Nuclear Madness: Despite Meltdowns, Accidents, And Evidence Of ‘Free Energy’, NRC Approves Two New Plants


The Intel Hub
By Tony Muga
February 10, 2012

Part One

On Thursday, February 9th, 2012 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the construction of two new nuclear power plants in the face of overwhelming evidence that not only should new permits be denied, but that current plants should be carefully and systematically shut down and decommissioned.

The fact is no nuclear power plant will ever be 100% safe. History proves they are inherently dangerous.

How has America been effected by nuclear accidents in the past? Have they ever found a place to store all the waste? What if nearly free alternative energy technology exists but is being suppressed to protect global monopolies?

The Big Ones: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns.

Three Mile Island: There’s a lot to know about the meltdown that occurred south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 28th, 1979 but the most important thing to know is what the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC), the Department of Energy (DOE) and TMI authorities claim has very little resemblance to what private studies have shown.

According to the Pennsylvania based non-profit citizens organization ‘Three Mile Island Alert’:

‘ [the] March, 1982, The American Journal of Public Health reported, “During the first quarter of 1978, the neonatal mortality rate within a ten-mile radius of a Three Mile Island was 8.6 and 7.6 per 1,000 births, respectively. During the first quarter of 1979, following the startup of accident prone Unit 2, the rate jumped to 17.2; it increased to 19.3 in the quarter following the accident at TMI and returned to 7.8 and 9.3, respectively, in the last two quarters of 1979.”

Three Mile Island Alert also reveals that in 1984 ‘The first Voluntary Community Health Study was undertaken by a group of local residents trained by Marjorie Aamodt. That study found a 600 percent cancer death rate increase for the three locations on the west shore of TMI directly in the plumes’ pathway.

The data were independently verified by experts from the TMI Pubic Health Fund.’

In contrast the NRC insists that ‘ although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident.’

But how can this be when Three Mile Island Alerts claims ‘By 1996, the plant’s owners, codefendants and insurers have paid over $ 80 million in health, economic and evacuation claims, including a $ 1.1 million settlement for a baby born with Down’s Syndrome.’?

Chernobyl: To date, the April 26th, 1986 disaster in the Ukraine is considered the worst nuclear accident in history, and yet it is official sources who claim this, while Fukushima continues to emit radiation at staggering levels.

Again, even casual research reveals that official investigations are at best flawed, if not highly controlled by interests who stand to profit from continued ignorance on the public’s part (this includes the military as well as energy monopolies).

In the case of Chernobyl, Russia did not report the accident right away. Only after Swedish power plants detected abnormally high levels of radiation and contacted Russian authorities did they finally admit what had happened: even then it was played off as a damaged reactor, not a meltdown.

According to ‘Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment‘, authored by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, Dr. Alexey Nesterenko and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, over 985,000 people died from the accident between the years of 1986 and 2004. This stands in stark contrast to the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which claims a miniscule 4,000 deaths from the meltdown and resulting contamination.

In the aforementioned book, Alexey V. Yablokov explains:

‘Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.

Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the IAEA, WHO and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent.’

In a nutshell, if two people tell you complete opposite stories about something, you can be pretty sure one of them is lying.

How can the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission insist that “ evidence of any effect on the number of adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery complications, stillbirths or overall health of children has been observed among families living in the most contaminated areas.”, when the independent study accounted for in Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment clearly shows a) proof positive of a cover-up and b) evidence proving that stillbirth, birth defects, infant mortality, and low birth weight rates increased as much as 30% in some countries (Hungary in this instance)?

It is also important to note that .6% of the fallout from Chernobyl reached North America and was detected in states such as Washington, Maine, Indiana, Wyoming, New Jersey, and Oregon.

In Oregon, rainwater contamination warnings were issued. Note also the half-life (the time which must elapse before a radioactive substance is decreased by half) of (Pu) Plutonium-239 is 24,000 years.

Fukushima: The March 11th, 2011 earthquake and tsunami resulted in what will undoubtedly become the world’s worst nuclear disaster to date.

The Fukushima ‘accident’ happened under strange circumstances, there was and still is an ongoing coverup by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and reliable information has been very difficult to come by.

Sound familiar?

What we do know is Japan experienced six reactor core meltdowns. Not one, but six. In a move of sheer brilliance, Mox fuel (a combination of Uranium and Plutonium) was being utilized in the number three reactor. During one of the meltdowns, a hydrogen explosion hurled radioactive debris and dust high into the atmosphere in a mushroom-like cloud.

Back in the United States a media blackout was ordered by the Obama administration, just as the Russians did with Chernobyl. Your safety is not a concern. Profit margins are.

Fallout in America arrived six days after the initial meltdowns. According to, ‘subsequent measurements by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water and milk hundreds of times above normal across the U.S.

The highest detected levels of Iodine-131 in precipitation in the U.S. were as follows (normal is about 2 picocuries I-131 per liter of water): Boise, ID (390); Kansas City (200); Salt Lake City (190); Jacksonville, FL (150); Olympia, WA (125); and Boston, MA (92).’ also presents the findings of toxicologist Janette Sherman who states:

“Based on our continued research, the actual death count here [United States] may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have an undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

One might surmise that the Obama administration did its best to obfuscate the truth of the matter by ordering a media blackout and having EPA raise the safe levels of radioactive exposure and/or just not test at all in some cases.

Finally, Russia’s heroic effort to build a stone sarcophagus over Chernobyl has made an incredible difference in containing the radiation, why has Japan made no such move when six reactors and Mox fuel are involved and the emissions are ongoing?

No scientist has yet put forth a reason NOT to do so.

Part Two is Forthcoming in This Two Part Series


Monthly Sale Special FEB 2010  


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Speak Your Mind