Let me elaborate:
I am, of course, aware of the dangers presented by disasters at nuclear facilities. Radioactivity in sufficient amounts can have deleterious effects on life in the surrounding area. The exclusion zones in Ukraine and now Japan are likely to remain for a very long time. The inability to deal with this disaster effectively is also something that can't be ignored.
But this notion that all the international organizations are somehow trying to cover these things up is something I balk at. I am immediately suspect of any claim when it attempts to convince that there is some kind of evil plot at work. This doesn't mean there can't be - but there are a lot of claims out there that require total suspension of critical thinking in order to accept, and the notion that basically everyone is trying cover up the disaster at Fukushima is one I don't believe.
I mean, why? What on earth do they have to gain? These plants are old and obsolete and having nothing to do with modern reactors, so covering up the disaster has no benefit for furthering the development of nuclear energy. There's no money to be made because the plants are already unrecoverable and the exclusion zone means the whole area is basically undevelopable now.
So, yes, nuclear disasters are serious, are dangerous, and must not be ignored, that this is some kind of massive cover up for.....reasons, I don't believe.
So, you don't believe that even Japan has any reason to try to cover up this disaster? Or at the very least, downplay the seriousness of it? And you can't fathom a reason why?
Well, let's look at some rational possibilities.
(1) Japan exports a lot of commodities, do they not? Do you suppose that the perceived potential radioactive contamination of such products could possible affect the marketability of them? In particular, food stuffs? How would that affect their economy? Would Japan government officials therefore have any incentive whatsoever for a coverup?
(2) TEPCO itself may have an enormous liability for the contaminants their plant is dumping into the environment. And not just in Japan. Do you think their board of directors would be inclined to try to downplay the spread of contamination and the potential negative health effects, not just in Japan, but in every other country potentially affected?
(3) Governments tend to fear panic of the populace. One proven technique to try to avert panic is to either completely quash the source of the bad news, or at least gloss it over with some paid talking heads quoting "scientific studies" that compare radiation to something benign, like sunlight and other natural sources of low level radiation. I remember reading a while back where some nuclear "experts" wanted to measure radiation in something they termed "sunshine units". :laugh:
Got enough reasons now? Or are you so averse to the believe that conspiracies can actually exist, that you just accept everything the mainstream media takes at face value, even the lack of information you don't see as being indicative of "all is well here, folks"?
As for the sources of the information I find, well, sorry, but I just find that what I see and read from alternative news sources is just a whole lot more believable than what gets through the filters of the mainstream media. Yeah, some of it can be pretty off the wall, and certainly has to go through my own filter of reasonableness, but at least that is MY filter, and not someone else's.
If there is a source of absolute truth that you are aware of, please point me to it. Along with a believable reason of WHY that source can be 100 percent relied on, please.
Oh, and back to your statement about "exclusion zones". It appears you are stating that you agree that radiation can be dangerous, and dangerous to a degree that entire areas could be unhealthy to be in. Well, in Fukushima's case, what exactly is this exclusion zone? Is it static? Will that zone expand as the radioactive contamination continues to leak from those extremely hot (both temperature and radioactivity wise) melted nuclear cores? How FAR will that exclusion zone eventually spread before the radioactive sources are neutralized? WHEN will that neutralization take place?
I take it that you don't consider potential danger worth considering? Would you prefer to just ignore such potentials or would you rather process across a broad spectrum of sources outside of what the mainstream media feeds you in order to be able to make your own more educated decisions?
You don't have to accept everything you read. But I doubt you could disagree that the more sources available, the better the chances that you are seeing some truth somewhere in the mix.
