Radiation in Fukushima was so bad, they couldn’t afford to send people into some places. It turns out, the radiation was so high that even the chrome-domed replacements didn’t fare much better.
“It is extremely difficult to access the inside of the nuclear plant,” Naohiro Masuda, Tepco’s head of decommissioning said. “The biggest obstacle is the radiation.”
The solution? Robots. The problem? Robots.
“It takes two years to develop a single-function robot,” Masuda said.
As soon as Tepco’s robots, co-designed with Toshiba, get close to Reactor 3, their circuitry gets destroyed by the radiation. The robots are designed to “swim” in the radiated pools where the radioactive fuel rods are located, to search for and recover them.
The robots are unable to enter Reactor 3 because of the concentrated levels of radiation compared to the lesser toxic Reactor 4, where 1,535 fuel rod assemblies had previously been removed. Workers were also able to stand near enough to the pool to directly observe the process in Reactor 4.
This is the same company, mind you, which “accidentally” used radiation monitoring equipment which maxed out at 100mSv when the radiation was 18 times higher – nobody was concerned that the reading was stuck at 100 for really long periods of time, apparently.
Tepco claims that the radiation levels in many locations at the site have fallen dramatically. We were unable to verify if they were using the correct equipment at this time. However, more than 8,000 human workers continue to risk their lives clearing the site of debris at any one time throughout the day.
So far, Japanese fishermen have refused to allow Tepco to release the water it has “treated” into the sea… though Tepco site manager Akira Ono claims that he is “deeply worried” the storage tanks will leak radioactive water into the sea anyway.
Masuda, for his part, claims that leaks have been greatly reduced ever since the company built a wall along the shoreline. Walls are apparently an important solution for every problem in the world.
“I am not about to say that it is absolutely zero, but because of this wall the amount of release has dramatically dropped,” he said.
In February, Tepco completed construction of the world’s largest ice wall to prevent the water from leaking into the groundwater, and thus, into the sea. The wall will only be tested later in the year when water is pumped through the pipes and frozen.
Tepco is developing another robot that will be ready by 2017. However, it is unknown how long that one will last:
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
This article (Radiation so High at Fukushima, Tepco’s Robots can’t Survive ) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.
If you think the jury’s still out on whether cell phones can be dangerous to your health, then you might want to take the time to listen to this video from the Environmental Health Trust (www.ehtrust.org). Dr. Devra Davis, author of “Disconnect–The Truth About Cellphone Radiation,” has been researching the safety hazards of radiation emanating from your cell phone.
Like many people, Dr. Davis just didn’t believe the possibility of cell phones being dangerous – ntil she studied it. And now, with the toxicological and epidemiological evidence to back up her claims, she’s trying to get the word out that cell phone radiation is not only dangerous, but can be downright lethal.
In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer…
Can Your Cell Phone Cause Cancer?
One interesting case that can serve as an illustrative warning of the cancer-causing potential of cell phones is that of a young woman with no other predisposing risk factors for cancer who came down with multi-focal breast cancer. The case was revealed in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust’s newsletteri. As it turns out, the young lady had the curious habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra…
Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, concluded there was only one other possibility that might have directly contributed to her breast cancer. “We connected the dots,” the patient said. And the dots – quite literally the pattern of the cancer, and distribution of the cancerous cells―lined up perfectly with the shape of her cell phone.
While her doctor can’t prove the cell phone caused her cancer, it should serve as a potent warning not only to other women who might tuck their phones in their bras, but also to those of you who keep your phones in your pants pocket or shirt pocket as well. As a general rule, you’ll want to avoid carrying your phone anywhere on your body. Keep in mind that the most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that proximity.
Why Carrying Your Cell Phone on Your Body is a Bad Idea…
Regardless of the area exposed to the continuous radiation emitted by your cell phone, there’s the potential for harm, although certain areas are clearly more vulnerable than others.
For example, research published in 2009 showed evidence that wearing a cell phone on your hip may weaken an area of your pelvisii. Using an X-ray technique used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with osteoporosis, researchers measured pelvic bone density in 150 men who regularly carried their cell phones attached to their belts. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours each day, and had used cell phones for an average of six years. The researchers found that bone mineral density was lowered on the side of the pelvis where the mobile phones were carried, raising the possibility that bone density could be adversely affected by the electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones.
It’s important to realize that as long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. So wearing a cell phone on your hip for 15 hours a day is giving that area of your body nearly continuous radiation exposure.
Previous studies have found that cell phone radiation can affect men’s sperm count, and the quality and motility of their sperm, and this may be a far greater issue than its effect on bone density. One such study, published in PLoS Oneiii found that:
“RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.”
Men in particular may want to reconsider carrying their cell phones on their belts or in their pocket, in close proximity of their reproductive organs. In addition, you have a number of other sensitive organs in that general area, including liver, kidneys, colon and bladder – all of which are susceptible to radiation.
Recent Evidence Identifies Strong Cell Phone Cancer Link
Last year, an Israeli research group reported a sharp increase in the incidence of parotid gland tumors over the last 30 years, with the steepest increase happening after 2001. Your parotid gland is a type of salivary gland, located closest to your cheek – the same area where most people typically hold their cell phones. The researchers found a four-fold increase in parotid gland cancers from 1970 to 2006, while rates of other salivary gland cancers remained stableiv.
That same year, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal investigator of a 2008 study, testified at a U.S. Senate Hearing that cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:
34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.
49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime.
World Health Organizaion Classifies Cell Phone Radiation as Class B Carcinogen
Cell phone subscriptions are now estimated at 5.9 billion globallyv – that’s 87 percent of the world population! I think it’s safe to say, we’ve already passed the point of no return when it comes to this technology. But as cell phone use continues to grow unabated, a growing body of researchers is speaking out against the technology, warning that it may have serious biological side effects that must be acknowledged and remedied.
Fortunately, their warnings are slowly but surely beginning to be heard.
On May 31, 2011, the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report admitting cell phones might indeed cause cancer, classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Class 2B)vi. The classification came in part in response to research showing wireless telephones increase the risk for brain cancer.
According to the press releasevii:
“Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.”
“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings,” said IARC Director Christopher Wild, “it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting.”
Children are at Greatest Risk – Including While in Utero
Sadly, children and teens are at greatest risk – both for parotid gland tumors and brain tumors – as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children’s cells reproduce more quickly, so they’re more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Children also face a far greater lifetime exposure. According to Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!
Pregnant women would also be wise to avoid cell phones as much as possible. In 2008, researchers analyzed data from nearly 13,000 children and found that exposure to cell phones while in the womb, and also during childhood, were linked to behavioral difficulties.viii Using handsets just two or three times a day during pregnancy was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions, and relationships by the time they reached school age – and the risk became even greater if the children also used the phones themselves before the age of seven.
Overall, the study revealed that mothers who used mobile phones were 54 percent more likely to have children with behavioral problems. Later on, when the children began using cell phones themselves, they were:
80 percent more likely to suffer from behavioral difficulties
25 percent more at risk from emotional problems
34 percent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers
35 percent more likely to be hyperactive
49 percent more prone to problems with conduct
Experts Adamantly Claim Harmful Effects are Now Provable
Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there’s virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.
One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, “The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,” co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its ‘coil of coils’ structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.
As described in the International Journal of Radiation Biology, April 2011ix, DNA possesses the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas: electronic conduction, and self-symmetry.
These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA to electromagnetic fields than other tissues, making the long-term consequences of repeated microwave exposures to our genetic material of great concern. Dr. Blank is adamant when he says that there IS evidence of harm, and that the harm can be significant. He also points out that the science showing harmful effects has been peer-reviewed, published, and that the results have been replicated, evaluated and “judged by scientists capable of judging it.” I wrote an in-depth article about these findings back in January of last year. If you missed it, go ahead and review it now.
An analysis of the range of known mechanisms of action, including DNA effects, was published in November 2010 in “Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromagnetic Fields and Living Matterx.” Furthermore, the mobile industry’s own research in the 13-country Interphone studyxi showed a 40 percent increased risk of brain cancer from 1,640 or more hours of cell phone use, and independent Swedish research published in 2007 showed a 540 percent increased risk of brain cancer from greater than 2,000 hours of cell phone usexii.
My Top Tips for Cell Phone Safety
It’s worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is much larger than the medical industrial complex, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They’re also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to peddle their wares. This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies.
As Dr. Davis shows in her lecture above, the results of any study can be accurately predicted by looking at its sponsorship. According to a review by Dr. Lai in 2008, the probability that a study will find “no effect” is two to three times higher in industry-funded studies, while independently-funded studies into the health effects of mobile technology are TWICE as likely to find a positive result.
So please, be aware that there is already robust scientific evidence that cell phones and other wireless devices pose significant health risks to all of us – especially to children and pregnant women. So while such findings are not being widely publicized as of yet, it makes sense to take action now to protect yourself and your children. You can help to minimize your exposure to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice:
Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type.
Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you’re pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use may be especially important.
Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers a portable number via your computer that can plug into any Ethernet port while traveling.
Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep. If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won’t help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers. Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren’t talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may not be as damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call. Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed. You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man’s pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
Don’t Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone. This is particularly true for industry promoted SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures.
Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor’s office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the ‘second hand radiation’ effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children. If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept ‘Off’ except for emergencies.
Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded — and most of them are not — the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded. The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
Most people are so excited when they first open their new phone that the instruction manual and literature get ignored and thrown out or buried in a miscellaneous drawer. If you took the time to read what it says you likely wouldn’t use your phone the same way. For instance, the safety and regulatory guide that came with my phone states (in fine print): “To comply with RF exposure requirements [Radiofrequency Radiation], a minimum separation distance of 1.5 cm must be maintained between the user’s body and the the handset, including antenna.”
Epidemiologist Devra Davis of the University of Pittsburgh told the NY Times that she recommends keeping a phone out of close proximity to the head or body, by using wired headsets or the phone’s speaker. Children should text rather than call, she said, and pregnant women should keep phones away from the abdomen.
Watch the video below to learn about the top 5 phones that produce the highest amount of radiation:
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
Research suggests that microwave ovens are extremely harmful to our health.
Regardless of where you stand, humans are the only animals on the
planet who avoid the natural, unprocessed state of the food and destroy
its nutritional value before eating it, and the use of microwaves is no
exception. The amount of prepackaged and processed foods we purchase and
consume annually is alarming.
Nowadays, a growing number of people are trying to find the answer of
their dilemma: whether microwaves are a benign bastion of convenience
or a sinister contributor to biological and nutritional damage.
Research suggests that microwave ovens are extremely harmful to our
health. Namely, they can increase both the number of cancerous cells in
blood and the number of stomach and intestinal cancerous cells.
These ovens work physically, biochemically and physiologically,
producing ions and various free radicals, which destroy viruses and
bacteria, but not toxins and micro- toxins. According to experts, food
cooked in microwaves loses between 60% and 90% of its vital energy and,
at the same time, the structural disintegration processes accelerates.
Also, the nutrient substances are being changed, leading to digestive
diseases.
Microwaves are a source of electromagnetic energy (a form of
nonionizing radiation) electronically generated. The leaking radiation
is a serious issue, and it is known to cause cataracts, birth defects,
cancer and other serious illnesses. Consequently, the FDA set legal
limits on the leakage permitted by every microwave manufacturer.
However, the only way to completely eliminate the radiation dangers
associated with microwaves is to completely avoid them.
This is how they function: when penetrating the aliments, they
trigger an inner rotation of the water molecules inside the food. This
rotation triggers a friction between the molecules and the result is a
rapid growth in temperature.
Microwaves radiate the contents of water inside food by using
super-fast particles, and bring it to boil. Of all the natural
substances, which are polar, the oxygen of water molecules reacts most
sensitively. This is how microwave cooking heat is generated — friction
from this violence in water molecules.
Structures of molecules are torn apart and molecules are forcefully
deformed, called structural isomerism, and thus become impaired in
quality. Cooking by microwaves begins within the cells and molecules
where water is present and where the energy is transformed into
frictional heat.
The use of microwaves has been found to cause numerous harmful
effects to human health. Microwaves quickly destroy the delicate
molecules of vitamins and phytonutrients (plant medicines) naturally
found in foods.
There are no atoms, molecules or cells of any organic system able to
withstand such a violent, destructive power for any extended period of
time. Microwaves in fact denature many of the essential proteins in the
food by making them indigestible. Moreover, they have been linked to
causing infertility in men.
Namely, Soviet scientists found that the microwave exposure reduces
the metabolic stress of the alkaloids, glycosides and galactoses,
decreases the ability of some vitamins to be absorbed by the human body
and dramatically accelerates the structural disintegration of all foods.
Due to these causes, microwave ovens were banned in the Soviet Union in
1976.
A Spanish governmental study in 2003 elaborated in Murcia proved that
the vegetables and fruits cooked in a microwave lost a percentage of
97% of the substances that contribute to reducing the incidence of
coronary heart diseases.
The Comparative Study of Food Prepared Conventionally and in the Microwave Oven, published by Raum & Zelt in 1992, at 3(2): 43, states:
“Artificially produced microwaves, including those in ovens, are
produced from alternating current and force a billion or more polarity
reversals per second in every food molecule they hit. Production of
unnatural molecules is inevitable. Naturally occurring amino acids have
been observed to undergo isomeric changes (changes in shape morphing) as
well as transformation into toxic forms, under the impact of microwaves
produced in ovens.”
Dr. Lita Lee in her book Health Effects of Microwave Radiation — Microwave Ovens,
and in the March and September 1991 issues of Earthletter, promoted
that every microwave oven harms food, leaks electro-magnetic radiation
and converts substances cooked in it to dangerous organ-toxic and
carcinogenic products. According to Dr. Lee, changes are observed in the
blood chemistries and the rates of certain diseases among consumers of
microwaved foods.
Another study also discovered that microwaving vegetables destroys up
to 97% of the nutritional content (vitamins and other plant-based
nutrients that prevent disease, boost immune function and enhance
health).
The study conducted in 1991 by the Swiss Doctor Hans Ulrich Hertel,
done along with Dr. Bernard H. Blanc of the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology and the University Institute for Biochemistry, showed that
cooking or heating food presents much greater risks for health than the
traditionally cooked food.
His small but well controlled study showed the degenerative force
produced in microwave ovens and the food processed in them. In addition,
the study proved that people who ate microwave- prepared food
experienced change in blood, in fact, loss in the hemoglobines and
lymphoites, which can cause deterioration in the human system.
Dr. Hertel was the first scientist to conceive and carry out a
quality clinical study on the effects microwaved nutrients have on the
blood and physiology of the human body.
List of 12 Effects of Microwaves
Numerous studies have discovered the following harmful effects of the use of microwaves:
A degeneration and destabilization of the external energy activated
potentials of food utilization within the processes of human metabolism;
A breakdown of the human “life-energy field” in those who were
exposed to microwave ovens while in operation, with side-effects to the
human energy field of increasingly longer duration;
Degeneration and circuit breakdowns of electrical nerve impulses
within the junction potentials of the cerebrum [the front portion of the
brain where thought and higher functions reside];
A long term cumulative loss of vital energies within humans, animals
and plants that were located within a 500-meter radius of the
operational equipment;
A degeneration and destabilization of internal cellular membrane
potentials while transferring catabolic [metabolic breakdown] processes
into the blood serum from the digestive process;
A degeneration of the cellular voltage parallels during the process
of using the apparatus, especially in the blood and lymphatic areas;
A destabilization and interruption in the production of hormones and maintenance of hormonal balance in males and females;
Loss of balance and circuiting of the bioelectric strengths within
the ascending reticular activating system (the system which controls the
function of consciousness);
Markedly higher levels of brainwave disturbance in the alpha, theta,
and delta wave signal patterns of persons exposed to microwave emission
fields;
Due to brainwave disturbance, negative psychological effects were
noted, including deceleration of intellective processes, loss of memory,
loss of ability to concentrate, suppressed emotional threshold, and
interruptive sleep episodes in a statistically higher percentage of
individuals subjected to continual range emissive field effects of
microwave apparatus, either in cooking apparatus or in transmission
stations.
A degeneration and breakdown of nerve electrical circuits and loss
of energy field symmetry in the neuroplexuses, that is, in the nerve
centers, both in the front and the rear of the central and autonomic
nervous systems;
Long lasting residual effects of magnetic “deposits” were located throughout the nervous system and lymphatic system;
The use of microwaves worsens the nutritional state and one is likely to be diagnosed with various diseases.
Russian investigations by the Atlantis Raising Educational
Center in Portland, Oregon investigated the issue and published the
summary of their discoveries:
Plants were discovered to contain created carcinogenic free radicals, especially root vegetables.
Microwaving milk and cereal grains converted some of their amino acids into carcinogens.
Thawing frozen fruits converted their glucoside and galactoside containing fractions into carcinogenic substances.
Microwaving prepared meats sufficiently to insure sanitary ingestion
caused formation of d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well-known carcinogen.
Extremely short exposure of raw, cooked or frozen vegetables converted their plant alkaloids into carcinogens.
These researchers also found a marked acceleration of structural
degradation leading to a decreased food value of 60 to 90% in all foods
tested. Among the changes observed were:
Various kinds of damages to many plant substances, such as alkaloids, glucosides, galactosides and nitrilosides.
Deceased bio-availability of vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin B
complex, essential minerals and lipotropics factors in all foods tested.
Here below you can read the changes that were observed:
-Higher rates of digestive disorders and a gradual breakdown of the systems of elimination
-Increased rates of stomach and intestinal cancers
-An increased rate of cancer cell formation in the blood
-Lymphatic disorders which lead to decreased ability to prevent certain types of cancers.
-- significant decrease in the nutritive value of all foods researched.
To conclude, the research gave numerous important findings regarding
the results of microwave use, among which were the ones below:
A marked acceleration of structural disintegration in all foods tested;
A loss of 60-90% of the vital energy field content of all foods;
A reduction in the metabolic behavior and integration process
capability of alkaloids [organic nitrogen based elements], glucosides
and galactosides, and nitrilosides;
A destruction of the nutritive value of nucleoproteins in meats;
A decrease in the bioavailability, which is the capability of the
body to utilize the nutriment, of B-complex vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin
E, essential minerals and lipotropics in all foods.
But How to Heat Your Food And Preserve Its Value?
Gently heating food in a cast iron pan over the stove may be the
healthiest alternative, since there is no way to heat food and maintain
its structural and nutritional value.
The best advice to follow is to try and consume as much raw foods as
possible. However, what is a must, is to absolutely get rid of the
microwaves.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
St. Louis, MO – According to an emergency plan recently distributed by St. Louis County officials, a fire at the Bridgeton Landfill is now within 1,000 feet of a nuclear waste dump. The landfill fire has actually been burning for over 5 years, and they have been unable to contain it thus far.
There are clouds of smoke that have been billowing from the site, making the air in parts of St. Louis heavily polluted. In 2013, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster sued Republic Services, the company responsible for the landfill, charging the company with neglecting the site and harming the local environment.
Last year, city officials became concerned that the fire may reach the nearby West Lake Landfill, which is littered with decades worth of nuclear waste from government projects and weapons manufacturing. Remnants from the Manhattan Project and the cold war have been stuffed there for generations. The site has been under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1990, but they have not made any significant effort to clean up the waste.
Although the fire has been burning for over 5 years and the city began making evacuation plans last year, they didn’t tell the public until this past week, when they leaked the emergency plans to local news station KMOX.
According to the emergency plan, if the fire reaches the nuclear waste site, “there is a potential for radioactive fallout to be released in the smoke plume and spread throughout the region. This event will most likely occur with little or no warning,” the plan notes, listing the municipalities directly affected as Bridgeton, Hazelwood, Maryland Heights, the Village of Champ and the City of St. Charles.”
County Executive Steve Stenger has promised that the emergency plan is “not an indication of any imminent danger,” but with a fire just 1000 feet away from a nuclear waste site, the danger does seem imminent for many of the city’s residents.
“It is [the] county government’s responsibility to protect the health, safety and well-being of all St. Louis County residents. None of this is meant to be alarmist, but you have to be prepared,” Stenger said in a statement.
However, this week Koster told the Associated Press that the fire is even closer to the contamination zone than the city officials have even estimated because the radiation extends beyond the walls of the site.
The emergency plan provides very basic options for people to either evacuate the city or stay sheltered in their houses. Aside from saying that nuclear contamination can spread through the area in plumes of smoke, there was little mention in the report about what they actually expect to happen. Also alarming, is the fact that while there is an evacuation plan, there has been no plan proposed to actually stop this, or clean the mess up. It seems that the local government and the EPA are just hoping for the best as the fire continues to spread.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
John Vibes is an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special interest in the counter-culture and the drug war. In addition to his writing and activist work, he organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference, which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
Los Angeles, CA — A year long, two-part investigation by NBC affiliate NBC4 Southern California revealed last week that the United States government hid what experts call “the worst nuclear disaster in U.S. history.” Part 1 detailed how the catastrophe occurred and how the leaked radiation might be affecting the health of nearby residents. Part 2 investigates how in 1996, the Boeing Company — a behemoth corporation with deep roots in America’s military industrial-complex — acquired ownership of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). And how since, the corporation has resorted to bribery, manipulation, and deceit — all to avoid cleaning up a mess it is legally obligated to remedy.
The Boeing Company
Though Rocketdyne, the last owner of SSFL before Boeing acquired it, eventually settled with the Brandeis-Bardin Institute over the toxins that seeped into its property, the stalled cleanup now rests with Boeing (to this day, the Department of Energy still leases a portion of Area IV while Area II is property of the federal government and is operated primarily by NASA).
Linda Adams, former head of California’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), attempted to initiate a full-scale cleanup in 2007 when she was in office. She was fully aware of the massive contamination that remained at and around the facility: “Those chemicals don’t stay on the mountain. The population is below the site,” she said.
Around the same time, State Senator Sheila Kuehl attempted prioritize a cleanup. “There are cancer clusters of various kinds of exotic cancers all around this site,” she recalled telling her legislative colleagues. Kuehl co-authored S.B. 990 in the California legislature, which asserted even though Boeing did not own SSFL at the time of the accident, its present possession obligated it to clean up the area. The bill passed in 2007 and then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law, placing responsibility for cleanup primarily on Boeing but also requiring NASA and the Department of Energy to fund the cleanup since they both used the facility over the years.
Ultimately, a high court invalidated S.B. 990 shortly after it took effect, ruling Boeing did not have to execute a cleanup because the requirements were too stringent. Eventually, the EPA — under Adams — stepped in to draft agreements for the Department of Energy, NASA, and Boeing to commit to a cleanup. Boeing was the only entity that refused to sign. Instead, NBC4 reported, “they are operating under an older 2007 order from the DTSC that allows the DTSC to determine the cleanup levels for the site. Something they have not yet done.”
According to Adams, Boeing hired “a large army of lobbyists … to do everything they could to stop a cleanup to that level.” The lobbyists included “Peter Weiner, a former environmental aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, Winston Hickox, a former head of the California EPA, and Robert Hoffman, the former chief lawyer of the Department of Toxic Substance Control. All three left government service and have worked on behalf of Boeing to kill a full cleanup of Santa Susana.”
NBC4 details Boeing’s intricate web of influence, which “[includes] campaign donations of $29,500 to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, $17,500 to Gov. Jerry Brown, $11,300 to Sen. Barbara Boxer and $4,000 to California Sen. Kevin De Leon, the current Senate President Pro Tempore and the Chairman of the Committee that confirmed Barbara Lee as Director of the DTSC [Department of Toxic Substance Control].” The DTSC is the entity tasked with forcing Boeing to conduct a cleanup.
Barbara Lee, appointed last October, is still the director of the California DTSC and has admitted “[t]he site has a lot of contamination.” Even so, the DTSC may not require Boeing to provide the large-scale cleanup that S.B. 990 required. “I don’t believe there is a current exposure to communities,” Lee told NBC4’s investigative team. The DTSC is solely responsible for setting the terms of the cleanup, but because Lee was appointed by lawmakers bought out by Boeing, there is little doubt as to why it has not yet occurred.
“I don’t know how anyone could be saying that,” Adams said of Lee’s claims there was no exposure to communities. “All the evidence I’ve seen shows there is a threat.” She became emotional in her interview with NBC4, saying she feels she let the community down by failing to launch a cleanup effort before she stepped down in 2009.
Medical and Media Manipulation
In 2012, Boeing tasked a PR team with a strategy to “target media,” including “KNBC,” so as to perpetuate the myth that the “site poses no risk to human health today.” This tactic flew in the face of the 2007 ATSDR-commissioned study that suggested the exact opposite.
Boeing was untruthful about the results of that University of Michigan study, which found rates of cancer were 60% greater than in other regions. The study examined health data from 1988-2002 within a two to five mile radius of SSFL. Boeing promptly distorted the study and asserted it found no proof of health side effects due to radiation. Though the study’s authors cautioned it could not draw definite conclusions and noted the study’s limitations, Dr. Hal Morgenstern, who led the analysis, accused Boeing of manipulating his work.
Morgenstern contacted California State Senator Joe Simitian, Chair of the Committee on Environmental Quality, to assert this concern: “I would like to make it clear to your Committee that Boeing’s claim made about the conclusion of our study is false. We did not conclude that there was no excess cancer in the communities surrounding SSFL. Furthermore, Boeing’s quotes from our report were taken out of context, and they failed to report our specific findings that contradicted their claim,” he wrote in a letter. Morgenstern noted that cancers such as thyroid, bladder, and lymph tissue were both tested for and found.
As he told NBC4, “There’s some provocative evidence…It’s like circumstantial evidence, suggesting there’s a link.” Even if the results are not conclusive, however, few — save Boeing and the government agencies attempting to shirk accountability — can deny they warrant further study.
Though Boeing claims it will conduct a full cleanup based in “science,” Dan Hirsch, a nuclear policy instructor at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), doubts the company’s sincerity. He explained Boeing’s latest proposal to detoxify the site: “…they want to clean up almost none of it…Boeing is proposing that they only have to clean up something on the order of a few percent of the contamination.” He continued that “[b]y Boeing’s own estimate, if someone lived up there, every third person would get a cancer from the contamination,” said Hirsch. “I know of no site in the country that has risks that high.”
Liza Tucker, who runs ConsumerWatchdog.org, suspects Boeing is attempting to skirt paying millions of dollars to detoxify the site. Rather, they are spending money on lobbyists and legal cases to avoid responsibility. “As far as I’m concerned,” Tucker said, “Boeing is running the DTSC right now.” Lee, on the other hand, dismissed any suggestion that Boeing has colluded with her agency: “I haven’t seen it. and I’ve looked for it.” She claims soil tests have been conducted but refused to share them with NBC4. Instead, her department directed the journalists to older studies claiming the contamination off-site was insignificant.
Similarly, the Department of Energy, NASA, and Boeing told NBC4 they are all working to remedy the situation. They all declined to speak with NBC4, providing written statements instead. The DOE said it has conducted tests on soil but failed to explain why, as NBC4 asked, it has failed to publicly admit that radiation was leaked into the atmosphere above Los Angeles. NASA noted its agreement with the California EPA to help clean up. While touting its own efforts, Boeing audaciously cited tests from the Department of Toxic Substance Control, the department they have evidently purchased through the state legislature, to argue there have been no adverse health effects.
Notably, in NBC4’s video presentation on the investigation, one of its reporters attended a public meeting to question John Jones, the Department of Energy’s project manager for the SSFL. “Will anyone from your agency talk to us at all?” reporter Joel Grover asked. “My public people have talked to you. I’ve said all I’m gonna say,” Jones replied, with noticeable agitation. “You’ve said nothing,” Grover countered. Jones paused for a moment, then simply said, “Thank you for your time.”
To its credit, the ATSDR (under the CDC) agreed last week to conduct further studies of the health effects of the 1959 leak. However, it only agreed after local resident Abe Weitzberg gained the number of necessary signatures on a petition demanding the effects be studied. Some residents expressed concerns that studying the health effects might detract from their 30-year effort to cleanup to region (an effort launched in the 1970s when the severity accident was first revealed). Though Weitzberg personally does not believe people have been affected, as a resident who used to work at the SSFL, he wants the issue resolved. There is no set date for the studies to commence.
Coincidentally, the agreement from the ATSDR to conduct the studies comes as California’s DTSC is close to finishing its report and guidelines for the official cleanup Boeing was ordered to conduct under S.B. 990. It also coincides with the release of NBC4’s investigation last week.
According to Hirsch, as of 2009, various agencies and Boeing had already spent $250 million in an attempt to clean up the site. But Hirsch, who runs the Committee to Bridge the Gap, believes it is still not enough and continues to call for a full cleanup of the area.
The Boeing Corporation may not have caused the spill, but it has long been a key player in the military-industrial complex. In 2011 alone, it sold a total of $67.8 billion worth of arms. Considering its massive budget, it is baffling why the corporation would rather dedicate its resources to blocking a cleanup rather than paying for one as it is obligated to by law. Of course, this is a symptom of rampant corporate collusion with government. Though the DTSC will soon release its guidelines for cleanup, its obligations to lobbyists make it doubtful they will be as stringent as local residents and activists hope.
America’s worst nuclear disaster happened in 1959, two years before President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of an emerging military-industrial complex that would entangle the nation in endless war. While he was still president, corporations were laying a foundation of corporatocracy and militarism that would allow Boeing to amass monumental power throughout the 20th century. It is that power and influence, fueled by war and the profits it yields, that has made a full cleanup impossible.
After countless lies, cover ups, and overwhelming collusion, however, instead of taking responsibility for the cleanup, Boeing has added insult to injury by moving to construct a recreational park near SFFL.
NBC4 noted its difficulties in obtaining information for its two-part investigation. The investigation included multiple Freedom of Information Act requests that produced over 15,000 pages of documents. NBC4 specifically noted that “many of the original documents have been lost, destroyed or withheld,” implying there have been concerted efforts to keep the truth suppressed. It continued that “Dr. Jan Beyea, who studied the 1959 accident for California’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, wrote in a paper that ‘had there been a large release [of radiation] kept secret at SRE, it would have been consistent with earlier behavior in the United States.’”
Though details of the disaster have slowly emerged throughout the years, NBC4’s year-long investigation pieced together details about not only the severity of the spill, but the sordid channels of corporate influence and manipulation that have riddled attempts to initiate a cleanup. Unsettlingly, at the time of this article’s publication, NBC4’s investigation has received little attention from the media — a puzzling reaction to a detailed report on the worst nuclear disaster in the nation’s history.
As Krista Slack, local resident and cancer sufferer told NB4C, “The government needs to take responsibility when it makes a mistake.” 56 years later, the government and its corporate partners continue to endanger the very people they claim to protect with weapons they demonstrably cannot contain.
Thanks for taking the time to read this article. If you found this information helpful, please share it with your friends and family. Your support in our endeavor of sharing free information would be much appreciated.
