Fukushima, they did a study.
Study: Conspiracy of Fukushima Cover up Between Government and Media Proven
Posted by Royce Christyn in Sci/Environment, World 1 day ago Leave your thoughts
Study: Conspiracy of Fukushima Cover up Between Government and Media Proven
A groundbreaking study by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale has proven there is a continuing and massive effort by varying world governments and major mainstream media outlets to cover up the horrifying truth of Fukushima.
According to the press release made public by the University and Pascale, the media and government (regarding the Fukushima cover up) "largely minimized health risks to the general population".
Natural News reports:
Advertisement
Just how bad was the radiation fallout from the near-complete destruction of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power station following a massive earthquake-generated tsunami in March 2011? The answer is, most people simply don't know - because the media coverage of the damage and fallout, at the time of the accident and in the four years since, has been grossly inadequate, according to a new study.
Advertisement
As noted by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale, there has especially been a dearth of U.S. media coverage, the disaster long disappearing from the headlines of domestic newspapers and cable news networks, despite the fact that the crippled plant dumps three hundred tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily, and the region surrounding the plant remains uninhabitable - probably forever.
Further, her new analysis found that U.S. news media coverage of Fukushima "largely minimized health risks to the general population," says a press release from the university.
The release further states:
Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. Only 6 percent of the coverage - 129 articles - focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.
`Articles discuss instead how dangerous cosmic radiation is'
"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the current century.
"We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant," she added.
The sociology prof examined news articles, editorials and letters from two major U.S. papers - The New York Times and The Washington Post - and two additional, prominent online news sites - Politico and The Huffington Post. The four outlets are not only among the largest, most influential in the U.S., they are also the most-cited by television news and talk shows, as well as other newspapers and blogs. Also, they are talked up in social media often, says Pascale. So, in that sense, she says, seeing how risk is presented in national prominent media can provide data on how the issue is framed nationally, in public conversations.
The press release further discussed Pascale's analytical method and variables:
Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation; defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.
The results, she says, demonstrates that corporations and government agencies provided disproportionate information and data regarding the impact of the disaster - on the environment, the long-term effects of massive radiation contamination (which are well-known), the oceanic ecosystems, the migration of the radiation globally, and on the exposed human populations.
`The media did little to report on health risks'
"Even years after the disaster," the university press release said, "government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impact - for example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school lunches - were also scarce."
The professor believes her findings reveal the need for the general public to be much more critical consumers of news. She notes that expert knowledge can be employed to generate misinformation, propaganda and uncertainty, especially in information vacuums created after disasters.
"The mainstream media - in print and online - did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said. "Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences.
"How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives," she concluded.
Sources:
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20150310-Fukushima.cfm
http://au.ibtimes.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/Fukushima.html
What do you think about the Fukushima cover up? Was it intentional?
- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/study-conspiracy-of-fukushima-cover-up-between-government-and-media-proven/#sthash.ecHUYnnE.dpuf
Posted by Royce Christyn in Sci/Environment, World 1 day ago Leave your thoughts
Study: Conspiracy of Fukushima Cover up Between Government and Media Proven
A groundbreaking study by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale has proven there is a continuing and massive effort by varying world governments and major mainstream media outlets to cover up the horrifying truth of Fukushima.
According to the press release made public by the University and Pascale, the media and government (regarding the Fukushima cover up) "largely minimized health risks to the general population".
Natural News reports:
Advertisement
Just how bad was the radiation fallout from the near-complete destruction of three nuclear reactors at the Fukushima power station following a massive earthquake-generated tsunami in March 2011? The answer is, most people simply don't know - because the media coverage of the damage and fallout, at the time of the accident and in the four years since, has been grossly inadequate, according to a new study.
Advertisement
As noted by American University sociology Prof. Celine Marie Pascale, there has especially been a dearth of U.S. media coverage, the disaster long disappearing from the headlines of domestic newspapers and cable news networks, despite the fact that the crippled plant dumps three hundred tons of radioactive water into the ocean daily, and the region surrounding the plant remains uninhabitable - probably forever.
Further, her new analysis found that U.S. news media coverage of Fukushima "largely minimized health risks to the general population," says a press release from the university.
The release further states:
Pascale analyzed more than 2,000 news articles from four major U.S. outlets following the disaster's occurrence March 11, 2011 through the second anniversary on March 11, 2013. Only 6 percent of the coverage - 129 articles - focused on health risks to the public in Japan or elsewhere. Human risks were framed, instead, in terms of workers in the disabled nuclear plant.
`Articles discuss instead how dangerous cosmic radiation is'
"It's shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low," said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the current century.
"We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant," she added.
The sociology prof examined news articles, editorials and letters from two major U.S. papers - The New York Times and The Washington Post - and two additional, prominent online news sites - Politico and The Huffington Post. The four outlets are not only among the largest, most influential in the U.S., they are also the most-cited by television news and talk shows, as well as other newspapers and blogs. Also, they are talked up in social media often, says Pascale. So, in that sense, she says, seeing how risk is presented in national prominent media can provide data on how the issue is framed nationally, in public conversations.
The press release further discussed Pascale's analytical method and variables:
Pascale's analysis identified three primary ways in which the news outlets minimized the risk posed by radioactive contamination to the general population. Articles made comparisons to mundane, low-level forms of radiation; defined the risks as unknowable, given the lack of long-term studies; and largely excluded concerns expressed by experts and residents who challenged the dominant narrative.
The results, she says, demonstrates that corporations and government agencies provided disproportionate information and data regarding the impact of the disaster - on the environment, the long-term effects of massive radiation contamination (which are well-known), the oceanic ecosystems, the migration of the radiation globally, and on the exposed human populations.
`The media did little to report on health risks'
"Even years after the disaster," the university press release said, "government and corporate spokespersons constituted the majority of voices published. News accounts about local impact - for example, parents organizing to protect their children from radiation in school lunches - were also scarce."
The professor believes her findings reveal the need for the general public to be much more critical consumers of news. She notes that expert knowledge can be employed to generate misinformation, propaganda and uncertainty, especially in information vacuums created after disasters.
"The mainstream media - in print and online - did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts," Pascale said. "Discourses of the risks surrounding disasters are political struggles to control the presence and meaning of events and their consequences.
"How knowledge about disasters is reported can have more to do with relations of power than it does with the material consequences to people's lives," she concluded.
Sources:
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20150310-Fukushima.cfm
http://au.ibtimes.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/Fukushima.html
What do you think about the Fukushima cover up? Was it intentional?
- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/study-conspiracy-of-fukushima-cover-up-between-government-and-media-proven/#sthash.ecHUYnnE.dpuf
0
-
and not to long after that event i read the public radiation monitoring there and in the USA were cut to longer time intervals instead of daily ?????supposed to be getting large doses on our west coast now ???? and fuku its self may not be livable forever ...... our govt keeping quiet ??? 0 -
People are in denial mode. From what i understand the melt down has gone out of the bottom of the plant into the bedrock and water tables. Might be why sea life is washing up on shore dead. 0 -
I saw a news report that said they'd sent a robot into an area that was so "hot" it would kill a human in an hour. The robot died in a short time-suspected electronics fried by radiation. Not my area of expertise so I'm only repeating the newscast. 0 -
They had a full melt downs of several reactors. Totally un controlled and still melting down. It's into the water table by now. 0 -
So,wsamenitored Nagasaki?....Wsamenitored Hiroshima?...Bikini Atoll? Las Cruces?....uh....Russian Mega Ton Bombs?...What? What did you say?[:o)] 0 -
And so Godzilla is born! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
So,wsamenitored Nagasaki?....Wsamenitored Hiroshima?...Bikini Atoll? Las Cruces?....uh....Russian Mega Ton Bombs?...What? What did you say?[:o)]
Good points. Between the US, England, France, China, Russia, India, and god knows who else, how many surface tests had been conducted, how many air bursts, how many underwater shots before testing went strictly underground? How many reactor incidents have there actually been that we don't know about. You mention the Russian Mega ton bomb. It was actually called the Tsar bomb. And when it was detonated it had a yield of 50 megatons, the equivalent of 50 million tons of TNT!
Imagine all the fallout the floated around the atmosphere from that blast alone.
The largest US test was the mike shot which had a yield of 12 megatons and removed a small island from the face of the earth. Simple fact, the human race has certainly done a fair amount of damage to the environment from all the crap it admits to, so one could assume that we could fill libraries with the info that's withheld.0 -
quote:Originally posted by wifetrained
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
So,wsamenitored Nagasaki?....Wsamenitored Hiroshima?...Bikini Atoll? Las Cruces?....uh....Russian Mega Ton Bombs?...What? What did you say?[:o)]
Good points. Between the US, England, France, China, Russia, India, and god knows who else, how many surface tests had been conducted, how many air bursts, how many underwater shots before testing went strictly underground? How many reactor incidents have there actually been that we don't know about. You mention the Russian Mega ton bomb. It was actually called the Tsar bomb. And when it was detonated it had a yield of 50 megatons, the equivalent of 50 million tons of TNT!
Imagine all the fallout the floated around the atmosphere from that blast alone.
The largest US test was the mike shot which had a yield of 12 megatons and removed a small island from the face of the earth. Simple fact, the human race has certainly done a fair amount of damage to the environment from all the crap it admits to, so one could assume that we could fill libraries with the info that's withheld.
I hate to break it to you but nuke Weapons are far less dirty then Nuke plants. Go ahead and research that.0 -
No worries, you are all old enough to be dead before the impacts of the Fukushima reactor disaster will kill ya from radiation.
Now, don't you feel better. [:D]0 -
Sea water water table is my guess. That means it's basically in the ocean now. And it does not melt in one big blob it spreads out like tree roots compounding the contamination.
Unless someone has some hard evidence to contradict this as the outcome that is what's going on and they are covering it up.0 -
So, 129 news pieces reported the risk was low. And that is somehow a cover up? cover up of what exactly? I notice a distinct lack of information that actually needed to be shared. If the risk wasn't low, then sure. But where is the evidence the risk is say... moderate or dare I press for something actually newsworthy... alarming? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by telohf
And so Godzilla is born!
You mean Godzirra don't ya?
Hory mory,....I just saw a show that said an asteroid might kill us all sometime in the next thousand years or so too!!!!!
Run,...run I tell you.0 -
Full melt downs and the only water they could get on it for weeks was that pumped in by firetrucks. Do the math.
Google sea lions washing up starving on S. Cal beaches. Starving they say, look at those sea lions with obvious fat reserves. They don't look like they are starving to me. Maybe the young ones not the dead adults.
Global warming they say, ya that will kill off the sea life sure it will. Look at millions of years ago when the earth was warmer. The Oceans had more life in them then they do now by a large margin.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
Do the math.
MATH: The amount of water discharging from a smooth bore is determined by the nozzle pressure and the inside diameter of the opening. The formula for determining the gpm flow from a smooth bore nozzle is as follows:
29.72D2#8730;P (D = nozzle diameter; #8730;P = square root of pressure)
For example, a one-inch smooth bore tip will have a discharge of 210 gpm: 29.72 x 12 x 7.07 = 210 gpm.
Lots of water.0 -
guess the alarming info was all covered up.[:I] 0 -
enenews.com
Tell you everything you need to know.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments