(OK, I know that I keep tossing the Fukushima crisis at you, but this is a major crisis unfolding. As the radiation keeps flowing across the Pacific, we are in for some major changes in west coast fishing, swimming and so on. A bunch of junk about the size of Texas is coming this way too, and aren't those Californian's going to love that stuff on their beaches.....alexis)
(NaturalNews) The majority of Americans already understand that the federal government is incapable of securing prosperity and protecting the health of the people. US leaders have been assaulting their country into debt for many years now, enslaving the country to its own world reserve currency and Federal Reserve Bank. The current administration can't even put together a working website to take over health care as was intended. Entrusted to bring "affordable health care to all," the federal government has done the opposite, as millions are now witnessing higher monthly insurance costs.
So what makes one think that the US would be prompt, responsible and ready to respond to a nuclear disaster that's affecting its own shores?
How efficient could the US really be in helping countries like Japan clean up nuclear radiation that has drifted across the Pacific Ocean?
With a track record of endless wars and unsuccessful meddling in the affairs of multiple countries, the US may be the "most powerful" but really is the least efficient when it comes to world affairs and health protections.
Nearly two-and-a-half years after the Fukushima nuclear power plant broke down in Japan, spewing radiation, the US energy secretary is finally taking a closer look.
Reports have been piling in, showing high levels of radioactive particles traveling across the Pacific Ocean to the US Pacific coastline.
Maybe now the US administration is interested in protecting its own coast? Then again, the EPA could always just raise the allowable levels of radioactive particles in US soil and drinking water a notch higher to keep Americans assured that they are "safe."
Ernest Moniz, U.S. Secretary of Energy, made a speech in Tokyo on October 31st, stating that the success of cleanup around the Fukushima plant, including the shutdown of reactors, has global significance and that the "US has a direct interest in seeing the next steps are done efficiently and safely."
As if the US has suddenly become the "safer higher authority" when it comes to nuclear radiation, the Energy department is now anxious to come in and help with the cleanup.
What country was the first to drop nuclear radiation from the skies intentionally?
The US really does have low credibility in nuclear cleanup, especially in Japan.
Still, the current Energy Secretary seems to have true concerns. On November 1st, he reported his visit to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. "It is stunning that one can see firsthand the destructive force of the tsunami even more than two and a half years after the tragic events."
He continues, "TEPCO President Hirose, and his dedicated staff face a daunting task in the cleanup and decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi, one that will take decades and is being carried out under very challenging conditions."
Meanwhile, back in the US, Americans are shielded from the truth about the increasing amount of radioactive particles in their water and soil.
The EPA keeps the situation quiet by raising the allowable limits for radioactive particles in new guidelines. In fact, new protective action guides were signed by the president in 2013, raising allowable limits of radioactive particles.
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the EPA's 2013 Protective Action Guides are lax on nuclear radiation standards. The new standards give on-site authorities much greater "flexibility" in setting aside established limits. The new limits allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. According to PEER, this lax limit has the capability to increase a 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to around 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period. This dramatic increase in the permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following "radiological incidents" is reason for concern.
More concerning is the contradictory language in the new standards. In Section 3.7, the EPA determines that the general public should be evacuated at levels beginning at 1,000 mrems, yet further down, soil levels are found to be safe at 2,000 mrems "for reentry of some displaced individuals."
Now that the United States Energy Secretary has witnessed the destruction of Fukushima two-and-a-half years later, noticing catastrophic and far-reaching damage, will he push for awareness and "change?" And will the EPA tell the truth about radiation levels in America? Is America even credible enough to help Japan cleanup the damage, or is it all a political act?
Sources for this article include:
http://enenews.com
http://www.wtvm.com
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu
http://www.activistpost.com
http://www.peer.org
http://science.naturalnews.com
(NaturalNews) The majority of Americans already understand that the federal government is incapable of securing prosperity and protecting the health of the people. US leaders have been assaulting their country into debt for many years now, enslaving the country to its own world reserve currency and Federal Reserve Bank. The current administration can't even put together a working website to take over health care as was intended. Entrusted to bring "affordable health care to all," the federal government has done the opposite, as millions are now witnessing higher monthly insurance costs.
So what makes one think that the US would be prompt, responsible and ready to respond to a nuclear disaster that's affecting its own shores?
How efficient could the US really be in helping countries like Japan clean up nuclear radiation that has drifted across the Pacific Ocean?
With a track record of endless wars and unsuccessful meddling in the affairs of multiple countries, the US may be the "most powerful" but really is the least efficient when it comes to world affairs and health protections.
Nearly two-and-a-half years after the Fukushima nuclear power plant broke down in Japan, spewing radiation, the US energy secretary is finally taking a closer look.
Reports have been piling in, showing high levels of radioactive particles traveling across the Pacific Ocean to the US Pacific coastline.
Maybe now the US administration is interested in protecting its own coast? Then again, the EPA could always just raise the allowable levels of radioactive particles in US soil and drinking water a notch higher to keep Americans assured that they are "safe."
US Energy Secretary describes the situation in Japan
As if the US has suddenly become the "safer higher authority" when it comes to nuclear radiation, the Energy department is now anxious to come in and help with the cleanup.
What country was the first to drop nuclear radiation from the skies intentionally?
The US really does have low credibility in nuclear cleanup, especially in Japan.
Still, the current Energy Secretary seems to have true concerns. On November 1st, he reported his visit to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. "It is stunning that one can see firsthand the destructive force of the tsunami even more than two and a half years after the tragic events."
He continues, "TEPCO President Hirose, and his dedicated staff face a daunting task in the cleanup and decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi, one that will take decades and is being carried out under very challenging conditions."
EPA raises allowable limits for radioactive particles
The EPA keeps the situation quiet by raising the allowable limits for radioactive particles in new guidelines. In fact, new protective action guides were signed by the president in 2013, raising allowable limits of radioactive particles.
According to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the EPA's 2013 Protective Action Guides are lax on nuclear radiation standards. The new standards give on-site authorities much greater "flexibility" in setting aside established limits. The new limits allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. According to PEER, this lax limit has the capability to increase a 1 in 10,000 person cancer rate to around 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period. This dramatic increase in the permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following "radiological incidents" is reason for concern.
More concerning is the contradictory language in the new standards. In Section 3.7, the EPA determines that the general public should be evacuated at levels beginning at 1,000 mrems, yet further down, soil levels are found to be safe at 2,000 mrems "for reentry of some displaced individuals."
Now that the United States Energy Secretary has witnessed the destruction of Fukushima two-and-a-half years later, noticing catastrophic and far-reaching damage, will he push for awareness and "change?" And will the EPA tell the truth about radiation levels in America? Is America even credible enough to help Japan cleanup the damage, or is it all a political act?
Sources for this article include:
http://enenews.com
http://www.wtvm.com
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu
http://www.activistpost.com
http://www.peer.org
http://science.naturalnews.com
No comments:
Post a Comment