Foolosophy wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 9:47am:


Do you think that they had any choice in the matter? the loss of contaminated water via a crack caused by an earthquake is not exactly the same as a deliberate discharge.

Let's see if we can find an analogy. In Christchurch, let's say that an innocent passerby  by was killed by a chunk of rock from the spire of Christchurch cathedral during the Earthquake.

I'm pretty sure that you'd be saying something like - It's all the fault of the Christian Religion. Why did they design a cathedral like that in an area that is known for earthquakes? Of course, you'd ignore all the people killed by the much bigger catastrophe that surrounded it.

Then you'd go on to say that the church has no right to deliberately hurl rocks from the steeple of  Christchurch cathedral to kill innocent passersby.

If somebody took objection to your mouth frothing rhetoric, you might accuse them of being apologists for the criminal leaders of the Christian churches - In fact why not include the Pope? He's clearly a nazi, and maybe it was a Nazi plot to design the building like that in order to main and kill people?  

I thought you'd appreciate this cartoon from another forum:


The one that they missed out was no power generation. That's the one where everybody starves to death.

Chris Busby explains it rather well dont you think? Here are some snap shots

Why is the ICRP model unsafe? Because it is based on “absorbed dose”. This is average radiation energy in Joules divided by the mass of living tissue into which it is diluted. A milliSievert is one milliJoule of energy diluted into one kilogram of tissue. As such it would not distinguish between warming yourself in front of a fire and eating a red hot coal. It is the local distribution of energy that is the problem. The dose from a singly internal alpha particle track to a single cell is 500mSv! The dose to the whole body from the same alpha track is 5 x 10-11 mSv.  That is 0.000000000005mSv. But it is the dose to the cell that causes the genetic damage and the ultimate cancer. The cancer yield per unit dose employed by ICRP is based entirely on external acute high dose radiation at Hiroshima, where the average dose to a cell was the same for all cells.

And what of the UN and their bonkers statement about the effects of the Chernobyl accident referred to by Wade Allison?  What you have to know, is that the UN organisations on radiation and health are compromised in favour of the nuclear military complex, which was busy testing hydrogen bombs in the atmosphere at the time of the agreement and releasing all the Strontium, Caesium, Uranium and plutonium and other stuff that was to become the cause of the current and increasing cancer epidemic. The last thing they wanted was the doctors and epidemiologists stopping their fun. The IAEA and the World Health Organisation (WHO) signed an agreement in 1959 to remove all research into the issue from the doctors of the WHO, to the atom scientists, the physicists of the IAEA: this agreement is still in force. The UN organisations do not refer to, or cite any scientific study, which shows their statements on Chernobyl to be false. There is a huge gap between the picture painted by the UN, the IAEA, the ICRP and the real world. And the real world is increasingly being studied and reports are being published in the scientific literature: but none of the authorities responsible for looking after the public take any notice of this evidence.

muso wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 8:16am:


So, Caesium & Strontium, Plutonium etc, wouldn't show up because of the short half-lives?

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 12:58pm:


Let me clarify - I don't believe it was an analysis that they issued. I think it was a calculation.  Some of the isotopes quoted on the report have extremely short halflives, so there is no way they could have done an analysis for them. Cesium, Strontium and Plutonium would show up in an analysis for certain, except that Plutonium is very insoluble. If there was any present, it would be in a sediment.

Did the water come from Reactor 2? The one with the MOX fuel?   

Anyway I have work to do.

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 6^th, 2011 at 10:01am:


Yes I do, quite regularly.....I also drank French mineral waters during the late 80's and early 90's.....

What's your point???

Why is this information not part of the mainstream media content?

The group released a report this week saying samples of milk, berries, potatoes and root vegetables in two Ukrainian regions showed contamination. The regions tested in the investigation are outside the so-called "exclusion zone" around the Chernobyl plant, which has been deemed uninhabitable.

Greenpeace said the tests revealed higher than acceptable levels of cesium-137, a radioactive contaminant, in the foods. Greenpeace scientist Iryna Labunska said the contaminant represents a long-term threat to public health. Labunska criticized the Ukrainian government for stopping regular monitoring of food contamination from Chernobyl two years ago