In response to previous comments about the proposed Dirty Brockton Power Plant in, a friend with respiratory problems sent the following comment:
And BTW, Middleboro air quality is below the state average.
Asthma rates are the fastest growing in our region????
Why are all the athletes in China wearing masks?
We cannot afford to add 55,000 vehicles for a Middleboro Casino? Dirty Air! How Much More Can the Body Take?
At this late date, the Middleboro Board of Selectmen seem not to have noticed that the proposed Dirty Power Plant will effect already poor air quality.
The Brockton Enterprise offered the following 2 recent articles about the progress: Mayor pledges to take Brockton plant fight all the way Brockton Mayor James E. Harrington vows to appeal to the state’s highest court if a siting board approves the facility. Brockton Enterprise
The proposed Dirty Brockton Power Plant will burn DIESEL FUEL, have a 250 foot tall smoke stack and create 1,600,000 GALLONS of WASTEWATER MIST DAILY. LINK Will that air stay in Brockton?
Media Nation reports: Oh, but not to worry, says search committee member Wayne Perkins, a former selectman and casino backer. Yunits may be taking money from a firm funded in part by the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe and the South African casino moguls who are behind all this, but his work with Liberty Square is "strictly" limited to lobbying for a power plant in Brockton.
.
While you're at it, please sign the petition to support the closure of the Dirty Coal Burning Salem Power Plant:Petition
This region has elevated levels of childhood asthma that have been largely ignored.
Gridlocked summer traffic exacerbates already poor air quality. The lack of information and air quality monitoring was striking when the increased traffic posed by the Mashpee Wampanoag Monster threatened.
Can surrounding communities afford additional air pollution?
Foes of Brockton power plant seek more pollution testing
Stop the Power, an anti-power plant group in Brockton, is seeking to meet with the state's secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, to secure additional testing for airborne pollution.
BROCKTON – Group asks state official to add another level of environmental monitoring
Power plant opponents are seeking a meeting with Richard Sullivan, the state's secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, in an attempt to bring further air pollution testing to Brockton.
In a letter addressed to Sullivan, Stop the Power, an anti-power plant group headed by entrepreneur Ed Byers, is asking to meet with the secretary to discuss bringing testing to the city for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, Ozone-1 and volatile organic compounds.
The proposed power plant is on hold. Its developers, Brockton Power LLC, have sued the city for blocking its attempt to construct and operate the 350-megawatt plant that they want to build on the city's south side.
About six months ago, the group was able to bring testing for fine particulate matter to Brockton when a monitoring station was set up at the Gilmore School in Brockton after a similar meeting with Sullivan.
"It's the smallest pollution that you don't really see, but does the most havoc to your health," said Byers on the fine particulate matter.
In the letter, the group states that Brockton has a large at-risk population, including "high minority, poverty stricken, elderly and with high incidence of childhood asthma."
While Byers added that he is thankful for the testing that the city has already received, he said the additional testing would be able to provide residents with a more complete picture of the airborne pollution in Brockton.
"It would be like going to the hospital for a check-up, and the doctor only checking your ears, but not your throat or blood pressure or sugar," said Byers of Brockton's current testing situation.
The data could also help resolve the ongoing debate over the proposed Brockton power plant, said Byers.
"If we had the technical data, this plant wouldn't have been dragged out over all of these years," Byers said. "Get the emotion out of it. We need to have the technical data."
Byers added that the additional testing would also be a more accurate measurement than the testing conducted at Logan Airport in Boston, which has previously been used to determine Brockton's suitability for the plant.<
The group is seeking to have state Rep. Michael Brady facilitate the meeting after Brady aided in arranging the group's last meeting with Sullivan.
it was curious that the Middleboro Board of Selectmen has shown little interest.
The southeast region of the Commonwealth is blessed with some of the dirtiest air and the highest increases in asthma.
.
The concerns surrounding the proposed Brockton Power Plant are reminiscent of the issues that have impacted Middleboro that were ignored to enable the somnolent Board of Selectmen to now play the role of Victim in the lack of economic development, in spite of the businesses they deliberately chased away. Or reminiscent of surrounding towns that participated with Plymouth opposing a casino, while Middleboro Fathers dismissed the issue, at that time, because they were all knowing and didn't require the facts. (Did they have a deal on the table then?)
.
Middleboro Selectmen should change their motto to: Never Present The Facts. My Mind is Already Made Up.
.
Although the prevailing winds are from the southwest, does that mean all of the time? And those Nor'easters? And that rain shower of treated sewerage from the 250 foot tall smokestack? And what of the path of the delivery trucks? And what is the combined impact on air quality of the 50,000 cars per day predicted by the Casino Advisory Committee Report?
.
Not to worry!
.
After 40 years, untold deaths caused by the leaching chemicals, and a catatonic Board of Selectmen, the Striars will finally clean up the Rockland Industries property because they see an economic opportunity. Maybe in another 40 years, the Middleboro Board of Selectmen might question that they can't breath, if they aren't all long gone.
At the heart of Americas hope for a clean coal future lies the decimation of West Virginias richest landscapes. More profound still is the heavy toll on human lives playing out just beneath the surface. Armed with the power of their convictions, four individuals emerge as heroes from the scattered voices of their valley, forcing America to look into the eyes of those being sacrificed On Coal River.
.
Synopsis ON COAL RIVER takes viewers on a gripping emotional journey into the Coal River Valley of West Virginia, where longtime local residents begin to uncover the toxic effects of America’s increased demand for cheap coal, a resource that supplies half of America’s electricity. As a former miner, Ed Wiley knows the importance of West Virginia’s largest industry, but when he senses his granddaughter’s recurrent illness is linked to a coal waste facility near her school, Ed embarks on a quest to have the school relocated to safer ground. To his dismay not everyone in the valley recognizes the impending threat, and he soon finds himself in the midst of a political tug-of-war. Ed’s neighbors Bo and Judy understand the problem all too well. While Judy crisscrosses the state in search of sympathetic politicians, Bo pours over maps and legal documents that may hold proof of the mining companies’ illegal activity, all in an effort to slow the destruction. Meanwhile, massive explosions from nearby mountaintop removalsites grow closer with each passing day, and before long their worst fears begin to look increasingly like an inevitable reality. Across the valley, Maria Lambert recognizes a pattern in the unusual health problems plaguing her community. Following intuition, and what she describes as a mission from above, Maria gathers evidence suggesting the state’s largest mining company has contaminated her neighborhood’s water supply. Shot over a four year period, ON COAL RIVER follows the transformation of these four remarkable individuals as they face the challenge of a lifetime, fighting for the survival of their way of life, and the lives of future generations. Background Coal River Valley is a lush green swath of southern West Virginia that sits at the place where our national environmental policy collides with our desire for cheap energy. This steep terrain comprises some of the oldest and most diverse mountains in the world, where typically northern species mingle with their southern cousins, producing a unique biological abundance. It is also an area containing vast amounts of coal - the fossil fuel that currently powers 50% of domestic electricity. Commercial mining began here in the 1850s and has continued through repeated cycles of boom and bust, mine wars and strikes, and the relentless march of mechanization. Today, new mining and processing methods are taking a heavy toll on the Valley’s environment and its people. Coal companies are practicing a technique called ‘mountaintop removal’ which uses explosives and huge machines to blast apart mountains and extract the thin seams of coal running through the ground. Some estimate that mountaintop removal has already destroyed over 500,000 acres of land and 1500 miles of streams. In the pages of Vanity Fair, Michael Shnayerson described the new landscape of Coal River: “in some places as far as the eye can see, [mountains] are being blasted and obliterated in one of the greatest acts of physical destruction this country has ever wreaked upon itself.” For local residents, mountaintop removal means blasts that shake their homes, hazardous dust, dangerous floods, and the radical transformation of the landscape around them. The results of mountaintop removal are dramatic and obvious, but coal processing plants are perhaps even more dangerous for mining communities. These plants crush and chemically “wash” the coal to remove impurities that can cause problems such as acid rain. The irony to local residents is that this “clean coal” produces millions of more gallons of hazardous waste. Some communities suspect that this waste is getting into their well water, causing high levels of cancer and other diseases. Continued mechanization and worsening impacts from mining have caused the valley to lose much of its population—both of its high schools have closed since 1991. Those who remain love their community and want to stay, but they are split in their opinions about how to continue to live here. Many believe without coal mining, there is no economic future for their community, and that the industry known as “King Coal” will never change its ways. Others see that if left unchecked, the mining impacts on the land and water will turn their Valley into an unlivable sacrifice zone for cheap energy. Help bring this project to life
On a hot summer day in Middleboro, you can stand in an open field and see the haze, air pollution, ozone. Call it what you will, you can't breath. The cloud just sits there because of the topography and well, it just might have something to do with some dirty power plants. . Even if you never had breathing problems before, welcome to Middleboro's poor air quality. . There are no state statistics available that I've been able to find that indicate that air quality is being monitored locally, but on the hot, muggy days, you don't need statistics to tell you there's a problem.
.
When the proposed Kerzner/Wolman Mega Monster Casino [that has become an impossibility due to two SCOTUS decisions] was under consideration, no air quality information was discovered or presented because apparently Middleboro air quality is not monitored and recorded. The summer haze tells its own story.
FACT/CHECK: FACT: The proposed power plant would emit the same amount of greenhouse gas as two hundred six thousand (206,000) automobiles. CHECK: Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (Page 3 Paragraph 3) READ NOW & EPA Emissions Facts (Page 2 Recommendations) READ NOW ____________________________________________________________ FACT: This power plant is not needed to meet the energy demands of this region. CHECK: Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board Hearing, January 29, 2009. PART 1: WATCH VIDEO &
PART 3: WATCH VIDEO ____________________________________________________________ FACT: The proponents have not demonstrated there would be no local health impacts. CHECK: Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Board Hearing, January 29, 2009. PART 2: WATCH VIDEO & Metcalf & Eddy Report (Page 5) READ NOW ____________________________________________________________ FACT: During normal operations there would be only three (3) to seven (7) workers at the proposed plant.
CHECK: The Energy Facilities Siting Board Memorandum (Page 41). READ NOW ____________________________________________________________ FACT: The proposed plant will emit five of the six pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. CHECK: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) READ NOW ____________________________________________________________ FACTS (HIGHLIGHTS): A foreign based company and a group of local investors have been working discreetly to gain approval to build a 200 million dollar, massive 350 megawatt fossil fuel power plant (Natural Gas and Diesel) with a 250 foot smokestack and several cooling towers off Brockton's Main Street, close to the towns of West and East Bridgewater. This location is surrounded by Schools (Davis Elementary is only 1700 feet away), Elderly Housing, Businesses and Thousands of Homes. If They Build It, It Will Bring: 109 Tons per year Carbon Monoxide 10 Tons per year Hazardous Air Pollutants 85 Tons per year Particulate Matter 7 Tons per year Sulfur Dioxide 31 Tons per year Volatile Organic Compounds 107 Tons per year Oxides of Nitrogen 1,134,000 Tons per year Carbon Dioxide 1,600,000 Gallons of Treated Sewage Water Mist Into Our Air Everyday From cooling towers. 750,000 Gallons of diesel fuel will be stored at the plant, to replenish would require 37 Round Trips each day for 60 days by 10,000 gallon oil tankers delivering diesel. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OTHER FACTS: - Brockton’s power plant will not lower our taxes or our electric bills. - Brockton is already ranked ninth (9th) on the list of environmentally overburdened New England communities. - Brockton is already one of the ten towns with the highest asthma hospitalization rates in Massachusetts. - The 250 foot smokestack will release toxic pollutants for miles and change Brockton’s landscape. - The plant emits nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, airborne particulates and carbon dioxide, a major pollutant and cause of global warming. - Brockton Power also proposes using diesel that releases twice the carbon dioxide as the natural gas. 750,000 gallons of diesel fuel will be stored at the plant. - Brockton Power will store 25,000 gallons of aqueous ammonia.
- There will
only be 20 long term jobs created by this plant,
and there is no guarantee that those jobs will go to Brockton residents.
.
For inexplicable reasons, widespread union support has been enjoyed for the Dirty Brockton Power Plant that will create 20 jobs, just as they have continued to support the false hopes of casino gambling that will create low wage jobs.
.
The Middleboro Board of Selectmen showed little interest in the threats posed to air quality, perhaps believing that pollution stopped at the town's borders and protected their rarified air. .
As a footnote to the endeavor, former Brockton Mayor Yunits was presented for consideration as a candidate for Middleboro Town Manager even though he lacked the experience and was a paid lobbyist for the Brockton Power Plant. Brockton EnterpriseMedia Nation
TheBrockton Enterpriseoffered the article below regarding the proposed Brockton Power Plant. Stop the Powerprovides additional information regarding construction of the problematic plant near Middleboro's border.
Brockton board urged to reject power plant on legal grounds Officials claim the application by Advanced Power is not complete
“The petition should be denied for failure to secure all ‘obtainable permits,’” wrote state Sen. Robert Creedon and his wife, Rep. Geraldine Creedon, in a letter to the commission.
The proposed fossil-fuel-burning plant is under review by the Conservation Commission because it would be built near wetlands, including the Salisbury River.
The project must get the go-ahead from the commission before construction can begin, barring an override of the board by the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Rejection of the project would not bring it to a halt but could still complicate matters, requiring added legal steps by the Swiss company that would build the Advanced Power plant.
At the request of the company, the Conservation Commission closed its hearings on the project last Thursday. The board has 21 days from then to rule on the application.
However, prior to starting this process, applicants are usually required to file for the necessary local permits, such as a site plan review from the Planning Board.
Advanced Power officials admittedly haven’t done this, saying instead that they are asking state energy regulators for an exemption from local review.
That hasn’t satisfied several city officials, including the Conservation Commission.
“As to whether the applicant had filed for all obtainable local permits, the commission does not feel that has been done,” said commission chairwoman Stephanie Danielson.
Lawmakers Robert and Geraldine Creedon, along with a city-hired special attorney, Drew Hoyt, are arguing that this is grounds for a denial.
Along with the letter from the Creedons, the commission has received a legal opinion from Hoyt, which contends the application is incomplete and must be rejected.
The Advanced Power project manager, Ronald Kelly, said the company has met its obligations.
The pursuit of an exemption from the state Energy Facilities Siting Board is equal to seeking the local permits, he contended.
“It’s a difference of opinion,” Kelly said of the disagreement over the matter.
If the Conservation Commission denies the application, Kelly said the company will “cross that bridge when we come to it,” declining to say what actions might be taken.
“We’re not making any statements at this point,” he said.
Danielson, of the Conservation Commission, said the commission won’t reach a decision on the application until the next meeting. The date had not been finalized as of Saturday.
If the commission approves the project, it might still make additional requirements through an order of conditions, Danielson said.
If the commission issues a denial, the company could appeal it to the Department of Environmental Protection or could ask to re-open the hearing, in order to present more information, Danielson said.
The $350 million plant is slated for a 13-acre site off Oak Hill Way on Brockton’s south side, and would primarily use natural gas, though it could also burn a type of diesel.
The project is widely opposed by city officials, and also by many residents, who are urging the Siting Board to reject the project at the state level. Possible health impacts and the use of global-warming-causing fossil fuels are among their concerns.
Advanced Power officials hope to win all approvals by the end of the year, and to open the plant by 2011.
A state energy board has signaled it may approve a construction permit for the 350-megawatt power plant at the meeting in Boston — the last step for the project at the state level. But Brockton officials who oppose the plant still hope to change the board’s mind. As part of this, they plan to highlight what the city Board of Health calls a high level of particulate matter in the city — which would rise with the estimated 85 tons of particulates to be emitted by the plant each year.
According to Dockery, many studies link health effects with particulate levels allowed by the EPA. “I don’t think there’s any evidence that there is a ‘safe’ level” for particulate matter, he said. “It appears that each incremental increase in the particle levels has an associated incremental health effect.”
During normal operations there would be only three (3) to seven (7) workers at the proposed plant.
CHECK:
The Energy Facilities Siting Board Memorandum (Page 41). READ NOW
If They Build It, It Will Bring:
109 Tons per year Carbon Monoxide 10 Tons per year Hazardous Air Pollutants 85 Tons per year Particulate Matter 7 Tons per year Sulfur Dioxide 31 Tons per year Volatile Organic Compounds 107 Tons per year Oxides of Nitrogen1, 134,000 Tons per year Carbon Dioxide
750,000 Gallons of diesel fuel will be stored at the plant, to replenish would require
37 Round Trips each day for 60 days by 10,000 gallon oil tankers delivering diesel.
Brockton is already ranked
. ninth (9th)
. on the list of
. environmentally overburdened
. New England communities.
.
Gridlock!Anyone? Add 50,000 cars per day according to the calculations used by the Middleboro Casino Study Committee and maybe as many more to retain 100 employees at the Raynham Slot Parlor, along with the Brockton Power Plant that will employ 20 workers burning diesel fuel.
When the Siting Board approved theBrockton Power Plant, the following comments were added --
. [Board Member, Paul Hibbard] stated that the board doesn’t believe the power supply for Massachusetts and New England will suffer if the power plant isn’t built.
The other addition said that the board has no reason to believe that the construction of the power plant will ultimately reduce emissions.
For those seeking information regarding the proposed Brockton Power Plant, check their web site:Stop Brockton's Power Plant.
This is my favorite part:
1,600,000 gallons of treated sewage water mist into our air every day from cooling towers.
What is particularly troubling about the location of this plant is that the area already has among the worst air quality and this plant will compound the problem. It's the wrong location, with the wrong fuel, at the wrong time.
The Brockton power plant proposed by Advanced Power will have a 250-foot stack for which the company has applied to the state Energy Facilities Siting Board for exemptions from local approval, which is, at the same time, reviewing a permit for the project.
Wealthy Cape Cod residents and coal industry lobbyists successfully kept Cape Wind on hold for almost 8 years. Were a 250-foot stack proposed in their pristine neighborhoods, would they object? Would they be granted a voice in the hazards? The lengths to which Senator Kennedy went to strike a political deal to squelch Cape Wind on a federal level to preserve his view are public knowledge. But the clout of Brockton?
What is particularly worrisome in theBrockton Enterprisearticle is the water consumption to an already thirsty region:
Local opposition could still be an issue for Advanced Power, which is hoping to buy treated wastewater from the city for use in cooling the plant.
This would require a two-thirds vote of approval from the City Council. Councilor-at-large Thomas Brophy said at least two-thirds of the 11-member council are strongly opposed to the project and might be inclined to vote against the sale of wastewater to Advanced Power.
Brophy said the company has not yet approached the council about buying the wastewater, which would come to 1.9 million gallons per day.
Another option for the company includes buying potable water, which would also require council approval due to the large amount of water that would be purchased.
A third option is to use air cooling technology, which is not favored by Advanced Power because it would reduce the plant’s output from 350 to 340 megawatts.
The solution seems to be to move to Hyannisport where your voice has greater clout and your vote is more important.
In response to a facebook post, THE SHILLS WOKE UP! First a PARTISAN SHILL pretended that Senator Markey's opposition prevented research for a 'breeder reactor' [to develop a fission/fusion reactor that would eliminate the problem of waste disposal THEORETICALLY].
Folks, Much like Lockheed Martin's F-15, a GAZILLION TAX DOLLARS have been invested in this THEORY and no solution has been found by the great minds. THIS IS NOT PARTISAN! The 2nd SHILL seemed to decide this was those dastardly liberals...DAMN THEM!
My responses to GET THE FACTS quickly caused me to be BANNED!
Below are a few articles, by no means all. PLEASE! Gather your FACTS because you make a Mutton Headed Decision!
[ENTERGY owns other Nuclear Power Plants including Indian Point and Vermont Yankee where they lost FUEL RODS, inter alia.]
Faulty insulation caused fire, oil spill at N.Y. nuclear plant | 01 July 2015 | An insulation failure in a transformer caused the fire at a New York nuclear plant May 9 that spilled about 3,000 gallons of oil into the Hudson River. Entergy, the operator of Indian Point Energy Center, announced Tuesday that the failed insulation -- made of special paper -- caused a short circuit in a high-voltage coil. The company regularly inspects its paper insulation for signs of degradation, but no problems were detected before the fire near the Unit 3 generator.
Redeeming lives of Fukushima's irradiated animals | 29 June 2015 | In the wake of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, much remains unknown [?!?] about the long-term health effects of the radioactive substances released. Seeking answers, Tohoku University Prof. Manabu Fukumoto has been examining the blood and other factors of slaughtered cattle and wild animals caught by hunters mainly within a 20-kilometer radius of the plant...Fukumoto discovered that cesium levels in the organs of calves were 1.5 times higher than in those of their mothers.
[FUKUSHIMA: SAME AGE SAME DESIGN AS PILGRIM NUCLEAR]
Entergy Corp., the owner and operator of Pilgrim, promptly reported other glitches that occurred during the storm to the NRC as required — including the loss of consistent offsite power and subsequent reactor shutdown; the switch to two onsite generators; the failure of the high-powered cooling injection system needed to cool the reactor; and the subsequent failure of one of four valves used as backup to the cooling injection system.
Pilgrim is classified by federal regulators as one of the five worst performing reactors in the nation. There are currently 99 reactors operating in the U.S.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act enacted by Congress in 1982, the U.S. government was required to begin disposal of commercially-generated spent fuel in federal repositories no later than January 1998, in return for some hefty fees paid by the owners of the nuclear energy operations.
Entergy has paid $167 million into the waste fund since buying the Pilgrim plant from Boston Edison in 1999, to help cover the costs of building and operating a federal repository, according to court documents.
Currently about 3,300 radioactive spent fuel assemblies are being stored in a large pool at Pilgrim’s nuclear reactor. The pool was originally designed for about 800. Special racks were installed to accommodate the larger number, but the pool is now at capacity.
Within the next few weeks, 204 rod assemblies will be moved into three heavy concrete dry casks that will be stored outdoors on the site. The transfer, along with costs to prepare the site and install a concrete pad, totals $65 million.
"The guard house is unmanned and there is no visible security personnel around the perimeter of the owner-controlled areas," states the petition. "People can and do enter the owner-controlled area without a problem or detection."
FLIP FLOP CHARLIE BAKER DID NOT ANSWER! Let's interpret his spineless lack of response is his unwillingness to INFORM HIMSELF, yet again!
Remember, Charlie Baker's uninformed position on Predatory Gambling! Charlie Baker IGNORED that a SINGLE COMMERCIAL CASINO IN MASSACHUSETTS paves the road for HOW MANY INDIAN CASINOS?
Republican Charles Baker was the only gubernatorial candidate not to respond to the survey. His challenger in the primary, Republican Mark Fisher, said he did not believe the plant should be shut down.
Regarding expansion of the emergency planning zone, Fisher wrote he would support it if studies showed areas beyond the zone were in fact affected by the radiation plume.
TOTALLY UNINFORMED ABOUT THE ISSUES:
"I believe nuclear plants in the U.S. are operating with state-of-the-art technology which, while not eliminating risk, reduces risk to levels acceptable by the majority of the citizens," wrote Fisher, who said he has worked at both nuclear and coal-powered plants. "Ironically, a coal fired power plant releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant."
Under that plan at least one of the Cape's two bridges would be closed in a nuclear accident to stop an exodus of Cape residents from slowing the evacuation from the 10-mile zone.
The Nuclear Industry has spent lavishly to convince the public and leaders of its safety, securing protection and loan guarantees. The conspiracy of silence and deliberate lack of information will reveal this nuclear catastrophe for what it has been and history will not look kindly on the pretense.
Health Effects of Fukushima "Concluding Remarks The Japanese government under Democratic Party rule, declared that the Fukushima accident was over at the end of 2011, and the prime minister in Sept 2013 under the Liberal-Democratic Party at the IOC meeting to select the next Olympic site pronounced that the Fukushima accident had been contained and Tokyo was well prepared for the Olympics. The real situation is far different, as documented above. Leakage of radioactive materials through various routes continues. The locations and states of the melted fuel rods in the reactors at Fk-1 have yet to be determined. It was found only recently (by use of muon radiation/absorption technique) that the nuclear reactors of units 1 and 2 are indeed devoid of nuclear fuel rods in the core 23, but the technique was insufficient to locate the melted fuel rod debris. Serious health effects of radiation in general have already been widely observed. It is best to refer to better studied examples of the past: Chernobyl 24 and down-winders of Nevada tests 25. The reality of health effects at Chernobyl due to fallout from the explosive accident as detailed in 26 and summarized in 27 may indicate the future of Fukushima and Japan. The health effects of radiation are often slow in manifesting, particularly in the case of cancers, though cancer rates have already started to increase in Fukushima and elsewhere, as discussed above. Therefore, more people will be affected by radiation in the years to come, not only in Fukushima, but across Japan." Thanks Nick Thabit
The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. In-depth critical analysis of the forces shaping the Asia-Pacific . . . and the world. The Asia-Pacific Journal seeks to…
"The point the author was trying to make wasn’t so much that the GE-designed reactors are faulty or that the governments and scientific communities in America and Japan are covering up the world’s exposure to the radiation emanating from Fukushima. The point is that there are 23 nuclear reactors of the same design operating in the US. 23 reactors with spent fuel rod cooling ponds suspended 100 feet in the air. 23 reactors located in states susceptible to earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, or all three. 23 Fukushima’s waiting to happen in the United States. That’s what nobody wants to talk about."
PILGRIM IS ONE OF THE 23.
Read about the corruption and lies here. Thanks again to Julie Wert
January 26, 2014. With residents of western North America in a near panic over reports of ever-increasing radiation from Fukushima, critics have shifted their…
