acidity alongside the diminishing polar caps both from excess carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere from a global dependency on oil and I seriously wonder what condition human life will be in within 50 years.
I did some math earlier regarding the water leaking from Fukushima and all signs already point to catastrophe regardless how the contamination is handled from this moment forward...
Fukushima leaking radioactive water for ‘2 years, 300 tons flowing into Pacific daily’ amounts to:
8.7400366e+23 particles of cesium for every person on the planet. Keep in mind it only takes 1 to kill you... also entering the food chain for the last 2+ years
from this RT article:
http://rt.com/news/japan-fukushi…mentioned here:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/671758…- It does not take one particle of Caesium to kill you.mikotondria3
- sweet, then everything is going to be okayalbums
- albums0
Also, separatism by racism, classism, etc all become moot points as these things amount to a global crisis I personally believe humanity has little chance of recovering from, let alone dealing with as a single entity.
We, humans, treated oil with such brazen disregard, it's no wonder that nuclear power has added its own global detriment to civilization in a shorter time.
While people waste time complaining about the 1%, wages, and their own entitlement, money will become a further worthless facade in the face of such impending doom.
Having billions of dollars will maybe equate to staying alive a few more months, if that even matters as the planet's ability to sustain human life slips away.