this-is-quite-scaryvia Deep Sea News / January 23, 2014 / Why do some people hold fast to apocalyptic ideas, like Fukushima radiation, even when the best available evidence suggests that the world is not about to end? Confirmation bias is the term psychologists use to describe the behavior of testing an idea by searching for evidence that supports it. This tendency to confirm pre-existing beliefs creates and maintains false perceptions of reality because people fail to acknowledge information to the contrary, even when readily available. The strongest type of confirmation bias arises from a motivation or a need to see the world as we want to see it. Here, confirmatory information is purposely sought out and any information challenging our preconceived notions is ignored, discounted, or dismissed.

Confirmation bias can play a role in the angry reactions to scientific evidence regarding the scope and effects of the Fukushima accident. Although evidence suggests that radiation emanating from Fukushima will not reach a catastrophic level on an ocean or global scale, many people remain convinced that the risks to human and ocean health are enormous. A person with deep concerns about environmental impacts of radiation will likely seek out evidence to confirm the belief that the radiation from Fukushima has spread in high levels to the American West Coast and beyond, contaminating fisheries, and killing off species in the Pacific Ocean. This person may unknowingly exhibit confirmation bias by focusing on information in the media consistent with these ideas and discounting information that would challenge them.

What are the psychological sources of confirmation bias?
One source of confirmation bias is defensive; to protect the psychological self. As humans, we are motivated to protect the integrity and perceived value of who we think we are (Steele, 1988). When we encounter information that threatens a self-relevant belief, we experience a state of a discomfort (termed cognitive dissonance) arising from the discrepancy between what we think defines us and, what the world is appearing to tell us. To resolve this discrepancy, we either actively seek out confirmatory information in the first place, or dismiss or re-interpret challenging information (Hart et al., 2009).

A second source is the tendency to base beliefs about the risks and benefits of an event on our cultural worldview. Kahan and colleagues (2008), for example, found that when they presented research participants with balanced information about the benefits/risks of nanotechnology, participants were polarized: People with a conservative, individualistic outlook noted the benefits of the technology and came away with a more favorable attitude, whereas people with a more liberal, egalitarian outlook focused on risks and hazards; their attitudes become more unfavorable. Given these findings, it is reasonable to speculate that perceptions of risk in the area of nuclear energy are highest among those of us whose core values are liberal and egalitarian.

Who is susceptible?
Most of us fall prey to the confirmation bias at some point. It is human nature to analyze new information in light of our core beliefs and favor inferences that are in accordance with these beliefs. Those of us with liberal or conservative political leanings likely do this when choosing the candidate we will vote for in an upcoming presidential campaign, regardless of the candidates’ campaign ads or campaign spending (Garramore et al., 1990; Kaid, 2004; Levitt, 1994).

Consuming information on the internet and traditional media may not be enough to form accurate beliefs. The media tends to favor negative, violent, and sensational information (Lowry et al., 2003; Marsh, 1991). News is often equated with bad news. Focusing on the negative fosters a mindset characterized by overestimating risk, and a readiness to perceive the self as a victim (Doob & Macdonald, 1979). If a person’s ideological leanings stress the negative, the apocalyptic, or the conspiratorial, this media bias and the psychological confirmation bias converge (or “conspire”) to produce and maintain a grim outlook.

How do I prevent confirmation bias?
Not surprisingly, researchers recommend carefully selecting sources. Is your information coming from a social media site of questionable credibility, or is it coming from a reputable media source or perhaps directly from the scientific literature? A focus on credible and competent sources of information can help keep the effect of prior beliefs at bay, and open our minds to alternative points of view.

To combat confirmation bias further, you may decide to strategically consider news from diverse sources with known biases or ideological leanings. Deliberately increasing exposure to views that conflict with prior beliefs can promote a more careful consideration of, and appreciation for, other perspectives. Even if this consider-the-alternative strategy does not change your attitude, it provides a more balanced understanding of the issues at stake and it will make it less likely that a debate is cast in personal terms.

Finally, it is possible to diminish confirmation bias by asking a person (or oneself) to justify a preferred point of view with relevant evidence and logical coherence. In other words, ask yourself why you hold a given perspective, and review the evidence you gathered to come to that point of view. Indeed, when we know we will be held accountable for the views we express, we tend to be more circumspect when gathering and interpreting information (Jonas et al., 2001).

So what’s the point?
Following these recommendations could not only help us avoid confirmation bias, but would have the added benefits of aiding us in becoming more tolerant of multiple and varied points of view, better articulating our own beliefs, and making us better informed consumers and critics of media and news outlets.

While critical debate and discussion can advance the public’s understanding of a topic, emotional appeals and defensive antagonism can hinder it. Further deliberation and examination of the facts before we speak or write can help us avoid responding with emotion and malice.

SOURCE: Deep Sea News

Did you like this? Share it:
By Broc West| 22 Comments | Editorials, Featured



    • But, this could be a, “worst-case-scenari”o, if they slip. One in (1500 (- 22)) odds on Armageddon? Oops!
      How about building a bedrock solid cradle under Unit-4’s floating fuel rods, before the next regular quake. They simply cannot remove all those rods in any known time frame, and they know this. If it all goes down in a quake, their problems are over. And, they are not going to return the money.
      It’s real simple: When this structure falls, if there are fuel rods in the pool, then everyone will be in the pool together. This rouge corporation is going to kill the world for money.

  2. That’s all fine and good, but has anyone factored in the liar-liar pants on fire theory which states that anyone of these people, research groups, governments, and/or corporations could be full of the old bravo sierra…. The truth is exaggeration is high on both sides. The alarmists are saying the end of the world is coming, and the greed mongering parasites that run the world are telling us everything is fine. The truth is, we’ll never really know what’s going on at Fuk-u-shima, or with anything else involving money, power, etc. Have you ever heard of “payoffs?” Cheers fellow sheepeople!

  3. Derk Brand proves your point!
    How did we as a people get to the place where we have no common sense, or cognitive reasoning abilities? These commenters do not impress me as people doing their own research…
    Doing that requires a commitment not only in time spent but in economic terms.

    And how about the actual harm done with these unfounded scaremonger stories? How many people are in a state of unnecessary panic right now being led to believe that illnesses they are suffering from might be the effect of radiation from Fukushima when they do not even need to worry about that, for time being?

  4. It tends to make people edgy when the very governments that have sworn to protect the public openly lie, deceive and withhold what should be public information as well as air, water and atmospheric information that prior to the disaster they provided.
    The wall of silence and secrecy only forces people to draw their own conclusions and do what they need to get the information they require….proving hat the Government way is not the only way nor is it a way that can be trusted no should it ever be trusted blindly due to the governments often twisted agendas geared toward protecting their personal financial interests first and foremost.
    Best plan is Trust No One, do your own research, pick up the phone and talk to who ever you think you need to so you can make your own informed decisions based on confirmable facts and don’t panic….and most of all make sure your passport is up to date.

  5. Just passing by to tell the world that there is nothing to worry about, as serious researches and measurements on Fukushima radiation are not being made (or informed).

  6. There is a lot of information provided, not by government offices but by people like me who are not government employees, and do not work under anyone’s agenda, freely providing information for those who might not be able to afford the relatively expensive but trustworthy Geiger counters that we use. We do this as a public service, only to be spat upon by our fellow humans. Thanks for that!
    These commenters, who do not want ANY form of information are likely corporate puppets, they want to dis everything that doesn’t fall into their agenda such as to promote coal…
    People disregard our citizen information just as they disregard government information releases, why is that?

    Why do I always hear in response to civilian information being provided:
    We don’t trust you, you are just a civilian.

    Then when any government office releases information it is this:
    We can’t trust the government, they are not civilians.

    But, you will wholeheartedly trust the knee-jerk scaremongers who have been repeatedly debunked????

    Sounds like confirmation bias to me! As well as selective perception.

    I seriously doubt any of we civic minded activists will persist in providing information for a public that doesn’t want our input for much longer, I mean who needs the abuse? You make people who are concerned and educated in the fields of interest look horribly stupid, calling us names like assholes etc… Are you sure you want to turn us away now? What if something really does happen and the government stays silent? You think you can guess at something like nuclear radiation releases and know what’s happening?

    Oh by the way, our morning 10 minute average count of Gamma, X-ray, Alpha and Beta radiation was 35 CPM today on the west coast’s furthest western extremity. What is your 10 minute average count today? Anyone at all?

  7. In Purdy Washington I show 10 which is very normal….low but normal and consistent.

    • Thanks Groingo!
      That’s fairly close to the coast.
      10 CPM is very low. I see other WA users reporting 14 CPM and similar so 10 isn’t too far off from those.
      Here we have the Humboldt bay PG&E nuke plant west of us, which is where we think we are picking up the extra, if any being due east of that.

  8. Here in Washington we have our pride and joy….HANFORD, the gift that keeps on giving where three eyed frogs are not un common and some really odd looking jack rabbits.

    Backed up by the Radiation network there is someone very close to me showing an 11, looks like we are in a cold spot.

    The more I dive into this the more interesting it is, I took my little Radiation Detector to a friend who heads the Astronmical Physics dept at University of Puget Sound and we checked my detector for accuracy and it showed “dead balls on” with their laboratory one….we were both impressed being that mine is Russian made SOEKS and cost under $200.00 which is why I bought Russian…no Chinese components, all Russian.

    Back to it!

    • Groingo,
      That Russian model is an interesting Geiger counter! Great price point too!

      I ended up buying 2 counters, a less expensive one and the more costly SE Inspector unit that you see around a lot. It is nice because you can do dosage rates/averages with it and it will data-log and output to a trend chart for display… Having 2 of them, one can go back to the factory for calibration and I still have one in case something does come over from someplace like Fukushima or Hanford.

      I am a strong believer in redundant testing having spent the better part of the last 40 years doing freelance environmental monitoring, providing wireless data acquisition systems for water, power and agriculture in California.

      The other thing I wanted to have is a test source, a small chunk of uraninite that puts out 30,000 CPM of gamma, alpha and beta radiation at around 1″ distance. At one foot, it puts out nothing at all, making it safe to use in labs and classrooms.
      Here is one from Amazon that is rated at 1205 CPM.

      Re Hanford,
      That is a very real threat to life in the western US! When those storage tanks finally disintegrate, it will be a whole new ball game… People really do need to get with it, learn about their neighborhood nuclear threats and start sharing data.

      We can not expect the US government to break it’s silence on the radioactivity in the environment here…
      What would they say? Something like this: “Fukushima is not a threat compared to what we have already done to you poor saps”? We can’t be fooled into thinking that the government is silent because Fukushima is that bad, the truth is they don’t want you to know how bad they have contaminated the environment even before Fukushima was built! Before TMI or Chernobyl.

      If you have not seen this video presentation, please do. It shows a time lapse of all the nuclear bomb test detonations from 1945 through 1998. All 2,050 or so! And many of them, hundreds in fact, were above ground tests.
      Sums it all up nicely, I think.

  9. hahah, omg this is such a sophistic piece of crap article… where does one eve begin?

  10. I think that as it can be true of anyone, we have to include the nuclear scientists that put out the peer review reports to the industry that has paid for their work for years. The telling thing about Fukushima is that the truth may take another couple to years to come out, but it will be so obvious that it can not be denied

  11. I’m going to be frank with you and I want you all to know in advance that my dis-pleasure is not directed at any one individual.

    First of all, please realize that I view our children as the future caretakers, indeed “owners” of this planet. Something I think we’ve all lost sight of ….”Horribly”! We (most of us) have lived half our lives or more. A vast percentage of these little human beings haven’t even had the pleasure of most of what we, as adults, take for granted. (Disneyland, the pyramids in Egypt, a first kiss…{- “0” -}
    I was never a part of the original decision to either go nuclear power, or not in Canada, but I remember as a boy being so proud of us because we chose to not have nuclear weapons. I realize now as an adult that we, as human beings, have the capacity to do great things. Historically however, we seem to have a difficult time both learning from our mistakes and a tendency to rush into things before we have full scope of understanding. (The full affects of cesium 137 and Iodine 131 thus far for example.)

    I understand the need to push forward in cutting edge technologies, but let that technology be tempered with wisdom and in some cases a healthy fear. Nuclear Power has only been around for 60 or so years, a very young technology in other words. The fact that we have had as many incidents involving either war related or non-war related nuclear potentials in this time period, as well as vast areas of the earth (including human beings) contaminated, should make it obvious that the ” risk based management system,” though accurate where there are large amounts of information and incidents to base an accurate probable mathematical outcome, does not work the other way around.
    I’m not sure how they come up with the statistics they do for catastrophic failures as pertaining to the numbers presented in their proposals to build these nuclear sites (like 2.3 million to one per year for example???) I did complete grade 10 math where they teach you about probability and I’m positive there needs to be more than the 6 or 7 or even 50 incidents in the math to actually come up with an accurate prediction. In fact the more the incidents over a longer period of time, the more accurate it is… (Thousands of incidents over man many decades for example) So it’s obvious that they are mostly guessing and nature is unpredictable over many thousands of years at best!

    Here’s the reality. The establishments of the world (including ours) have now shown consistently that they do not have the human race as a whole or indeed the planet’s best interests in mind. The fact that we play with technologies that we don’t have the ability to properly control is testament to that. The fact that if a serious enough natural disaster occurs there is no building on the planet that wouldn’t crack or crumble and In that fact we clearly don’t have full control. Like kids with sticks of dynamite thinking they are firecrackers.
    Let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that a building can be built that can’t be knocked down. If something else goes wrong, we can’t even get close enough to inspect the damage let alone do anything about it for the better part of a decade. (3 mile island for example) This also clearly shows that we as yet do not have the technology to properly handle this stuff in the event of a catastrophic meltdown. With that being said, the spent fuel rods cannot truly be made safe for 100,000+ years. How do we know what will happen with nature when it comes to the waste disposal sites over the next 100,000+ years? Easy, we don’t know, which again clearly points to both our inability to properly handle and detoxify these things and the opinion management involved over three generations to put them into place and keep them in place.

    I believe that all nuclear power plants should be shut down in phases permanently, as well as all operations that relate to it’s support until such a time that technologies can be developed to handle every possible contingency as well as technologies to detoxify the spent fuel rods to a point that they pose 0 danger to the human race or the planetary systems. I had no idea until recently at the incredible toxicity of some of some these radionuclides, or even that some of them existed, Cesium 137/134 and Iodine 131 in particular. We are only recently taking seriously the compiled studies done on the children in the decades following the incident in Russia in 1986, which show these radionuclides to bio-accumulate in the food chain. Why would the established governments ignore such information? Look at what the Japanese Government’s reason for not telling their public that the plant had experienced multi meltdowns. “We didn’t want to create a panic”. Really the panic rests on those with vested interests in the nuclear industry. Who do you think those vested interests might be? You got it, the established governments, big corporations and the entities set up to monitor them. (A Government can’t investigate another Government’s nuclear incident without permission from another government agency?)
    It was mind numbing to learn how much on average each nuclear plant in the US alone has in their spent fuel pools (which were never designed for long term storage) estimated at well over a hundred million curies at each plant of the cesium 137 alone! (1 gram = 88 curies and as little as 1\3 of a gram to 2 grams of this stuff will thoroughly waste a square kilometer of land for a very very long time. Do the math!!).

    The fact that this technology was pushed through due to the war effort at the time is mildly understandable, however the aftermath of that day should have scared the poo out of everyone and as a race should have re-examined the entire nuclear concept! When this technology was put in, my parents were never really told the whole story for quite some time and my dad only found out the full extent when he enlisted into the Canadian Navy. A sad but disturbingly real fact that seems to have come to light years later is the governments of both my parents’ day as well as my own originally covered up much of the extreme dangers this technology truly posed until the mid 70 early 80’s. This becomes apparent if you look closely at the incident in both Russia and 3 mile island, years after the incident the adverse affects were still never really talked about and in some cases I’m sure, suppressed entirely. (Doctors not allowed exposing cases of radiation sickness! Grrrr….)

    Most important to remember: This planet is “NOT”, handed down to us from our parents rather is lent to us by our children. The children we leave to deal with all or any messes we’ve created. (100,000 + years for spent fuel rods to fully decay! How long back into history can we even go in generational comparison?) Not to mention the 3 melted cores and all the fuel that went down into the ground with them. I think it is well known that there is no way we know of to get them up to ground. (Isn’t the core from Chernobyl still thought to be burning?)

    At any rate, regardless who or what, this isn’t about fault any more. Nor is it about money, power, acquisition, debate or any establishment created need. This, my friends is about the long-term continuance of our species, as well as every sister species on this planet. It is therefore that I make the following official recommendation to all parties and vested interests and indeed, the human race. (If we weather this)

    This planet truly belongs to our children whom by default have left it in our care for them just as you entrusted it to your parents for you and so on. The established interests that have been charged to protect both us and the planet by default, have consistently, indeed historically, failed to do so. I therefore believe a special task force should be established headed by a panel of world wide experts in various pertinent fields, with vested interests in ecology and the survival of this world, whose primary responsibility would be to the long term protection of all life systems on this planet. This team would supersede all jurisdictions and established governments and have ultimate authority in all said matters. Any new or existing technology or harmful substances to us or the planetary systems would need to be strenuously evaluated or re-evaluated. Come on guys, its time to stop looking at our environment as in how much can it take! We are all linked to the life systems on this earth so clearly the health of those systems directly relate to the health of the animals on it….US!

    I hope someone takes this serious matter with the credence it deserves.
    In some things, there are no acceptable risks!

    Thank you in advance for your time———-L. Vantassel and family

  12. What a pile of rubbish. I came to the site looking for an update on the Fukushima hell. Not claptrap nonsense to divert from the most horrific and terrifying incident in a generation… A question, is the author some kind of an apologist or just in the pocket of some organisation with an interest in the nuclear industry?

    • HEY, this is THE BEST site.!…Search the archives and Keep reading (and learning)… “WE” are all worried… this POST/expression” has validity… it is certainly a “dialectic” 🙁

      The fault, in my opinion, is the reproachable lack of guidance to achieve and develop a respect for the TRUE way to source information: the SOCRATIC METHOD and/or the SCIENTIFIC METHOD…. both of which ask for the Seeker to “Try to prove “it” wrong”.

      It’s ridiculous to ascertain “Confirmation Bias” when you try to prove Fukushima “wrong” – Fukushima , and ALL nuclear industries are, absolutely, awful.

      WONDERFUL CONTRUTORS to this site – REAL PEOPLE doing and posting REAL info ( eg: Roger Foote)

      • Thanks Scottiegirl,
        “Fukushima , and ALL nuclear industries are, absolutely, awful. ”

        Yes they are awful! My wife still is and always will be struggling with her nuclear accident injuries, made worse by the fact that no one told them what had happened to close to 1,000,000 people in the sixty mile radius around Simi Valley in 1959.

        Here in the US, there is an ongoing campaign to divert attention from our existing nuclear nightmare that was our inheritance well before any of the nuclear power plants were built. I figure that is why we have silence with respect to the US government about the ongoing pollution from Fukushima. I mean, what would they say?

        What really piques my interest now is this question;
        Why are most US cities so highly radioactive, when if you go out of the cities the radiation is quite low? What the heck does this mean?

        Everyone in the US should have a Geiger counter, no one else is going to measure it for you. You really are on your own! And, west coast people are not the only ones in danger, even though Fukushima is one of the biggest threats we face.

        • Thank You Roger (and your wife! – sorry about my spelling/typos last night – I was typing in the dark, with a glass of wine but without my glasses!!).

          I don’t know if this is helpful, but I recall from early last year Arne Gundersen talking about a NPP that had been leaking radioactive waste into the municipal water during one of his weekly FAIREWINDS podcasts – I’m sorry I can’t remember which one – nevertheless, if there is one NPP leaking into the main water supply, there are probably more (?) Quite frankly, I thought at the time and I think now, that such a travesty of “management” is so horrifically unforgiveable it beggars belief.

          I’m so sorry that all this “Nuke stuff” has happened (and continues to happen) – I have fought against it all my life to no avail….. it’s truly very sad…. I have children…. I wish I could afford a Geiger Counter so I could join you and all the others trying to make sense of what is going on….. I do not and can not give up.

          NB: I would appreciate your opinion of this site (link below):

          • Hi Scottiegirl,

            It is no surprise to me that nuke plants leak into drinking water tables. My father and grandfather were drinking water well drillers, having started that pursuit in 1949 in California.
            I started doing the electronic water system control work for them in 1966, then started designing electronic water system controls during our drought in the 1970s with my high school science teacher and another water system expert/friend of my dad’s.

            In the 1950s we had terrible contamination from poorly designed home sewage systems, before septic tank/leach field types were in use. There was and still is heavy contamination from arsenic used to spray apples in Sonoma County CA, and most other ag areas. Some of my current water districts are now drilling new wells and mixing “clean” water with water from higher quantity wells to diminish the amount of arsenic used in the early days of CA agriculture.

            As a kid, I remember long evenings with my dad at the typewriter penning a new law that would later take effect across the US requiring domestic potable water wells to have a concrete seal on the outside of the casing all the way down to rock formations effectively sealing out surface water. It did work for private household wells, but large capacity municipal wells do not fall under those regulations, most not having concrete seals. To be fair, it would be almost impossible to seal a well that is 130 feet deep and 30 feet across like many of the “collector” wells I have worked on.

            So, if there is any kind of contaminant at the surface, you can be pretty sure it will reach the water supply.

            Then we have surface water supplies like the one in WV that recently suffered contamination from industrial chemicals.
            Those types of water systems are very much at risk from contamination from ANYTHING the surface has to “offer”.
            Factor in a BWR with it’s huge underground water filled container and you can guess the rest.

            In the industry, we had a saying that “There is no container made by man that is “leak proof””. In the process of pumping and delivering 100 million gallons a day, we had several crews assigned to leak sensing, prevention and repair using sophisticated radar, sonar and ultrasonic tools to find leaks. We had hundreds of miles of 48″ diameter pipe with thousands of bolt and gasket connections.

            It is no surprise that nuke plants, chemical storage yards, optical, petroleum and electronic facilities contaminate water tables world wide. I don’t know what solution could be had except a re-structuring of our societies in question to be more careful with our natural environment. This is apparently not possible in our current corporate world without costing the corporations and globalists some of the money that we humans owe them for such a wonderful existence. If these entities had to care about such profit killing issues, can you imagine how our lives would suffer?

            Re the Geiger counter costs:
            This is a sad reality. I know that some outfits are trying to address this such as safecast:
            And International Medcom:

            But the price is still too high IMO.

            The contributor Groingo made me aware of the Russian made SOEKS radiation detector which can be had for under $200.
            This is a great looking unit at a good price, but folks with children who are the most at risk may not be able to wrench out $200 for a unit like this.

            I find it completely appalling that the nuke industry and civic government health organizations do not have programs to purchase detectors in bulk and distribute them to pregnant women, women with children and reproductive age young men.

            Just like the icy silence from our civic leaders WRT Fukushima, which fuels uneducated speculation about radiation, the lack of a detector program does illustrate that these groups care not about our health in any way. This saddens me and my family. We thought by now we would have some of the benefits from technology, not just for communications but also for health awareness. The technology is there.

            I fear that things are situated in this way in an intentional effort to keep citizens in the dark about what this industrialized life is costing us. To keep us in the dark about the fact that the DOD has already contaminated the US and other places far beyond what disasters like the Simi Valley Sodium Reactor Experiment, Fukushima and Sellafield nuke plants have given us.


            It is expected that the Fukushima disaster might meet or exceed the contamination from Sellafield.

            Then we have 2,050 or so nuclear bombs we have detonated, many of those above ground like the one my uncle was ordered to watch on a ship’s deck near an above ground detonation in the Pacific.
            He died of leukemia later. There was of course no connection between his death and the shipboard viewing of a hydrogen blast.

            Re the NETC web site:
            Some of the numbers that are on that website seem to be good information. If the site was under the control of the nuclear industry, I seriously doubt they would allow any of the high US city radiation numbers to be published. I suggest that we all should open the map and take a tour around the US and see the high numbers being reported, especially in the cities, some of those cities do not even have nuclear facilities AFAICT.
            Then go outside the cities and the numbers drop dramatically.
            This rules out long lasting radionuclide contamination from Fukushima as a source since the severity of that contamination would be worse the further west you go, which is not the case.

            You can look at the nuclear power plants in Japan but be aware that you then need to divide nS/hr by a factor of 10 to arrive at the more common CPM measurement we use here in the US.

            You obviously can not trust all numbers, but there is too much data that lines up for it all to be bogus on the NETC web page.
            The web site I referenced earlier,, also has a radiation sensor network.


  13. The writer of this article can go hump his mummy- or his sister! If you look at a photo of the Fukushima site, you will see two jetties/breakwaters, extending out into the ocean. They almost meet. That narrow open gap between them, could be sealed off, (there would be some leakage- but what the hell. Seal it as best you can.
    This would contain the heavily radioactive water that is spilling into the ocean from that site.
    It was the Japanese, who developed a filtration system to remove radioactivity from seawater- back in the 1980s. It is a process using ‘ionic transfer’- why are they not holding and processing that water using this method? Is it because they have shit for brains- or is it because they don’t want to spend the money?
    Let’s just wait until all life in the Pacific Ocean is DEAD- and then perhaps the world will do something about it!
    (Come to think of it- perhaps this earth would be a better place, when the human race is no longer on it?)

    • LTaxi: You’ve got it in one: it’s all about the money – money for the mining moguls, money for the corrupt Governments, money for the Banksters, money for the electricity and even more money for the Nuke weapons industry(the ultimate prize).

      Unfortunately, even if the Jap. Govt./TEPCO were prepared to spend money (which they’re not), no amount of money can ever really fix this because the coriums have melted through the containments and are contaminating the underground water which can’t be stopped from leaking into the ocean. And the sad truth about filtration is that there is no system that will filter Tritium, (chemical symbol H-3) the radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen – once Tritium gets into the water it melds and can’t be removed. It only has a half-life of 12.5 years but, given that we are 98% water, once it gets into us it can, and does, do significant damage in that time. It’s a major cause of cancer and one of the most deadly by-products of the nuke industry. Very bad news, made worse because they’re not even trying.

  14. Good Morning Roger, and everyone – I love this site; even if the info is distressing it’s a wonderful forum and a great place to learn, and to share and vent one’s frustrations.

    Thanks for the Geiger Counter advice – I’m saving up (and using the time it will take to educate myself on the use etc).

    Certainly the amount of culpable industries polluting this planet has reached epic proportions and it is “THEM”, not us, who are guilty of “Confirmation Bias”, with TEPCO and that loony Abe at the top of the list for the all-time “Confirmation Bias Award”. They’re all the same, with their “it’s nothing to worry about”, “it’s safe”, “don’t worry” bullshit. Here’s a recent example from Australia (note the video has been pulled):
    In a nutshell, it’s the same old spin: There has been a major leak of highly contaminated water BUT it’s OK, there’s no damage to environment. Who makes this crap up? Obviously “we” are deemed so stupid that we’ll believe any amount of lies – FFS a moron could work this out: if water has leaked (and please note that this mine is almost directly above the largest water aquifer in the whole country), it’s got to go somewhere…. and where would that be? Down of course…. finding it’s own level in the time-honoured way….. straight into the aquifer. Or not? Perhaps it just sat on the surface waiting for evaporation… then what? Yay, irradiated rain! Honestly, it’s an insult to anyone’s intelligence…. except for those who are practicing “Confirmation Bias” who have no intelligence and for those who make up this clap-trap who have no intelligence, no integrity, just loyalty to their “Big Business Buddies”. Disgraceful.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *