Letters to the Editor
Death by Radiation, Part 2
[Editor's Note: I posted the previous e-mail and my response to Steve Campbell as Part 1. The two e-mails from Steve seen below were received after I posted the original article. To prevent unnecessary clutter and make it easier for the reader to follow the thread, I'm continuing the discussion on this page and named it Part 2. ....Ken]
From Ken Adachi, Editor
May 29, 2011
Death by Radiation, Part 2 (May 29, 2011)
re: Death by Radiation: Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You (May 28, 2011) (Part 1)
---- Original Message -----
From: Steve Campbell
To:* firstname.lastname@example.org ; Radical Press <email@example.com>
Sent:* Saturday, May 28, 2011
Subject:* Re: Fwd: Fukushima: How Many Chernobyls Is It?
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Steve Campbell wrote:
I'm going to listen to the earlier interviews you did that I missed.
Subject: Re: Fwd: Fukushima: How Many Chernobyls Is It?
From: Steve Campbell
Date: Sun, May 29, 2011 6:32 am
To: Ken Adachi
Here's some information from Mark Graffis. I haven't looked it over yet.
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:30 AM, Steve Campbell wrote:
Ken Adachi. I will send your info to him. Here's some information for you.
Some Japanese Beginning to Realize That 3/11 Earthquake, Tsunami, and Fukushima Blasts Were Sabotage Events: ZS Livingstone, Jim Murray, & Don Nicoloff in Conversation May 13, 2011
(The conversation starts at the 9 minute mark)
ZS Livingstone & Don Nicoloff (4th Talk) Dismantle the Japan "Radiation" Apprehension Psyops April 14, 2011 on BBS Radio http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/ZSL14apr11intrerview.mp3 Transcript
Ken Adachi, ZSL, & Don Nicoloff 3rd Conversation on the Manufactured Japan Quake, the Sabotaged Nuclear Reactors, and Sabotaged Radioactive Water and Air Contamination (March 31, 2011) Transcript
Ken Adachi, ZSL, & Don Nicoloff 2nd Discusssion of the Hidden Agenda Behind Japan's Manufactured Earthquake/Radiation Crisis March 24, 2011 Transcript
ZS Livingstone & Don Nicoloff Discuss the Manufactured March 11 Japan Tsunami and Nuclear Reactor Sabotage Precipitating Unjustified Panic Designed to Disrupt Japanese Economy and Provoke American Military "Aid" (March 16, 2011)
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:18 AM, Mark Graffis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
First of all Ken who?
My own take is that no sabotage was involved, the effect of the earthquake and tsunami was so overwhelming there was absolutely no need for anything like that not that I otherwise have any doubts about the Rockefellers or the New World order. I don't think the radiation is going to "kill us all" but it's ongoing and cumulative and I have seen enough direct Geiger counter readouts shown online to convince me the levels are dangerous and growing. I don't know if I sent you these animated plot maps from an institute in Norway which are now a month old:
more at parent directory:
The newer they are the higher the levels get and there was one I sent out about a week ago showing levels closer to the date we are at now which are worse. People argue that these are only predicted levels and not to be taken seriously yet they must be based on some fact to be increasing at an on going rate over such a long period of time or have been subject to correction right? A good friend of mine and Steve Wozniak's and who Steve referred me to claims to be an expert in all this. She lives in LA and says her Geiger counter readings have been averaging 200 mrem and when they change it's only going up. She's one of those who thinks that unless what's spewing out is stopped you can write off the northern hemisphere.
I sent you my initial response to the Bob Nichols radiation promo piece and you send me the opinions of somebody named Mark Graffis, who begins his reply to you with "First of all Ken who?"
Is Mark Graffis some sort of expert in your book to whose lofty opinions I'm now expected to respond? If you take the time to read what I had to say on April 10, 2011 when I wrote a commentary at the top of ZS Livingstone's 'There Is No Meltdown at Daiichi' article, I ended that commentary with these words:
"You could do the same thing: think, and do not passively accept the hysterical conclusions assembled by others."
Why do you turn to Mark Graffis for an opinion?
If I'm going to take the time to spar with somebody about the hyperbole and misrepresentations being circulated about the Fukushima radiation psyops, I think you owe it to me to refer me to someone with just a tad more intellectual ability, credentials, reputation, and track record than some guy -who as far as I've learned to date - is very big in his own mind and has scored some real killer points on a Yahoo blog.
After searching his name on Google, I came up with exactly ONE article he got posted to rense.com in December of 2008 about Bernie Madoff (and re-posted at numerous blogs). According to Facebook and MySpace, it looks like Mark is a 60 or 62 year old blogger who lives in the Virgin Islands. He apparently believes that his blogging comments against prominent Jews has been so powerful and devastating to the Zionist agenda, that Mossad agents are now looking for him and he posted a blog thread as a sort of "security insurance" in case something happened to him.
I'll comment here on Mark's observations, but you have to be willing to express your own thoughts on the topic under discussion. If you're going to defer to someone else's opinion, you need to do a lot better than a gadfly blogger named Mark Graffis. However, I'll respond to his erudite observations in the interest of underscoring the need to think for oneself and to not passively accept the misdirection and obfuscations acquired by other lazy minds:
Mark Graffis wrote:
1. "I don't think the radiation is going to "kill us all" but it's ongoing and cumulative and I have seen enough direct Geiger counter readouts shown online to convince me the levels are dangerous and growing. I don't know if I sent you these animated plot maps from an institute in Norway which are now a month old:"
Let me begin by saying that I have never embraced the idea that atmospheric radiation is not damaging. I never said it wasn't cumulative. I am not a pro nuclear energy advocate. I don't downplay or dismiss the health damaging effects of ionizing nuclear radiation. So let's start with that understanding. I'm not defending the nuclear energy industry or the Pentagon's use of Depleted Uranium or any other agency who creates radioactive by-products. In this regard, I have no quarrel with anti nuclear energy advocates like Lauren Moret or Arnie Gundersen, or Helen Caldicott or anyone else who is opposed to the use of fissionable materials or their by products.
But that's not the issue.
The issue that I'm writing about is a worldwide, media-driven radiation scare campaign that started after March 11, 2011.
Mark Graffis wrote:
"I have seen enough direct Geiger counter readouts shown online to convince me the levels are dangerous and growing."
Really? Well I've been checking radiation monitors from time to time posted online since March 11 and there have been no readings to date that I would characterize as "dangerous" or "growing." There are radiation monitor sites hosted by the government and there are radiation monitoring sites hosted by civilians, unconnected to the government. One such civilian radiation monitoring web site is called " The Radiation Network"
They post a map of the United States that shows the readings from geiger counters owned by private individuals located in different parts of the country. The readings are posted inside yellow circles and change from minute to minute if your browser can automatically update the page. Normal background radiation level is considered to fluctuate between 1-100 CPM and is counted as the sum of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation recorded and averaged as "counts per minute" (CPM). A sustained reading of over 100 CPM is considered an "alert" reading and is shown inside a red circle on this map. Here's what the map looks like:
You will notice on this particular map, taken at 1:15 PM on May 29, 2011, that the highest CPM number shown for the entire USA is 49 in Phoenix, Arizona and the lowest number shown is 7 in Texas. These numbers can change substantially from minute to minute. What is seen as 49 in Phoenix, may change to 35 or 30 within a minute or so.
The people who run this web site have a sign up page where you can receive an alert e-mail if they get a sustained reading of over 100 at any of their monitoring stations. So far, there have been no alert e-mails sent out. Does this sound like a situation that's "dangerous and growing" to you?
An article written by Jeff McMahon on March 28, 2011, titled "Sites Where You Can Monitor U.S. Radiation Levels" included a quote from Tim Flanegin, the man who operates the Radiation Network web site. Quote:
“Our Monitoring Stations have not yet registered a big, or even perceptibly significant ‘Gamma event’ from any radiation drifting over from Japan, so we can take a little solace in that,” said Tim Flanegin, who operates the site.
Read the entire article here:
There are also government radiation monitoring web sites that Jeff McMahon mentions in his March 28 article that are also worth examining since it's useful to get a graph plot of the averaged radiation reading per day and then look at the over all average per week, and per month to determine whether there's an escalating trend or not.
Now Lauren Moret will write in one of her alarmist articles (hosted by attorney Alfred Webre at http://exopolitics.com/) that the government is under-reporting the radiation reading in order to not panic the public, but this is PURE SUPPOSITION on her part. She doesn't know that for a fact; she's just throwing that out there as an allegation, but a guy like Mark will read that and then process it as FACT.
Mark Graffis wrote:
2. "I don't know if I sent you these animated plot maps from an institute in Norway which are now a month old: [links here]
"The newer they are the higher the levels get and there was one I sent out about a week ago showing levels closer to the date we are at now which are worse. People argue that these are only predicted levels and not to be taken seriously yet they must be based on some fact to be increasing at an on going rate over such a long period of time or have been subject to correction right? "
The animated computer plot maps from the institute in Norway are interesting to look at, but as far as I know they are computer-created PROJECTIONS and not a de-facto representations of recorded data. If the newest computer-generated models show an increase in radioactive spread, it's still a computer-modeled projection and not based on verifiable, recorded fact.
I love this line:
"...yet they must be based on some fact to be increasing at an on going rate over such a long period of time or have been subject to correction right? "
Mark is only guessing and assuming that the "corrections" are accurate. He doesn't know because he isn't checking any independent sources to verify anything. He's depending on the female "expert" in LA to do his thinking for him.
Mark Graffis wrote:
3. "A good friend of mine and Steve Wozniak's and who Steve referred me to claims to be an expert in all this. She lives in LA and says her Geiger counter readings have been averaging 200 mrem and when they change it's only going up. She's one of those who thinks that unless what's spewing out is stopped you can write off the northern hemisphere."
Whew...and this is a guy whose opinion you're putting some kind of trust in?
Mark doesn't mention the name of the female "expert" in LA who's getting 200 milli-rems and "it's only going up," but I think you can find the general area of Los Angeles on the Radiation Network map seen above and realize that there's nothing particularly alarming or dangerous about the background radiation readings being recorded in the Los Angeles area.
EPA Radiation Monitoring in the USA
The EPA provides much more in-depth analysis of radiation fallout at their web site:
I looked at the RadNet air sampling data for California, hoping to find radiation monitoring data specifically for Los Angeles, but I only found sampling stations relatively close to Los Angeles in Anaheim, Riverside, and San Bernadino. I'll use the data from Anaheim since it's only 26 miles away from LA.
The RadNet lab analysis includes air samples taken in Anaheim on March 11, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25,
You can see from Mark's absurd overstatements that he's as brain washed as the LA "expert"; both of them undoubtedly taking their cues from the alarmist rubbish being peddled by Lauren Moret, Arnie Gundersen, Yoshio Shimatsu, Christopher Busby, et al.
Copyright 2011 Educate-Yourself.org All Rights Reserved.
|All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.|