listen here

Choose from 5 Gift Options with a minimum donation of $35

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Something Wicked This Way Comes: The story of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest, provable cover-up

0.2 japanese tsunami artPatrick Henry Unbound – by Hatrick ‘Hattie’ Penry

Part 1

Plume-Gate: the world’s largest, provable cover-up and conspiracy

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”  

JFK from his “President and the Press” speech to the U.S. press core on April 27th, 1961

Historically speaking, Plume-Gate is the world’s largest, provable, cover-up and conspiracy. If the Guinness Book of World Records considered ‘cover-up and conspiracy’ as a legitimate category, then certainly Plume-Gate would be at the very top of the list…above 9/11, above Watergate, above Fast and Furious, above even the JFK assassination, and not just for the sheer size and scope of the conspiracy, not because of the many alphabet agencies involved, not because President Obama is implicated, not because it reveals the truth about nuclear power and everything that goes with it, but because Plume-Gate is PROVABLE. And that proof is available to the public in the form of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Freedom of Information documents. The simple fact is: all one needs is the desire to know and the ability to read to familiarize oneself with this grandiose cover-up.

(below) From the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents: Coincidence theorists are abuzz about this email that proves the NRC and Japanese “Utility Execs” were conducting a ”Japan Earthquake and Tsunami Drill” as the March 11th, 2011 disaster unfolded.

3 earthquake tsunami drill (2)

Now I ask you, my fellow Americans: what does it mean that 2-1/2 years after the Fukushima catastrophe that I seem to be the only English writing journalist reporting on the world’s largest, provable cover-up and conspiracy?

I tell you it is a testament to our government’s ability to suppress information.

Furthermore, I cannot stress enough that Plume-Gate is the ‘silver bullet’ we have waited so long for. It reveals the truth about nuclear power. It reveals the truth about the conspiracy of which John F. Kennedy spoke of. It is an opportunity we dare not waste and it rides on the lives of all who have died and all who will die from Fukushima.

I ask the parents of America, how much do you love your children? Do you love them enough to protect them from an immediate danger, a biting dog or perhaps a kidnapper? Of course you do. But then I must ask: why more do not join the fight to shut down nuclear power? Is it because the danger is an unseen one? Is it because the danger is too great? Is it because the fight is too time consuming? Do they not understand the grave threat of nuclear power? Do they not know about the fallout from Plume-Gate and its consequences?

I say again it is clear to me that information is being suppressed on a scale never before known in the United States of America. The general public simply does not know the facts.

I put it to you now, that when life-saving information is withheld from the public, in an orchestrated fashion, by agencies of our government, corporate entities and the media, that this is disloyalty to our country and our citizens: IT IS TREASON!

“It took National Geographic, so-called scientists, it took them 880 days to report what an old plasterer reported on in 12 hours.” ~Kevin Blanch (YouTube vlogger, anti-nuclear activist and leukemia survivor)

Allow me too summarize what I have learned thus far from reading the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima:

1) The damage to the Fukushima Daiichi facility was much greater and the ability to respond was much more difficult than we have been led to believe. There is a reference to a 46 foot tsunami, the height of which was measured by TEPCO on the walls of Unit’s 1 and 2. There is evidence Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) #4 and #3 went dry and had a ‘zirc fire’. At times, dose rates at the facility were lethal or near lethal and as such workers were, at times, unable and unwilling to make repairs. There is talk of 450-600 REM/hr between Unit’s 2 and 3 and MOX sludge causing access problems. Bulldozers were used to push rubble into piles to reduce the dose rates. Engineers and workers were unable to follow protocol as there was/is no known procedure that will rectify a prolonged station blackout due to saltwater inundation of switch boards, circuitry, electrical components, diesel generators etc. from a tsunami. The force of the wave dislodged and damaged the diesel fuel tanks that held the fuel that would have powered back-up generators and when the diesel generators themselves were not damaged from being submerged, the control panels that operated them were. The water-cannons and helicopter water drops were marginally effective and did little to cut dose rates. In the end, it all came down to shipping the Bechtel pumps from Perth, Australia…hooking them up and pumping (in most cases) saltwater into the reactors (At least one pumping unit was delivered to Japan on March 22nd, 2011 but I’m still hunting evidence that shows the pumps were even used.) DOD foot the bill on the Bechtel pumps which means John Q. Taxpayer actually covered the cost…approximately 9.6 billion dollars. It was at least two weeks before power began to be restored to any significant level in what can only be described as a slow, painstaking effort. There is proof of multiple radioactive plumes being emitted from the Fukushima facility…some well into the month of April, 2011. There is discussion that NOAA tracked a 19 mile radioactive cloud along the Japanese coast. There are TEPCO maps of measured (not modeled) plumes, some of which are over 60 kilometers long.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 13th, 2011…an excerpt from the Eliot Brenner memo to NRC OPA staffers:

brenner memo

2) The world’s largest, provable cover-up is indicated in the NRC FOIA documents. Some of the agencies/figureheads implicated are: NRC, DOE, EPA, CDC, HHS, DHS, FEMA, NOAA, USAID, DOD (Navy, Naval reactors), White House, President Obama, Bechtel, GE, IAEA, INPO, NEI, and others in an orchestrated attempt to downplay and conceal the radioactive plume and fallout from Americans. Documents, plume models and SitReps (situation report) were denied to China, US states and global ‘stakeholders’. NEI and the ‘Federal Family’ had a password protected database for US Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) ‘rooftop grabs’. Information was suppressed by use of prefabricated ‘talking points’, Questions and Answers and Press Releases. NRC spends millions to search for negative press and to actively and aggressively perform countermeasures in the form of disinformation and careful gatekeeping by their agents (bloggers) online, on TV or in print (i.e.; we know them as trolls and shills). In one memo Eliot Brenner states (in regards to the NRC press release): ‘while we know more than what these say, we’re sticking to this story for now’. There is evidence of subversion of the Freedom of Information Act by the NRC. There is evidence that plume and fallout models were based on 96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions and there is proof that emissions continued up to the end of March and beyond. Officials did NOT issue rainwater warnings or ANY warnings based on these models. There is talk of modeling fallout in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Midway. Conservative estimates ranged around 4.5 REM to children in a transpacific model. There was plenty of discussion of a ‘President’s worst case’ scenario…it was also based on 4-5 days of emissions. There is discussion about having the benefit of knowing all about Chernobyl even modeling based on Chernobyl depositions. FEMA was told to ‘stand down’. There is concern about a ‘diverging perspective’ and discussions about staying ‘aligned’.

3) It is obvious by the level of importance that the NRC, Japanese authorities and others placed on Potassium Iodine (KI) throughout the FOIA documents that it is a very important part of protecting oneself from fallout following a meltdown. This contradicts what US authorities have led us to believe over the years…that KI is not that big of a deal. I am not aware of any requirement that US Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) must stock KI in case of an accident.

4) There is evidence that ships from the US Navy were not relocated but that officials knew there were plumes and high levels of radiation all around the coast of Japan. NOAA tracked a 19 mile long radioactive cloud along the coast of Japan and on at least two occasions TEPCO measured (not modeled) radioactive plumes over 60 kilometers long. NRC officials state that most of the emissions blew offshore.

4 angst smallest

5) The NRC’s response to nuclear catastrophe is inhibited, in particular the ability to speak freely and communicate openly, because participants know they are being recorded and email saved for the Freedom of Information Act. In many cases participants were not at liberty to discuss the extent of the meltdowns as they really were. There is evidence of a ‘non-recorded’ line.

6) President Obama called for a review of our domestic fleet of reactors but to my knowledge no action is taken to rectify any of several critical issues. There are emails that indicate we have many non-seismically qualified spent fuel pools here in the US and that our nuclear plants may not be able to withstand a co-event 8.9 earthquake with a 46 foot tall tsunami (or tsunami of that height alone). NRC official admits that GI-99 manual proves they do not know everything about the seismicity of the CEUS (Central and Eastern United States), thus East Coast NPPs are vulnerable to a significant earthquake.

7) TEPCO intentionally discharged radioactive water into the Pacific beginning in March of 2011 and there is abundant proof of this in the NRC FOIA documents. Interestingly enough, I reported this fact before mainstream media did.

Part 2

Something Wicked This Way Comes

“The conspiracy, the infiltration, the corruption of our government, is the highest national security priority of all.” ~Hatrick Penry

 

2 pacific jet  stream

 

Throughout the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima there is evidence that officials are very much aware of the effects of the fallout from Chernobyl. There is discussion of using data recovered following the Chernobyl event in modeling of the fallout from Fukushima. There is even discussion of the number of fatalities that resulted from Chernobyl fallout. Officials cannot claim ignorance when you consider they admit they know all about Chernobyl, even using the data from the 1986 incident to aid in modeling. And consider also this: we are in the direct line of fire from the Pacific Jetstream…the same Jetstream that pilots ‘piggyback’, when returning from the orient, to save fuel. Can officials claim ignorance of the Pacific Jetstream?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “We’ve got the benefit of knowing everything there is to know about Chernobyl.”

8.0  know bout chernobyl

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: A discussion of fatalities from Chernobyl fallout. Note the (inaudible) at the most convenient times. Note that the number 49 is low enough for us to see…no (inaudible) there. Also note that a common tactic of the nuclear shills and propagandists is to  downplay the number of Russians who died from Chernobyl by using the number of those killed in the initial event (49?). This screencapture proves that officials know the difference between the deaths related to the initial event (i.e.: from explosions and fire) and those from the fallout from Chernobyl. It also proves they know there is a vast difference between the two figures.

 

8.3  pager Chernobyl death toll discussion

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: using deposition rates from Chernobyl.

 

9.5 chernobyl depositions in cali

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more evidence that officials used data from Chernobyl fallout for modeling Fukushima fallout. Note the discussion of doses for children based on conservative assumptions.

 

9.7 pg 145 doses cali chernobyl

 

(belowNot from the NRC FOIA documentsThis is an independent study of the effects of Chernobyl fallout on file at the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 

 

10.1 chernobyl

 

(below) From the study mentioned above: Chernobyl fallout produced an estimated 985,000 additional deaths from April 1986 to the end of 2004.

 

10.2 pg 210 chernobyl cost and consequences death toll

 

(below) From Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment: Note that Officials in Oregon issued rainwater warnings in 1986.

 

10.4 chernobyl contamination

 

(below) From the study above: Fallout from Chernobyl detected in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

10.5 chernobyl contamination pt 2

 

How bad it really was

 

While it is true TEPCO withheld information from NRC officials they still had an excellent idea of what was unfolding and that Fukushima Daiichi facility was experiencing a ‘worse-case-scenario’…i.e.: a prolonged station blackout (PSBO). Ultimately this meant the nuclear reactors would be without power and proper cooling for weeks. When the nuclear fuel gets hot enough it begins to melt and will eventually take the form of a ‘corium’ blob, sublimating through concrete, rebar, steel and eventually down into the earth…forever irretrievable.

 

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS. Units 4 and 3 from left to right.

 

aerial

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence that access was restricted due to high dose rates.

 

12 march 20 dose rates

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion of how to drop the lethal dose rates so workers can make repairs.

 

14 humvees 2

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: workers bulldoze rubble into piles to cut dose rates but dose rates still are ‘incredible’.

 

15 pg 74 of 507 pgr incredible dose rates 2

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Japan slow to assemble Bechtel pumps due to high dose rates. Note that time and time again NRC officials state that the water cannons and helicopter drops are ineffective.

 

18 pg 142 too much dose to hook up pumps

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: talk of 450-600 REM/hr between units 2 and 3.

 

20 cali strap lead on humvees lethal doses  2

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: no real plan, just making it up as they go along.  Discussion of strapping lead to Humvees to be able to drive in to make repairs.

 

22 cali strap lead on humvees

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: water drops were not effective according to NRC officials.

 

28 drops not effective pg 51

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: pumper trucks also ‘marginally effective’.

 

28.5 pumper trux suck

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO considering entombment.

 

28.57 boric acid and entombment

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence of the ‘President’s source term’ and more proof that Obama’s administration knew the seriousness of the situation.

 

29   unit 4 cont presidents source term

 

(below and continued from above) From the NRC FOIA documents: Discussion of the ‘President’s case’ and multiple ‘worst case’ scenarios. Models were not only downplayed by basing them on source terms of limited duration but by running multiple ‘worse case’ scenarios and choosing the ‘least-worst-case’. 

 

30 unit 4 cont presidents case

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence of a ‘President’s run’ in Hawaii and California.

 

35 presidents run in cali, hawaii

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 29th and lighting is just being returned to Unit 4 control room where there is still no access due to high dose rates.

 

50 march 29 zeolite unit 4 dose rates

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 16th email suggests SFP of Unit 4 has lost all water. High dose rates make entry impossible.

 

95 sfp down to 50 percent

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 14th email suggests Fukushima is a ‘worst case’ scenario i.e.: a prolonged station blackout.

 

97 psbo worst case

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th email suggesting that “U2 ex-vessel, U4 zirc fire SFP, catastrophe”. Note that redactions are likely further description of grave conditions at Fukushima, not military or trade secrets. We only get to see what they want us to see and yet we are expected to believe the levels of radiation and the damage were minimal.

 

99 zirc fire sfp4 catastrophe

 

(below) From EPA.gov: the worst probable nuclear incident at an industrial facility is a fire…(especially with MOX fuel)

 

99.5 epa.gov PAGs fire is the worst...lube oil fire...

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence that the March 14th Unit 3 ‘lube oil fire’ was not a lube oil fire but something much more serious. 

 

99.8 march 20 lube oil fire not lube oil fire

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials dubious of TEPCO’s Long term plan to restore plant equipment.

 

99.9 march 23 don't know how to fix situation

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a prolonged station blackout from a March 14th email.

 

100 EDIT march 14 complete station blackout boiling in sfps - Copy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  Officials know all about plumes and fallout from a Mark I as they have already done a study of the possibility. Also note Chuck Casto’s contention: ‘…in a station blackout you’re going to lose containment.”

 

105  page chuck castro mark I lose containent SBO

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Ignorance is no excuse. Simulations were done more than 30 years ago that reasonably matched conditions at Fukushima.

 

110 simulation already run browns ferry SBO

 

The Plume

The result of the prolonged station blackout and subsequent meltdowns would produce an incredible amount of radioactive emissions from the Fukushima facility: many, many times more than Chernobyl. The radioactive plumes and clouds would be carried aloft, out to sea, and in the direction of the USA. The initial plume was a lethal cocktail of plutonium, strontium, cesium, iodine and other radionuclides and made impact with the West Coast just six days after the catastrophe. Officially, Americans were told not to expect harmful levels of radioactivity and no warnings were given. Meanwhile, as far away as France, rainwater and green leafy vegetable warnings were issued. It is interesting to note that in 1986 Oregon issued rainwater warnings over Chernobyl fallout.

 

(below) While President Obama told Americans to expect ‘harmless’ levels of radioactivity and to take no precautions beyond staying informed, countries much further from the Fukushima catastrophe did give rainwater warnings (just as Oregon did in 1986 over Chernobyl fallout) and green leafy vegetable warnings as well.

 

rainwater warnings

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck is looking for an ‘ingestion pathway’ and a  ’plume’ person.

 

128 chuck on severe accident plume person ml11175A296

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: prevailing winds carry the bulk of radioactive releases out to sea.

 

130 unit 3 majority of releases carried out to sea

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “…the plume is going up to sea.”

 

132 nei plume dose rates

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a massive plume.

 

134 cali plume 800ft shine

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NOAA’s big blunder (admission of tracking a 19 mile long radioactive cloud down the coast of Japan) draws the ire of NRC officials.

 

135 cali radioactive cloud 2

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “Now we’re getting calls from ordinary citizens from CA and OR wanting to know if they need to evacuate.”

 

135.4 deploy DOE assets monitor plume

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Talking points deflect the American public’s pesky questions.

 

135.5 public wants info on rads hitting cali

 

(below) from the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence that EPA had lead role on plume effects in the US.

 

135.6 EPA lead role US plume

 

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: EPA busted for ‘rigging’ the RADNET monitoring equipment to report lower levels of radiation. Meanwhile, US Nuclear Power Plants that detected fallout from Fukushima forwarded the data up the chain of command into a password protected database accessible only by the ‘Federal Family’.

 

135.7  radnet monitors rigged

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Willard admits the plumes are a ‘repeated event’.

 

136 navy ships 2nd doc 3rd plume (2)

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence of venting from Unit 3 blowing offshore.

 

137 venting offshore 126

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “The plume is an extensive plume.”

 

150 EXTENSIVE PLUME USS GEORGE WASHINGTON - Copy - Copy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Moving Navy ships en masse would have been indicative that the situation was worse than Officials were willing to admit. Many of our sailors are already suffering from the effects of radiation sickness.

 

155 dont run worst case if angst about dod moving ships!!!!

 

Doses

I will remind you that the modeling done by NARAC, DITTRA, SANDIA and the NRC appears to have been based on 96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions and thus evidence of dose rates will be greatly underestimated. These downplayed models and ones like ‘the President’s run’ were what ‘harmless’ levels of fallout were based upon. In the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima I found hard evidence that plumes as long as 60 kilometers were being emitted as late as the 30th of March and beyond. I would also remind you that in July, 2013 Unit #3 had several days of what TEPCO labeled ‘mystery steam’. The simple fact is, radioactive emissions from Fukushima have been and will continue to be ongoing: to conduct modeling based on 4-5 days of emissions is madness! Again I remind you that the numbers expressed in the following screencaptures will be extremely conservative:

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: discussion of dose estimates in California.

 

195 cali doses 5

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: over conservative transpacific model shows 4.5 REM iodine to children…

 

200 4.5 REM to children transpacific model

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Transamerica model shows 4.5 REM to thyroid of infants in California.

 

210 march 24 4.5 rem to children in cali

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: modeling suggests up to 35 REM thyroid dose to children in Alaska and 4.9 thyroid dose to children in Midway. Remember, modeling was based on short durations of 4-5 days of emissions. In the NRC FOIA documents, there is proof that emanations were ongoing well into the month of April, 2011. Recently, TEPCO announced a ‘mystery steam’ coming from Unit 3.

 

220 march 24 35 rem alaska children

 

(below) From the NRC website: .5 REM allowed to the fetus of a pregnant Nuclear Power Plant employee.

 

235 dose .5 rem pregnancy

 

Fatality Studies

Ultimately, the US will pay a heavy toll from the effects of the radioactive plume and fallout. Conservative estimates range around 1.3 million American fatalities by the year 2030. Evidence from Chernobyl fallout indicates latent cancers did not manifest in significant numbers until 5-10 years after the event. It is important to note that all three of the fatality studies I refer to are congruent with one another i.e.: they have similar methodology and results. In the case of the bird study, the scientist in question discovered an increased mortality rate in young birds from Chernobyl fallout in 1986.

 

(below) From the initial Sherman/Mangano study. The estimate of 13,983 deaths was later revised to 22,000.

245 sherman mangano study front page

 

(below) From the Bobby1 fatality index study. Conservative estimate shows over 1.3 million American fatalities from Fukushima fallout.

250 bobby1

(below) Also from the Bobby1 study. Left axis is partially obscure but reads in intervals of 2 (0,2,4,6,8,10,12) per 100,000. Note the delayed effect. If this chart is accurate, the worst is yet to come.

thyroid chernobyl

 

(below) Another study from the Sherman/Mangano team…this one reveals elevated trends in hypothyroidism among newborns in Pacific/west Coast States.

 

275 congenital hypothyroidism mangano sherman (2)

 

Please watch this video of my analysis of the fatality index studies:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXAQKLcyJI4

Please watch this video on effects of Chernobyl fallout on bird population in the US: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJAjnCCVGbo&feature=youtu.be

Part 3  

The Cover-up  

“I have to challenge everybody because you must, at some point in your life, learn to think or you are doomed.” ~William ‘Bill’ Cooper

 

monkiii

 

Shut up, we’re being recorded: Freedom of Information subversion by the NRC

One of my most popular broadcasts on BlogTalkRadio was one where I voiced my concern that the ability for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to respond to Fukushima, or any meltdown for that matter, was hampered by the fact that many of their employees know they are being recorded and are thus unwilling to speak freely and openly. They are keenly aware that their conversations and emails, through the Freedom of Information Act, may be subject to scrutiny at a later date and that this recorded correspondence might reflect poorly on the nuclear industry (or even serve to incriminate someone). In short, the resulting response to a nuclear disaster will be neither economical, not efficient. Imagine your local fireman being unable to speak openly with his partner as they try to extinguish the blaze consuming your home.

There are other ways to subvert the Freedom of Information Act to be sure. ‘Blizzarding’ leaves researchers to comb through an untold number of pages that are dumped online all at once. To make it even more difficult, most NRC FOIA documents sport duplicate information; phone conversations, emails, reports, graphs and charts…are found doubled and even sometimes tripled in the same file. These tactics are designed to slow the flow of information from the NRC FOIA documents to the American public.

Redaction is another means to subvert the Freedom of Information Act. You might say that the NRC is ‘going to town’ with the redaction these days. It can’t be due to design secrets of the infamous Mark I containment model. That would be like redacting the ‘secrets’ of the old Chevy Corvair, which Ralph Nadar crusaded against because it was so dangerous of a car to drive. Interestingly enough, lots of redaction can be found when they are discussing the worst-case-scenario and Navy ships.

Do solar power companies redact and subvert their documentation?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Politically sensitive information? Take it offline!

 

4 cali take offline politically sensitive (2)

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: when Dave Weller and Mike Weber begin to describe  the sublimation process Marty V. is there to keep them in check.

 

25 fluffy bunny rabbits and flowers (1) - Copy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a warning about the Freedom of Information Act.

 

30 potential foia

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the truth hurts….because of FOIA “we cannot function.”

 

35 Protesting will do you no good. Boo fucking hoo

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a ‘non-recorded line’.

 

15 wh meet, non recorded line

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chairman Jaczko “…I’m not on a classified line.”

not on a classified line add to book

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Talking points, Q and As, and press releases: how the NRC keeps the American public in the dark

 

wolf sheeps clothing

Cover-ups are all about control of information. In the case of Plume-Gate, the reality of nuclear power, the radioactive plume (both by air and sea) and fallout and the evidence of the conspiracy itself must be kept hidden from the American public at all costs. Of course, a small percentage of informed critical thinkers will never be fooled, but the simple fact is you don’t have to fool everyone all the time. You only have to fool most of the people, most of the time.

“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” ~G.W. Bush

Generally speaking, when it comes time for authorities to speak with the public, there are three main tactics used to control the flow of information:

Talking Points: we’re all way too familiar with talking points by now. Talking points are meant to control the subject of a conversation, perhaps steering us towards a lesser, superficial issue and avoiding the main cause of a problem altogether. Talking points are a guide. Following them will lead you away from incriminating information about the establishment.

Questions and Answers: Q and As are all about control of the question AND control of the answer. When an investigator or reporter is unable to ask a question of his or her own design then free press is truly dead. Also, the answer to the question has been carefully prepared and has been formulated to be the least damaging or revealing answer possible. Think back to any Presidential election in America. Remember the ‘town hall’ sessions where the public was allowed to ask the candidate a question? Those questions are selected from a list of possible questions that have been pre-screened by the candidate himself/herself. You are NOT allowed to ask President Obama about aerosol engineering and drought. You are NOT allowed to ask President Obama about Plume-Gate and the radioactive fallout and consequential sickness.

Press ReleasesThink of a press release as a one-way street of information. Just like watching the mainstream news on TV at night. You can’t talk back, you can’t point out something is inaccurate and you can’t ask a question. True or not, the information in a press release flows one way.

Examples: I have provided below some examples of how effective talking points, questions and answers and press releases can be at controlling information. It is my opinion that this country is in dire need of a frank, open discussion about the subversion of the 1st amendment and what can be done to restore it. I said an open discussion…NOT a talking points or questions and answers session.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: world’s apart….public and non-public information. If nuclear power is safe, why can’t there be full disclosure?

 

0 FOIA pg7 308pd

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Talking points….share public portions only with US States.

 

0.5 FOIA pg14 413pd talking points (need write about)

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Q and A’s for Senator Boxer in regards to MOX fuel risk.

 

8 Q and A's for Senator Boxer over MOX

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Q&A Database…”Lot’s of good questions, lot’s of poor answers” says it all. Also note the “foia” response to let them know to tone it down, you are being recorded.

 

9 FOIA BE QUIET unit 3 phil qualls tweaks them

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction…”Nuclear power plants are built to withstand environmental hazards, including earthquakes.”

 

10 talking points NPP are earthquake safe

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: “…we likely will need to re-visit the issue of non-seismically qualified SFPs [spent fuel pools]…of which I recall there are many”

 

11 non seismic qualified spent fuel pools USA

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  Reality: “..did the Japanese also consider an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami “way too low a probability for consideration”?” AND “Look at GI-199 [a manual]. It shows we didn’t know everything about the seismicity of CEUS [central eastern united states)”

 

 

 

11.5 west coast earthquake tsunami admission

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction: “Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity.”

 

12 State liason officer-no radiation on the west coast or Hawaii or Alaska etc

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: “In Alaska, up to a 35 FAR rem for a one-year-old child projected thyroid dose.” AND “…up to 6.4 in Alaska for the thyroid dose for the one-year-old for an eastern wind.” (These were conservative estimates based on 4-5 days of emissions. I have hard proof of measured (not modeled) plumes over 60 kilometers long as late as March 30th, 2011 and beyond.)

 

200 35 FAR REM for a one year-old child in Alaska - March

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reality: “…four and a half REMs is a thyroid for infants in California.” (Again I remind you these projections were very conservative estimates based on 4-5 days of emissions.)

 

210 March 24 4.5 Rem dose to Infant in California

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Fiction: “…EPA is increasing monitoring.”(the truthful part in the email below is that they are NOT supplying the location of the radioactive cloud)

 

220 plume in cali

 

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: Reality: following the Fukushima disaster the EPA rigs the RADNET system. Also, much of the RADNET system is found to be inoperable at the time. Later, Obama would allow the permissible radiation threshold to be increased dramatically. (This screencapture is not from the NRC FOIA documents. Credit and special thanks goes to Alexander Higgins.)

 

221 radnet monitors rigged

 

——————————————————————

 

Examples of Questions and Answer’s:

 

223 pg KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The reality about KI is that the same ones who say it’s not that important are the same ones who don’t want to go to Japan without it. I cover this issue in greater detail in Part 4. 

 

beg borrow or steal KI

 

(below) Another Q and A from the NRC FOIA documents.

 

224 questions and answers BOGUS!

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Gregory Jaczko: ‘Let’s delete the non public piece related to new reactors.’

 

jaczco delete public answer

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The American public is not being informed of the facts.

 

non-public answer earthquake

 

1) Below  is an example of how a particular Question and answer is modified to be as innocuous as possible:

 

290 periods of long rainfall close up

 

2) The answer is too revealing and technically inaccurate. Note how the word ‘yes’ is slated to be removed and later the word ‘considered’ as well.

 

300 close-up of q and a on long periods of rainfall AMAZING BS!

 

3) The new Q and A is now ready. As generic as possible with the least amount of incriminating information.

 

310 q and a long periods of rainfall close up new edited version

 

———————————————————————————————

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Here is a discussion about talking points for states in case they have questions.

 

325 page 110 of 347 talking points for  states

 

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: American states were denied crucial information about the plume and fallout. 

 

350 no share document MOX sludge

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Roger Witherspoon and the Case of the Puzzling Press Release…

who made decision that radiation is harmless

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Roger Witherspoon and the Case of the Puzzling Press Release Part 2: Only Eliot “While we know more than what these say, we’re sticking to this story for now” Brenner can deflect the hard-nosed inquiries of Roger Witherspoon!

harmful levels bullshit avoid discussion

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Liar, Liar: How NRC and other agencies present a united front of deception 

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~Joseph Goebbels (German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945)

 

pinnochio

 

When police detain multiple suspects simultaneously, they are careful to separate each one and interrogate them alone. In this manner, the suspected criminals don’t have an opportunity to ‘get their story straight’ or to ‘prepare the lie’ that they will later employ in an effort to avoid prosecution and punishment for their crimes. In the case of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest provable cover-up, the criminals involved had the opportunity to not only ‘get the story straight’ but to discuss the fact that they needed to ‘get the story straight’.

In a disaster the size and scope of Fukushima it is logical that responders want to ‘be on the same page’ as far as sharing accurate, up to date information: this alone does not indicate a cover-up, conspiracy or criminal wrongdoing. However, when you consider ALL the evidence that Freedom of Information researchers have provided from the NRC documents pertaining to Fukushima, the issue of ‘getting the story straight’ is just one more piece of a puzzle that fits perfectly into the obvious picture of a massive, multi-agency cover-up.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Note that Ambassador Roos is getting info from DOE and AMS. In an upcoming screencapture you can see where the Ambassador was calling for a  ‘pessimistic scenario’. Were DOE and AMS pushing the ‘least-worst-case-model’? Also note the term ‘consolidated viewpoint’…they don’t want a bunch of different stories…

 

10 march 14, consolidated viewpoint

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Note the Ambassador is requesting a ‘pessimistic scenario’ and this request is forwarded up the chain of command to the White House for ‘alignment’ before being allowed. They don’t want anyone speaking out of turn. In certain cases plume models and situation reports (SITREP) were denied to U.S. states, stakeholders outside the U.S.A (NPP owner/operators) and China. It is critical you understand ‘gaining alignment’ means prior approval of the task being requested (often modeling of the plume/fallout) or approval of information to be released and thus a unified voice as a result.

 

32.5 Japan ambassador request more pessimistic model

 

(below part 1) From the NRC FOIA documents: The next screencapture is a 3 part series. In this first segment there is a discussion taking place about some information that has leaked and made it’s way to the Wall Street Journal. When Larry Camper says ‘It’s amazing how people know this staff and we can’t seem to get it’, he is referring to whoever leaked the information and the fact they should have known better. Sounds like the ‘staff’ does not have out best interest at heart…

 

132 leak causes consolidation

 

(below part 2) Note the term ‘consolidated viewpoint’.

 

133 leak causes consolidation

 

(below part 3 ) From the NRC FOIA documents: Note the term ‘consolidated input’. They want to be sure they are all giving the Ambassador the same story. Whatever the story was it was a much less alarming picture of reality, so much less alarming the Ambassador felt he needed to request a ‘pessimistic scenario’ (see above).

 

134 leak causes consolidation

 

(below) This email is fairly self explanatory. There is one official plume model provided by the IAEA and everyone is to refer to that. Please note that in my article (included in this complete work) Seek and Destroy, I show where the NRC Cyber Security Team had several leaked plume models pulled from online.

 

150 alighn on plume map

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The NRC and other agencies withheld information (plume models etc.) from the U.S. states even though they made the claim that the plume and fallout were harmless. Samples from U.S. nuclear power plant ‘rooftop grabs’ were logged into the NEI’s password protected database that only the ‘Federal Family’ has access to. If the plume, fallout and subsequent measurements were harmless, why is this information being hidden from us?

 

175 consistent information

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: This screencapture from the NRC FOIA documents show U.S. states (and other stakeholders) were denied the situation report for Fukushima (SITREP). If the disaster was insignificant, why is this information being withheld? 

 

195 no share document MOX sludge

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: If it’s going to make waves, they want to approve it first. ‘Share with others the need to respect OUO’ (official use only)…ie: spread the word to keep your information to yourself unless it has been approved for the public.

 

.200 nrc searching media 3

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: You can’t get much more obvious than this one…note the phrase ‘stay aligned’.

 

215 cali nei alighment remember toothfairy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Actually got more obvious: DOD and NRC are worried about a ‘diverging perspective’ regarding the ‘current severity’…

 

225 diverging perspective

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The ‘one voice’.

 

300 the one voice

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Flawed, downplayed or bungled modeling: How the NRC taught me to love the Plume

 

0 strangelove

 

Throughout the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima there is quite a bit of discussion concerning modeling of the plume and fallout. In order to issue radiation warnings, knowledge of the plume’s speed, direction and intensity must be known. This is done by way of computer analysis: the two fundamental variables being thesource term(s) data (sources of radiation being emitted) and the length of duration that the emanations will last for. Other possible factors to consider are the type of fuel itself, such as the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel in Unit #3 (which is more dangerous than the standard fuel that was being utilized in Units 1-2), and certain atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction.

The reality of the Fukushima disaster is that it WAS a worst-case-scenario for reactors 1-4. Consider the loss of electrical power for weeks on end and the initial ‘Plan B’ type of ‘water-cannon-concrete-truck’ cooling system response that NRC officials said was all but useless. How does it get worse than no cooling and no power for weeks?

 

2 pumper trux suck

 

If one considers the source terms and length of emissions that a true ‘worst-case-scenario’ would represent, it is easy to understand why the NRC and DOE had to downplay, delay and purposefully bungle the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. As a result President Obama was able make the statement that experts did not expect harmful levels of radioactivity to reach the U.S. and thus there were no warnings or alerts issued for American citizens. Meanwhile, other countries as far away as France, did issue rainwater warnings and green leafy vegetable warnings as well.

 

rainwater warnings

 

At the end of the day the simple fact remains: the truth about Fukushima (especially as revealed in the NRC FOIA documents) and nuclear power cannot coexist. Until the day of the fateful earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the establishment had been effective at suppressing the truth about the nuclear industry, even after Chernobyl. But now the size and scope of the effects of Fukushima make it impossible to ignore that truth any longer. And now that truth is beginning to chip away at the foundation of lies upon which this toxic industry has been built. How much longer before that one crucial keystone is removed that will topple the entire structure? 

 

Tactics used to downplay modeling/sampling: 

1)      To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, simply reduce the length of duration of the source term(s), ie: reduce the length of time that radiation will be emitted from the damaged reactor(s). Throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima a 4-5 day emission period was considered for most of the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. What’s wrong with that? Over 2 years after the catastrophe there are still emissions by air and sea and no end in sight. If, as many experts suspect, we are facing a quadruple ‘China syndrome’ the radioactive effluents will continue to be released for many years.

2)      To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, reduce the number of source terms. Of course with Fukushima, they knew right away that all power had been lost to Units 1-4 and that those units, without power or proper cooling for weeks on end, would all be source terms of a very high magnitude. The evidence shows that there were plenty of models circulating that downplayed the number of source terms, just like they did with the duration of emissions.

3)      To reduce the intensity of plume and fallout models, simply delay taking measurements and samples until 24 hours after the initial criticality. A 24 hour delay will allow time for the plume (and higher concentrations found in the initial release) to blow away. Subsequent measurements in the same location will not be as high.

4)      When a measurement or sample from the field is alarmingly high, simply question the veracity (methodology or type of test) and insist that another sample be taken to double-check the first. By the time that person can take another test, the concentrated plume that he or she sampled from originally has now shifted with the wind direction and the subsequent sample will naturally read much lower as the plume is no longer in the same place. The 2nd, much lower test result, will be the one utilized.

water sprays no effect

 

5)      When it comes to sampling, choose only short lived radioactive isotopes such as Cesium and Iodide. Never test for long lived radioactive isotopes such as plutonium. The less number of radionuclides you sample for, the less alarming the result will be.

6)      When sampling H2O, especially seawater from the ocean near Fukushima, take samples from the surface of the body of water and not from the sea floor. Heavy particulates which may be more radioactive, such as plutonium, will naturally sink to the bottom and can be avoided in this way.

7)      When it comes to a ‘worst-case-model’, create a wide range of possible ‘worst-cases’ with one of them being the ‘least-worst-case’. This is the one to promote. Although logic dictates there can only be one ‘worst-case-model’ the NRC and DOE are not the kind of agencies to let logic get in the way of their work protecting citizens and the environment (or our men and women in the armed forces for that matter).

Now let’s have a look at evidence obtained from the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima:

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Note the date of April 12th, 2011 and the estimate of the radioactive discharge from Fukushima as being 10% of Chernobyl. At best this estimate is based on a month of releases and at worst (and most probably) 4-5 days.

 

21 of 497 illogical only one month has passed

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: An IAEA briefing, also from April 12th: “Russia also (correctly) pointed out that the accident at Fukushima is still ongoing and it is premature to speculate how much radioactivity will be released…”

2 april 12 IAEA briefing - Copy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Again, please note the short duration of 96 hours for this modeling. Plumes were ongoing and TEPCO measured (not modeled) plumes over 60 kilometers long as late as March 30th, 2011.

 

23 modeling for cesium only and 96 hour discharge

 

(below) This screencapture is NOT from the NRC FOIA documents but is a headline from Enenews.com. Note that on July 18th, 2013 steam was seen emanating from Unit #3…over 2 years after the catastrophe emissions continue.

 

25 2 years after source term ongoing

 

(below) This screencap is taken from a study by Sandia National Labratories and is NOT from the NRC FOIA documents. Sandia does work with the NRC and DOE however. Note that they ‘do not take into account the reactor building explosion at 68 hours’…why? 

 

27 sandia study on fuku

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: There seems to be no hurry to run a worst case analysis and first they must define how they would do that analysis. Can they really be this discombobulated?

 

40 how to define worst case

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: When the ‘worst-case’ isn’t the worst-case.

 

43 cali worse case scenario not worse case

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Waiting ‘quite a while’ on NARAC (does plume modeling) with no priority.

 

44 cali no priority

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: No priority from NARAC on dose projection as far as the East Coast.

 

45 cali no priority

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “We’ll get to them when we get to them.”

 

46 cali no priority

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume modeling “on hold” by NOAA.

noaa delay modeling

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  High doses or measurements are always questioned.

 

47 cali no priority

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: More evidence of NARAC foot-dragging and ‘five worst cases’.

 

75 bungle

 

76 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The President’s worst case scenario was based on 4-5 day period of emissions.

 

77 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  ‘Angst’ by ‘folks’ about ‘the source term’.

 

80 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Even more NARAC foot-dragging.

 

81 bungle

 

(below) Bottom of screencap: here’s what’s riding on these plume and fallout models.

 

82 here's what's riding on the plume models

 

83 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: More ‘angst’…about moving naval ships.

 

85 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Delay on a worst-case run (model). Note the comment about undue influence.

 

87 bungle

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence that some runs (models) are not realistic.

 

89 bungled

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘Melt-core’ worst case get’s big numbers on the West Coast. No problem, call in specialist Kathy Gibson. She’s a magician with a plume model. And has almost as many of them as there are cards in a deck.

 

91 bungled kathy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: No one can agree on a worst case. Seriously?

 

94 bungled

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Here is a reference to the March 14th ‘lube oil fire’ which NRC employees claimed could not have been a lube oil fire at all…but something else. The discussion centers around running a model for this event and running it from the 14th forward. If you model from a later date the ‘volatiles’ may have decayed and may no longer be present thus the model will be inaccurate. See tactic #3 above.

 

96 bungled don't run march 14 event

 

(below) Radiation samples alarmingly high? Kathy Gibson to the rescue!

 

98 bungled kathy downplay

 

99 bungled kathy

 

100 bungled kathy

 

101 bungled kathy

 

102 bungled kathy

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: An email from Chris Miller (USNRC) to Ron from the DOE which incredibly enough is a list of reasons why the NRC needs the DOE to deploy their fixed wing aerial measuring system and almost comes across as a plea for help. Was the DOE actually questioning the NRC’s need for their fixed wing aircraft?

 

190 March 16 Letter recommending Aerial measurement system deployment

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Looks like it got so bad with the ‘least-worst-case-scenarios’ that the U.S. Ambassador in Japan actually had to request a ‘pessimistic’ model.

 

200 Japan ambassador request more pessimistic model

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

The Emperor Wears no Clothes: NPP “Rooftop Grabs” reveal picture of widespread fallout over US

 

map of 18 NPPs detecting Fukushima radiation

Another critical aspect to the Plume-Gate cover-up centers on the ‘rooftop grabs’ (radiation measurements) taken from nuclear power plants here in the United States. This data, reported by at least 18 Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs), paints a picture of widespread Fukushima fallout across the United States. It also proves authorities we’re well aware of the danger here at home but were unwilling to issue warnings or advisories (rainwater, milk, green leafy vegetables) so that the American public could take precautionary measures (remember that FEMA was ordered to ‘stand-down’). Because of the nature of this ‘smoking gun’ evidence, the samples were carefully secreted into a password protected data base overseen by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), labeled as OUO (Official Use Only) and made available exclusively to the ‘Federal Family’.

(below) modeling of Plutonium 239 (P-239) mirrors the map shown above of US Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) that reported detecting fallout from Fukushima.

TEPCO PU 239 modeling

(Authors note: to be clear, there is a difference between the modeling of fallout and the actual sampling and detecting of fallout in the field. Modeling is an assumption, an estimate of the plume and fallout, generated by computers. Sampling and detecting yields actual real time results of radiation levels (with varying degrees of accuracy) at a specific location or locations.)

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: US nuclear power plants report fallout from Fukushima on a voluntary basis. 

1 NEI notification on rooftop grabs NPP

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC prepares talking point covering the ‘rooftop grabs’.

2 about rooftop grabs

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC ‘giving the runaround’ on the data from the rooftop grabs: “…we don’t have anything, and EPA is who you need to talk to.”

3 march 30th NRC the runaround on rad data in US request

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: U.S. nuclear plants are instructed to alert the NRC if they detect ‘radiological changes’.

7 NPPs detection

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Add Palo Verde, SONGS, Diablo Canyon, Columbia and Millstone to the list of U.S. nuclear plants that detected fallout from Fukushima. Note that ‘Industry has agreed to collect the data and provide to NRC for distribution with Federal Government.’

6 NPPs in US detect rads

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 add Kewaunee nuclear plant to the list of U.S. plants that detected Fukushima fallout. Notable quote: ‘Notice on industry data collection similar to what was following the Chernobyl accident in 1986.’

zzzzz close up kewaunee

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the focal point for data from U.S. nuclear plants and is developing an online database.

NEI focal point

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence of a briefing sheet that is approved for circulation inside a nuclear plant.

10 dont share with state

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Checking for clearance before forwarding the briefing sheet along to the DOE, EPA and the states. I’ve never seen the DOE or EPA denied modeling or sampling results but I’ve found evidence that U.S. states were.

12 dont share with state

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Checking for clearance before sharing sampling data with the DOE, EPA and California (CA).

13 dont share with state

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘…we recommend that at this time we don’t share with the state.’

14 dont share with state

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘…environmental data that exceeds the reporting levels first come into the Document Control desk…’

15 rooftop grab cover up data top 357 of 360 pager

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence of a password protected database for air and standing water samples from U.S. nuclear plants. The public at large does NOT have access to this data.

16 NEI password database for US NPP measurements

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NEI email shows widespread circulation…subject: ‘US nuclear power plant environmental data resulting from Fukushima’

15 grab

16 grab

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: sampling data from US nuclear power plants reveals Fukushima fallout.  It is important to note that there is a big difference between the amount of radiation sampled in a continuous sample, drawn over a 24 hour period, and a short duration sample of minutes or hours. It is analogous to testing the air filter of an automobile that has run all day compared to one that has run an hour.

17 grab

18 grab

19 grab

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 23rd, 2011 with attachment titled: ‘US Nuclear Plant Reported Measurements.xlsx’ (data shown in 2nd screencapture below)

20 grab

 

21 grab

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  Particulate grab samples from San Onofre and Palo Verde. Please note that myself and other FOIA researchers combed through hundreds of thousands of pages of documents to find these few pieces of evidence, well hidden from the casual observer in what I call the ‘needle-in-a-haystack’ effect.

22 san onofre detection

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a measured plume map from April 4th, 2011. It is important to note that a) most particulate grabs were of a short duration b) measured plumes from Fukushima were emitted on a constant basis well into April of 2011 c) aerosolized plutonium, from Fukushima, has been detected as far away as Lithuania and d) US rooftop grabs only reveal radioactive Iodine and Cesium.

81 where the wind blows

(below) Results from my own rainwater sample of 3/15/12, a year after the Fukushima disaster, reveal radioactive Strontium in Gainesville, Florida.

125 rainwater tests strontium

(below)  Countries as far away as France issued rainwater and green leafy vegetable warnings.

150 rainwater warnings

(below) From the Journal of Environmental RadioactivityAerosolized plutonium detected in Lithuania in late March and early April of 2011. 

175 lithuania detects aerosolized plutonium 2011

(below) From the Sternglass study: doses to children may be as much as a hundred to a thousand times more than an adult.

180 pg16 Sternglass study

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1) A March 31st, 2011 email from the Arizona  Division of Emergency Management indicating something is amiss with the sampling:  “…the Palo Verde data sample is different than what was collected from the Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency.” and “I just want to be prepared if I need to answer the question about why the findings are different.”

300 palo verde sampling data suppression

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2) An email response to the Arizona Division of Emergency Management: “NRC is not publicly reporting the results that Palo Verde reports to us.”

302 palo verde sampling data suppression

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3) Evidence that data, including measurements of I-131 in air and milk samples, was forwarded to a website and shared amongst the ‘Federal Family’.

303 palo verde sampling data suppression

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: How the rooftop grab information flows: NPPs to NRC,  NRC to EPA. And when there is a chance that information may become public, Eliot Brenner sweeps in and takes control of the situation…

nei replace info flow

326 NEI

327 NEI

328 NEI

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1) A March 23rd email indicating interest by the Protective Measures Team (PMT) in ‘elevated environmental samples’ at Nine Mile and Ginna NPPs.

401 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2) An email from Pamela Henderson expressing concern for who is collecting radiation data in the US.

402 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3) confirmation that the Protective Measures Team (PMT) received the information on the sampling at Nine Mile and Ginna NPPs.

403 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 4) more concern for who is collecting radiation data is the US…

404 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 5) “…environmental data that exceeds the reporting levels first come into the Document Control desk…”

405 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 6) the brutal truth: “…licensees do not have to report on elevated levels if it is not due to their licensed activities.”

406 ginna amazing NPPs don't have to report

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 7) The Protective Measures Team always get’s the data…

407 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 8) serous concern that  “Licensee developing a press release” over Ginna Nuclear Power Plant rainwater sample.

0 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 9) “Ginna licensing manager anticipates that CENG corporate will be developing a press release…” (CENG stands for Constellation Energy Group…owners of Ginna NPP…also see more on NRC 50.72 below)

1 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 10) Cancel that press release…”NEI will be representing the industry.”

2 ginna

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 11) “NEI may be issuing a press release.”

3 ginna

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC and EPA work together to present a united front of deception. The statement that there will be ‘no health impact on the United States’ was based on intentionally flawed modeling of short duration (96 hours or 4-5 days of emissions) and of radioactive Iodine and Cesium only.  

zz NPP detection statement 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: about the NRC 50.72 rule…

410 50.72

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Ginna NPP owners may have been caused angst by 50.72 (b)(3)(ii) which stipulates any condition that ‘degrades plant safety’ must be reported.

411 50.72

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: or was the angst over the possibility of reporting elevated levels of Fukushima fallout at Ginna NPP caused by 50.72(b)(2)(xi)?

412 50.72 the real excuse

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: if a news release is planned NRC wants to know so it can “…respond to heightened public concern.”

413 50.72 close up detail

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “Examples of events likely to be reportable…”

414 50.72 close up detail 2

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more on the process and criteria for reporting radiation at US NPPs…

415 50.72 close up 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an example of an ‘unscheduled radiation release’. Since Fukushima fallout was not a result of activities at US nuclear plants, reporting was done on a voluntary basis.

416 50.72 close up 3

 

 

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

Seek and Destroy: NRC Spends Millions to Search for Negative Press

 

 

The strategy is simple. The NRC wants to know who is writing or speaking out against nuclear power and they want to know the moment an article or video is published. In a flash, the ‘Cyber Situational Awareness Team’ springs into action to ‘handle’ the situation. This is Big Brother at his best, clamping down on free speech and spreading disinformation through blogs and social networking sites such as FaceBook. Once the negative media is located, and this appears to be nearly instantaneous, the NRC begins an all-out information war to counter the effects of that particular piece. In many cases, a simple phone call will do to have an article removed or edited. Remember, these folks have corporate connections everywhere; writers have bosses and bosses work for owners. When the corporate owner of your newspaper calls and demands that you remove and anti-nuclear article, you better believe that article get’s pulled (or edited) 99.9% of the time.

Now I ask my fellow Americans, why is it that the nuclear power industry must act in this way? If nuclear power is clean and wholesome, as they insist it is, then why must the NRC spend millions in an effort to find and attack information that portrays them in a negative light? Shouldn’t the NRC ask themselves, why is there so much media speaking out against nuclear power?

And where are the countless activists speaking/writing out against solar power? Do solar power companies spend millions searching the press for articles that speak poorly of solar power? Something to think about.

(below) from the NRC FOIA documents: Follow the money.

 

1 IT specialists 1 2 IT specialists 2

 

(below) NOT FROM THE NRC FOIA DOCUMENTS: screencapture is from the InfoReliance website.

 

   3 IT specialists 3

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Follow the money.

 

4 IT specialists 4

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Follow the money, MAR Inc. part 2

 

5 IT specialists 5

 

(Below) From the NRC FOIA documents: More from the money trail…

 

6 IT specialists 6

 

(below) From the MAR Inc. website…

 

7 IT specialists 7

 

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: searching all sectors of media for negative press…

 

9

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: results of a search…

 

10 media search results

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a complaint about ‘news stories left out’.

 

11

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: More on news being left out from a search…

 

12

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 1

 

13

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 2

 

14

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take-down part 3

 

16

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take down part 4

 

nrc searching media 1

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: plume map take down part 5

 

nrc searching media 2

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: updated MAR contract

 

new MAR contract

 

new MAR contract 2

 

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Part 4

Fear and Loathing on Fukushima Unit 4

By Hatrick  Penry

9/29/13

hunter thompson

(above: Author Hunter Thompson (1937-2005) was never afraid to report the truth no matter how ugly it was.)

The trick is to convince the American public, and indeed the world, that the worst-of-the-worst has not already happened at Fukushima. Even if that means a media campaign of fear-mongering based around a fantasy doomsday scenario involving the collapse of Unit 4 and its spent fuel pool. Interestingly enough, all the alternative and mainstream media outlets that are promoting this bogus Unit 4 doomsday scenario are the same ones who have chosen not to report on the Nuclear Regulatory Agency’s Freedom of Information Act documents pertaining to Fukushima. These documents tell the true story of Fukushima: the multi-agency cover-up that downplayed and concealed the radioactive plume and fallout, the reality of a prolonged station blackout that produced three ‘China Syndrome’ meltdowns, and the Unit 4 spent fuel pool zirconium fire and subsequent ‘melt on the floor’ of the fuel rods.

The sad reality is that the effects of a nuclear plant meltdown or spent fuel pool fire can be so sudden and so severe that the possibility exists that no safety precautions can be taken quickly enough to avoid the consequences completely. In the case of the Fukushima catastrophe, it took about a week to produce a measurable plume that traveled south down the coast and then swept inland across Tokyo. These plumes were laden with aerosolized plutonium. I ask you: how do you evacuate Tokyo in less than a week?  How will we evacuate New York if Indian Point has an accident and produces a plume? Where do you relocate a city of millions of people?

So you see, the reality of the potential of a meltdown or meltdowns is so horrific, it must be hidden from the public at all costs. And when a meltdown does occur, the truth of its severity and its effects must also be hidden from the public at all costs. Can you imagine what it would have been like if TEPCO, the Government of Japan, the NRC and the White House had been up front and 100% honest about the disaster from the start? What would have happened if officials announced that 1) a plutonium laden plume was drifting towards Tokyo and 2) multiple plumes and fallout were heading across the Pacific towards the West Coast of the US? What would have happened if officials were up front and honest about the triple ‘China Syndrome’ and Unit 4 ‘melt on the floor’ and its effects? No matter how you slice it, it would be ugly, very ugly.

It seems to me that when a country desires both national security and nuclear power at the same time, it desires the impossible. Furthermore, how can one have a rational discussion about national security if one does not include a frank, open discussion about the decommissioning of all nuclear plants? Which is a greater threat to the American public, Iran’s nuclear program or our own nuclear program? Why would Iran build a nuclear bomb to use against the US when we have hundreds of stationary bombs, in the form of reactors and fuel pools, already positioned throughout the country, with incredible payloads far beyond the capacity of any bomb or missile? Think of the possibilities: terrorist attack, sabotage, earthquake, tsunami, earthquake AND tsunami, flooding from a broken dam upriver, or even the old-fashioned accident that aging reactors are bound to have from time to time…why do we leave ourselves so vulnerable?

About the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool:

The evidence, from the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima, has led me to believe that:

1)      The March 11th, 2011 earthquake caused immediate structural damage to the Unit 4 building. Spent fuel pool coolant began to drain out through a crack or cracks that were a result of the earthquake.

2)      There was an H2 explosion and a wall or walls of the SFP #4 were ‘blown out’.

3)      On March 15th 2011, the hot offload of fuel experienced a zirconium cladding fire and subsequent meltdown to the floor of the spent fuel pool. According to the IAEA, SFP #4 was on fire and emitting radiation directly to the atmosphere for at least 9 hours and 10 minutes before TEPCO claimed it was extinguished.

4)      75% or more of the radiation contained in SFP #4 may have been released into the atmosphere. Modeling was done on a 100% release.

5)      Any fuel rods recovered (official numbers vary on what the inventory was) will be ones that were unused and ‘cool’…probably less than 25% of inventory. It is possible that all fuel rods were affected and none will be salvageable.

The Evidence:

To be clear: I cannot prove that the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 has been destroyed or damaged. Nor can the nuclear apologists prove that the pool is full of water and the fuel rods are intact. It should be noted that those who claim that the damage to SFP 4 was minimal and that the rods will be recovered have only their rhetoric to back them up. They offer no proof. YouTube videos alleging to be of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool could be any spent fuel pool in the world. Is it not evidence in and of itself that they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that their claims are true? How hard would it be to hold a current newspaper in front of a video camera and then make an inspection of Units 1-4 for the world to see? Do you believe TEPCO? Do you believe the NRC? Do you believe the Government of Japan or our own government? All of these entities have extensive track records of deception and dishonesty and they all have reason to hide the truth, especially in the case of the Fukushima disaster.

(below) The effects of a prolonged station blackout (SBO) caused by a 9.0 earthquake and 46 foot tall tsunami are catastrophic.

57 200 zirc fire 3 n 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: normal operating temperature of the coolant in a spent fuel pool is 30 degrees Celsius.

90 sfp 4 30 degress celcius starting temp

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 14th, 2011 the temperature of SFP #4 is now at 84 degrees Celsius.

91 sfp 4 temp rising march 14th 84 c

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th FAX  from the IAEA to the NRC “Release Radioactivity Unit 4 Fukushima Daiichi NPP”

96 unit 4 radiation release

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 15th, 2011-Japanese authorities inform the IAEA that the spent fuel pond at Unit 4 is on fire and that “…radioactivity is being released directly into the atmosphere.”

97 IAEA informed by Japanese on SFP unit 4 fire and radiation release 15 march 2011

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Japanese authorities claim the fire at the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 is extinguished 9 hours and 10 minutes after it begins. Evidence found in the NRC FOIA documents contradicts this claim. As of March 16th, TEPCO had yet to remove the rubble blocking the path of fire trucks and other heavy equipment to the Fukushima facility. Helicopter water drops, the only other method of delivering water to the spent fuel pools, are said to be ineffective by NRC officials.

98 more on unit 4 spent fuel pond release of radiation

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Situation Report Update shows Unit 4 spent fuel pool in grave danger. Radiation levels are too high to initiate countermeasures at 30 REM/hr. Note that NRC officials were adamant that the ‘lube oil fire’ of Unit 4 was NOT a lube oil fire and instead referred to it as a ‘seminal event’.

99.3 unit 4 fire 4 to 5 hours no fire fighting due to high rads pair with IAEA report

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: As the spent fuel pools heat up, access problems (of which radioactive MOX sludge was a factor) and high radiation levels impede any response to the disaster.

99.6 unit 4 fire 4 to 5 hours no fire fighting fatal doses to workers

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 1 of a 5 part series) Plume modeling (direction of plume by elevation) from the 15th to the 18th of March, 2011 by the Japan Meteorological Agency.  While this modeling may or may not be based on the releases of SFP #4, it is indicative of where the winds of that time period might have carried radiation.

99.9 unit 4 modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 2 of a 5 part series) Plume modeling of Cs-137 by the Japan Meteorological Agency. If modeling of plutonium was done by any agency or country, it has yet to be found in the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima.

100 unit 4 modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 3 of a 5 part series) Plume modeling of Cs-137.

101 unit 4 modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 4 of a 5 part series) Plume modeling of Cs-137.

102 unit 4 modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: (part 5 of a 5 part series) Plume modeling of Cs-137.

103 unit 5 modeling

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: confirmation of damage to wall of Fukushima Unit 4.

400 march 15th wall damaged unit 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 15th, 2011 “U4 zirc fire, catastrophe”

410 unit 4 zirc fire catastrophe march 15th

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (M.E.T.I.) News Release: at 10:30 UTC on March 15th-orders are given to extinguish the fire at Unit 4 and prevent “re-criticality”.

412 METI march 15th news release pt 2 (2)

412.1 METI march 15th news release pt 2 (1)

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 16th, 2011-“U4 situation deteriorating. SFP water inventory is lost…dose rates around U4 make entry impossible…”

412.3 sfp 4 inventory down to the 50

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: email from March 16th, 2011 “The walls of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool have collapsed, and there is no water in there.”

marcg 16th ADD TO FEAR AND LOATH

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for a March 16th transcript wherein the damage to Unit 4 is discussed extensively. Speakers include then NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, Regional Administrator for Region 3 Chuck Casto and Director of the Office of Public Affairs Eliot Brenner.

412.5 walls blown out

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents:  Chuck Casto: “…we absolutely know that pool no. 4, though, the walls have collapsed…”

412.6 walls blown out

412.7 collapse - Copy

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto: “You cannot get inventory [coolant] above the bottom of the fuel.”

412.8 walls blown out

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: further discussion of damage to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

412.9 walls blown out

413 pg221 blown out - Copy

413.1 pg221 blown out - Copy

413.2 pg221 blown out - Copy

413.2 pg221 blown out

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto stakes his career on Unit 4 having major damage.

413.3 casto stakes career on unit 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Mike Weber “The pool structure is no longer in existence. The walls have collapsed. So, you have spent fuel sitting there in a pile.”

413.4 pg162 wall collapse unit 4 - Copy

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion of “quenching” the pool (filling it with water…saltwater at first)

414 quenching sfp 4

414.1 quenching sfp 4

414.2 quenching sfp 4

414.3 quenching sfp 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: this next series of screencaptures centers around a discussion about a video that TEPCO alleges shows water in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. The TEPCO video surfaced after then NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko stood before members of Congress on the 15th of March, 2011 and announced that the spent fuel pool at Unit 4 was dry. Throughout the NRC FOIA documents there is evidence that TEPCO pressured officials at the NRC to ‘reconsider’ their position. A final back-and-forth between Gregory Jaczko, Chuck Casto and Eliot Brenner settles the matter when they decide Jaczko will not ’roll back’ any of his statements  on Unit 4.

414.4 tepco video\

414.5 the video pg 390

414.6 zirc reaction 390.1 vid

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the TEPCO video discussion continues…

414.7 unit 4 402 video

414.8 unit 4 403 video

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: more on the TEPCO video…

415.2 tepco vid pg 405

415.3 the video pg 406

415.4 the video pg 407

415.5 the video pg 407.5

415.6 the video pg 408

415.7 the video pg 408.5

415.8 the video pg 409

415.9 the video pg 410

416 the video pg 410.5

416.1 the video pg 411

416.2 the video pg 411.5

416.3 the video pg 412

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the saga of the TEPCO video continues…

416.4 the video pg 414

416.5 the video pg 415

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a discussion about the source of information about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

416.6 the video pg 418

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Jaczko will not be “rolling back” any of his statements on Unit 4

416.7 rollback pg 421

416.8 the video pg 422

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: confirmation from a secondary source that the SFP of Unit 4 is dry.

423.5 walls blown out 2nd confirmation

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 16th, 2011 inputs for a RASCAL (plume modeling) projection. Considering the assumption that “all of the fuel melted” on Unit 4 it’s no wonder this information was not to be shared outside of the NRC.

424. 5 march 16th rascal projection includes unit 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 17th, 2011 “…freezing out information from the other Commissioner offices” and ” the ET stuck to the story that U4 SFP is likely dry.”

424.8 unit 4 dry info freeze

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 17th, 2011 email-note that the NRC is sticking with the pool as being empty and offer reasons why.

425 unit 4 we are sticking with it as being empty

(below) From the NRC documents: a March 17th “NRC INFORMATION NOTICE” that states “Unit 4 suffered a total loss of water along with an inability to retain water.”

march 17th ADD TO FEAR AND LOATH 2

march 17th ADD TO FEAR AND LOATHING 3

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release Considerations as of March 18th, 2011. Note the peak of an incredible 400 REM/hr at the Fukushima facility and the statement that “periodic additional releases of radioactivity are occurring as the plants vent to atmosphere”.

426.1 reactor and pool release considerations mar 18 2011

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued…”NRC believes that water from the unit 4 storage pool completely drained and a violent zirconium and water reaction occurred…”

426.2 reactor and pool release considerations mar 18 2011

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued…Bettis Laboratory estimates doses at 50 miles from a spent fuel pool meltdown. Evidence throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima indicates that estimates, assumptions and modeling was based on a worst-case-scenario at Unit 4.

426.3 reactor and pool release considerations mar 18 2011

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Reactor and Water Pool Release Considerations as of March 18th, 2011 continued. Here is why they don’t want you to know what really happened at Fukushima Unit 4…”In the more extreme scenarios involving significant additional core or pool damage, there would not be sufficient time to evacuate Navy civilians,  military personnel, and their dependents to avoid the higher exposure levels discussed above.”

426.4 reactor and pool release considerations mar 18 2011

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 18th, 2011…”Proposal to handle dried spent fuel pool.docx”

429 dried sfp 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: emails from March 18th, 2011 show concern for the duration that fuel rods have been left to cool in the spent fuel pool. Fuel rods that are a fresh offload are much hotter than fuel rods that have cooled for 2 or more years. Hotter fuel is naturally more dangerous if coolant levels drop or if a spent fuel pool drains out entirely.  

429.5 march 18th ammount of 105 day old fuel in sfp 4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of a fresh offload of hot fuel into the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

429.6 time of offload fuel unit 4

(below) Cover-page for NRC’s “Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement” NUREG-2157 for the next screencapture.

429.7 nrc waste confidence report

(below) From NRC’s  ”Waste Confidence Generic Environmental Impact Statement” NUREG-2157…’time-to-release’ could be less than 10 hours if fuel has had less than 2 years to cool.

429.8 NRC time to release for hot and cool fuel

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 18th brief: Unit 4 “pool may be dry; damage to fuel rods suspected”

430 march 18th sfp 4 must be dry bundles numbers of

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 18th, 2011…the source term provided to NARAC (does plume modeling) includes the assumption that  ”100% of the total spent fuel was released to the atmosphere from Unit 4.” Note the flawed modeling based on a limited 96 hour release. Measured plume maps found in the NRC FOIA documents prove that emissions were ongoing beyond the month of March, 2011.

434 march 18th 100 percent of sfp 4 released to atmosphere model

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 18th, 2011 email with a reference to then NRC Chairman Jaczko’s testimony that SFP 4 was dry. Jaczko’s information was derived from NRC officials that were ‘embedded’ with TEPCO, Conti and the Government of Japan.

434.1 wash post reference to chairman unit 4 dry

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 18th, 2011 email showing concern for the spacing of hotter fuel rods in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool. If freshly offloaded rods are clumped together, it makes a low or no coolant situation exponentially worse. “Checker-boarding” stores hot fuel rods next to cool fuel rods to even out the heat. 

434.2 question on layout of fuel rods in sfp 4

 (below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: hot fuel rods stored in close proximity could allow the “runaway oxidation reaction to spread”. This is known as a “propagating zirconium cladding fire” or a “zirc fire”.

434.3 NRC ML13224A106 proximity of rods make a difference pair up with checkerboard

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 29th, 2011 email showing the ‘perfect storm’ for the Unit 4 spent fuel pool: full core offload about 120 days ago, no checker-boarding of hotter fuel, structural damage, dry pool and “cladding/water” reaction.

434.4 march 29th hardcore unit 3 and 4 evaluation

434.5 march 29th fred brown on units 1-4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for a summary of the Chief Cabinet Secretary Edano’s press briefing of the 19th of March, 2011. Note the colored chart found below indicates that the Unit 4 spent fuel pool is “now in preparation for filling the water”.

435 march 19th unit 3 and unit 4 prepped for filling with water pt 1

aaaaa 435.1 march 19th unit 3 and unit 4 prepped for filling with water pt 2

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 19th email from former American Nuclear Society President William Burchill asking relevant questions…

435.2 march 19th burchill former ANS president questions all

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: saltwater injection to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool did not begin until March 20th, 2011 due to access problems at the Fukushima facility. Prior to the 20th of March, helicopter water drops and water cannons, both labeled ineffective by NRC officials, were the only means by which TEPCO could attempt to cool the reactors and spent fuel pools. 

435.3 unit 4 boil off time elapsed for possibility

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for the next series of screencaptures taken from March 20th, 2011 teleconference calls. 

435.4 cover page

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: mention of ‘signal events’ from Unit 3 and Unit 4. TEPCO’s cover-story was that the March 15th event was a ‘lube oil fire’. NRC officials disputed TEPCO’s contention/evidence about the ‘lube oil fire’ just as they did with TEPCO’s video ‘evidence’ of water in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4.

435.5 unit 4 lube oil fire

435.6 unit 4 lube oil fire

435.7 unit 4 lube oil fire

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The concern with Unit 4

435.8 integrity of sfp 4

435.9 integrity of sfp 4

436 integrity of sfp 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “…the Japanese, they just grilled us non-stop…”

436.1 unit 4 best pick

436.2 unit 4 best pick

436.3 unit 4 best pick

436.4 unit 4 best pick

436.5 unit 4 best pick

436.6 unit 4 best pick

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: On the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “…they’re at a loss what to do.”

436.7 unit 4 dry unit 3 dry

436.8 unit 4 dry unit 3 dry best

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: John Monninger on Unit 4 “…spent fuel pool…going through the floor…”

436.9 march 20th john monninger on unit 4

437 march 20th john monninger on unit 4 pt 2

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Brian McDermott on the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “…people are worrying that that stuff has maybe melted through that concrete floor.”

437.1 march 20th brian mcdermott on unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Marty Virgilio on Unit 4 spent fuel pool “…I don’t see how there could be possibly water left in there.”

437.2 march 20th virgilio on unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Dave Skeen on Unit 4 spent fuel pool “…we’ve never seen any, any kind of steam or vapor coming out of Unit 4.” 

437.3 march 20th never seen steam on uniit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 20th, 2011 from Yama-Yamaguchi and a stunning admission ”We will be closed  1F-1 to 1F-4 permanently” and “we should have more strong emergency redundant cooling system required for fule pool…”

437.4 march 20th yamaguchi-san fuel pelllets fall out unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from Brian Sheron, NRC’s Director of the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, in regards to some questions from Congressional staff. It appears as if someone was showing interest as to why the NRC decided the melted fuel rods would not ablate (burn through) through the concrete floor of the spent fuel pool.

438.8 sfp 4 melt on floor no ablation

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 21st, 2011 about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “the one that they’ve had trouble keeping covered”

438.9 march 21st keeping fuel rods covered unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: cover-page for March 23rd, 2011 teleconference calls…

439 march 23rd on unit 4 cover page

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 and TEPCO is trying another scheme in an attempt to get closer to the pool with a 50-meter boom truck… 

439.2 march 23rd concrete trucks pump scheme this late in the game

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC officials have problems with TEPCO’s thermal signature…

439.3 march 23rd on bogus thermal scans

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 water drops on spent fuel pool #4 continue with no change to external dose.

439.4 march 23rd chuck casto on unit 4 water drops

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC Officials discuss the ‘bounding analysis’ that includes 100% of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

439.5 march 23rd 100 percent release unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011…Robert Lewis, Director of NRC’s Office of Preparedness and Response, on a NARAC plume/dose model “It also includes I think a large fraction 100 percent of Unit 4 which we know has already had some release.”

439.6 march 23rd unit 4 has had some release

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011…NRC officials unable to take the Unit 4 spent fuel pool “off the table” as a source term (radioactive emission)

439.7 march 23rd unit 4 still a source term

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: seawater injection to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool from the 24th to 25th of March, 2011 causes “white smoke”.

443.7 march 25 white smoke unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from March 28th, 2011 calculations show that TEPCO is losing water in a 1 to 22 ratio in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4. Without leak a 44.60 inch increase in water height should have occurred after adding 125 tons of water. TEPCO numbers show a mere 2 inch rise in coolant height after adding 125 tons of water.

443.8 TEPCO numbers don't add up on sfp  unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a March 28th, 2011 email evidence that some were questioning an NRC technical opinion that criticality in the Unit 4 spent fuel pool (probably re-criticality at this point if you consider the evidence already put forth in this article) is unlikely based on the presence of “low density racks of borated stainless steel”. Note that the Unit 4 racks were not borated. Also note the reference to 204 fresh fuel assemblies and “fuel damage due to uncovery’.

444 march 28th sfp unit 4 uncovered damaged borated racks

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the effects of pumping seawater in a reactor or spent fuel pool after a meltdown…hot aqueous chloride would cause stress corrosion cracking of the stainless steel cladding and piping etc.

444.5 25th march CO in ocean saltwater aqueous chloride

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 29th, 2011 from an NRC brief…”…no access [to U-4] due to dose rates.” High dose rates=no repairs/countermeasures.

445 march 29 zeolite unit 4 dose rates

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: GE had “first hand observations” based on “eye-witness accounts” from the refueling floor of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool when the earthquake struck.

446.7 march 29th GE calculations on sfp 4 eyewitness

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 31st email indicating that a note about the Unit 4 SFP that was in an earlier report is now missing from an updated report…but was the “differing information about water levels” ever resolved?

447 march 31st missing from report unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: March 31st, 2011…an email that disputes then Chairman Gregory Jaczko’s statement to the ‘Deputies meeting’ that the Unit 4 spent fuel pool was full of water. Jaczko’s statement from the 30th of March, 2011, as indicated in this email, contradicts his own from March 15th, 2011.

447.1 march 31st missing from report unit 4

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 4th, 2011 email discussing the “junk-shot” that will patch “the Leak  at Fukushima”

447.5 junk shot unit 4 sfp

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an email from April 6th, 2011 in regards to a presentation for the “European Melcore User Group”…one of the key points “…there was a leak from the pool which depleted the water.”

447.7 evidence sfp 4 cracked water drained

448 evidence sfp 4 cracked water drained

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 6th, 2011 email…”Over the last few days, the makeup to the Unit 4 SFP has not been sufficient to offset TEPCO’s calculated losses from steaming.”

449 april 6th sfp 4 water losses not from steaming

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 6th, 2011…Unit 4 spent fuel pool cooling is “challenged” and integrity has “failed”.

452 april 6th chart status of alll units and 4 integrity failed complete

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 7th, 2011 ”ongoing activity” is “not intended to be shared with other stakeholders without Executive Team approval.” Note that as of April 7th, 2011 officials are still considering the sand and lead ‘slurry’ additive to the Unit 4 spent fuel pool as a possibility.

455 goop and slurry

456 goop and slurry

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 8th status update of Unit 4.

475 unit 4 status april 8th

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 12th email from Per Peterson from Berkeley.edu that disputes TEPCO’s temperature reading of the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

476 unit 4 boil off time elapsed for possibility

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: another email from Per Peterson from Berkeley.edu disputing TEPCO’s temperature levels of the unit 4 spent fuel pool and stating that “The evidence is beginning to accumulate that the water level on March 12 was already low…”

481 april 13th sfp 4 sloshing and temp pt 1

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: excellent questions that dispute more of TEPCO’s claims about the Unit 4 spent fuel pool.

482 sfp 4 sloshing and temp pt 2

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: an April 15th email in regards to the TEPCO claim that the spent fuel is undamaged and that “This is a more positive view than yesterday’s statement that damage occurred to some fuel rods.”

489 april 16 sfp 4 analysis flawed

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 16th status update of Unit 4.

490 april 16th unit 4 chart

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: a Monday April 18th, 2011 email in regards to TEPCO’s “Roadmap towards Restoration”…note comment number 4.

493 TEPCO roadmap

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 22nd status on Unit 4.

495 april 22nd sfp 4 graphic

 (below) From the NRC FOIA documents: April 28th…TEPCO, possibly the world’s worst flip-floppers, now admit publicly that a potential leak in the spent fuel pool of Unit 4 may exist.

500 april 28th TEPCO admits leak redacted

 (below) An excerpt from the Robert Alvarez Study titled ”Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Risks of Storage”. What you need to know about spent fuel pool fires… 

“In the summer of 2002, the Institute for Policy Studies helped organize a working group including experts from academia, the nuclear industry, former government officials, and non-profit research groups to perform in in-depth study of the vulnerabilities of spent power reactor fuel pools to terrorist attacks. By January 2003, our study was completed and accepted for publication in the peer-review journal Science and Global Security We warned that U.S. spent fuel pools were vulnerable to acts of terror. The drainage of a pool might cause a catastrophic radiation fire, which could render an area uninhabitable much greater than that created by the Chernobyl accident.

In addition to terrorist acts, there are several events could cause a loss of pool water, including leakage, evaporation, siphoning, pumping, aircraft impact, earthquake, the accidental or deliberate drop of a fuel transport cask, reactor failure, or an explosion inside or Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.: Reducing the Deadly Effects of Storage outside the pool building. Industry officials maintain that personnel would have sufficient time to provide an alternative cooling system before the spent fuel caught fire. But if the water level dropped to just a few feet above the spent fuel, the radiation doses in the pool building would be lethal — as was demonstrated by the loss of water in at least two spent fuel pools at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station.

The NRC and nuclear industry consultants disputed the paper, which prompted Congress to ask the National Academy of Sciences to sort out this controversy. In 2004, the Academy reported that U.S. pools were vulnerable to terrorist attack and to catastrophic fires. According the Academy:

“A loss-of-pool-coolant event resulting from damage or collapse of the pool could have severe consequences…It is not prudent to dismiss nuclear plants, including spent fuel storage facilities as undesirable targets for terrorists…under some conditions, a terrorist attack that partially or completely drained a spent fuel pool could lead to a propagating zirconium cladding fire and release large quantities of radioactive materials to the environment…Such fires would create thermal plumes that could potentially transport radioactive aerosols hundreds of miles downwind under appropriate atmospheric conditions.”

The NRC’s response to this was to attempt to block the release of the Academy’s report.”

(below) From the NRC ‘s NUREG-2157…”the NRC confirmed that the overall risks oassociated with these types of accidents remain low because the spent fuel pool loss-of-coolant event probability is low (NRC 2001)” and “…no new information has emerged that would cause the NRC to question the results of this study.”

700 NRC on sfp fires 2

(below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: causes of a spent fuel pool fire…

705 ML13224A106 NRC on sfp fires how they get started

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Gary Holahan, Deputy Director for the Office of New Reactors , makes a stunning admission in response to President Obama’s directive of the NRC to conduct a comprehensive review the domestic fleet of NPPs : “…we likely will need to re-visit the issue of non-seismically qualified SFPs [in the US]…of which I recall there are many.”

725 non seismically sfp close up

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: from a March 21st email on Fukushima Unit 4  “…the melt would be retained in the spent fuel pool.”

march 21st complete loss of inventory scenario

march 21st unit 4 melt scenario pt 2

(below) From the NRC’s NUREG-2157: decay times of less than 2 years (fuel rods that have cooled less than 2 years and are still hot) ”time-of-release” (time to release radiation) could be less than 10 hours. If the fuel rods have cooled longer than 2 years it could take longer than 10 hours…

NRC on sfp fires 6 time to fire if drained

 

Part 5

Appendix of other important findings from the NRC FOIA documents

Let’s talk about Potassium Iodine (KI). Our nuclear plants don’t stock it and we are told by NRC officials it’s not that big of a deal to have in the event of a nuclear accident. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s see how important KI is to have in an accident like Fukushima:

(below) From the NRC website: the revised rule requires that States consider including KI as a protective measure. Considering to NOT stock KI is not a violation. Confused yet?

 

325 NRC website on KI not required pair with 60 km plume map

 

(below) Former NRC Chairman Jaczko on KI: it is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Representative Markey’s response: “I just don’t think they [the states] have the expertise…”

 

332 jaczko KI pt 2

 

(below) FROM THE NRC FOIA documents: this is a measured (not modeled) plume map showing a cloud over 60 kilometers long from the 30th of March, 2011. Is the NRC being rational with it’s 10 mile recommendation for stocking KI? (to my knowledge, maps such as this have not been shared with US States.)

 

327 3.30.11 plumes ongoing

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: US States are denied the SitRep (situation report). How can US States make an informed decision about the use of KI when critical information is withheld from them by the NRC and other agencies?

 

330 how can states make informed decision on KI when info is withheld

 (below) From EPA.gov.

350 from epa.gov iodide PAG

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: please note the section underlined in red.

 

375 pg KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: again, please note the underlined and boxed sections in red.

 

385 CDC on KI in Japan

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the other side of the story…KI is a ‘must have’ during a meltdown.

 

400 KI distribute to military in japan

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: discussion of a world-wide ‘…run on potassium iodide…”

 

425 ML12268A073 question on KI

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the Japanese provide a list of needful things…one million doses of KI is on that list.

 

550 million doses KI to Japan

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: 1 million KI pills from ANBEX confirmed.

 

575 one million KI pills from ANBEX

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of KI being shipped to Japan.

600 shipping KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto: “There’s plenty of KI ..”

650 2nd navy doc KI doses

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: mass distribution of KI in Japan.

675 KI distribution in Tokyo

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: “Do you have any spare KI…?”

700 do you have spare KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Chuck Casto forgets his KI stash…

725 beg borrow or steal KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: pick up your KI at the health center before heading for Japan…

750 pick up your KI

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: KI and a dose meter…don’t leave for Japan without it.

800 KI and dosimeter

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: NRC team members were given KI before they left.

850 NRC team given KI (2)

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

There is evidence within the NRC FOIA documents that the US has many non-seismically qualified spent fuel pools and NPPs. Please watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS-289XalzM

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence of many non-seismically qualified Spent Fuel Pools in the US…

1 non seismically sfp close up

There is evidence within the NRC FOIA documents that show that NPPs on the East Coast and West Coast are not prepared Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRiqJDWx5N8

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: tsunami coincident with a seismic event not considered as possibility for US NPPs…

2 coincident not considered

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence US Nuclear Power Plants are not prepared for a coincident earthquake/tsunami and evidence that the NRC doesn’t know everything about the seismicity of the Continental Eastern United States (CEUS).

3 west coast earthquake tsunami admission

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 1 of a 2 part series): An email where NRC employees discuss former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu’s botched interview on CNN. Mr. Chu was asked if Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant could withstand a 9.0 earthquake. His response indicated it would not. This is a perfect example of why the NRC places such a high level of importance on talking points, questions and answers and the ever popular press release.

1 Chu on CNN

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 2 of a 2 part series): On Steven Chu’s bungled interview…Public Affairs Officer David McIntyre emails Eliot Brenner, the Director of the NRC’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA), and suggests that the Secretary of Energy should have lied during the CNN interview.   

1.5 Chu on CNN

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: the tsunami was about 46 feet in height.

14 meters tsunami 46 feet NRC email

 

There is evidence that TEPCO has been intentionally discharging radioactive water into the Pacific since March and April of 2011 and this evidence comes from the NRC FOIA documents. NRC has known this all along. Please watch this video on this important subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9SilFcYVg4

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: evidence that TEPCO intentionally discharged about 13,390 tons of ‘low-level’ radioactive water into the Pacific on April 10th, 2011.

20 waste processing facility discharge

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: further evidence of intentional discharge of contaminated water…

22 TEPCO seawater sampling

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: multiple discharges to the sea…one is ‘concentrated RW’.

30 april 15 discharge to sea

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO report from April 8th, 2011…more evidence of intentional discharge into the Pacific.

35 discharge into sea

 

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 1 of a 2 part series): An email to Former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu about the need for sampling levels of radioactivity in the Pacific Ocean near Fukushima. Concern over ‘political sensitivities’ is mentioned (remember that Plume-Gate occurred during Obama’s run for a 2nd term and that 99% of all sectors of media remained silent on the cover-up revealed in the NRC FOIA documents).

2 chu pacific testing

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents (part 2 of a 2 part series): On the heels of the Bechtel pump deal (see below), where the American taxpayer was bilked for 9.8 billion dollars, former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu shows concern over ‘who will pay’ for sampling of the Pacific Ocean for levels of radioactivity.

3 chu pacific testing

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: The folly of man. At the end of the day it all came down to the Bechtel pumps that had to be shipped from Perth, Australia. DOD paid the bill of 9.8 billion dollars. Discharge radioactive water into the pacific was unavoidable.

THE FOLLY OF MAN schematics bechtel pumps etc

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Cost of the Bechtel pumps starts down low…then starts to grow!

bechtel 3

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: payment on the Bechtel pumps confirmed.

bechtel 4

Plumes and Navy ships

I suggest to you that if Navy ships were moved in an effort to avoid radioactive plumes, they were not moved on the scale and to the degree they should have been. At the end of the day one simple fact remains: just as a warning of the radioactive plume and fallout to those living on the West Coast of the USA would have been a wake up call about the reality of nuclear power, moving Navy ships en masse would also have been an indication that the situation at Fukushima (and the situation with nuclear power in general) was much more grave than authorities had been leading the American public to believe.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: don’t run the worst-case scenario if you’re getting angst about moving Naval ships…

153-navy-ships-redo[3]

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Donald and Admiral Willard discuss radiation measurements taken aboard the USS George Washington.

223 nvy replace

224 nvy

225 nvy

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Admiral Willard: “…35 samples of airborne radioactivity…” and “…we had three other plumes go over us Tuesday and Wednesday.”

226 nvy

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘Forward trajectories’ starting March 12th, 2011. Please note that while this modeling was available to the NRC, it was not done by the NRC.

FOIA plume model 1

FOIA plume model 2

FOIA plume model 3

FOIA plume model 4

FOIA plume model

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Jaczko covering his ass.

jaczko on informing sailors even if levelsre deemed harmless

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: TEPCO measured plumes from late March, 2011.

tepco plume 2

tepco plume 3

 

Part 6 

References:

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment:http://www.strahlentelex.de/Yablokov%20Chernobyl%20book.pdf

Bobby1 Fatality Index Study: http://freepdfhosting.com/37cc0eae6b.pdf

Sherman/Mangano Fatality Index Study:http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

Sherman/Mangano elevated hypothyroidism on West Coast study:http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599

NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Japan: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/japan-foia-info.html

Link to NRC FOIA document on Unit 4 and the TEPCO video:http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1205/ML12052A108.pdf 

Part 7

About the author:

Tony Muga aka: Hatrick Penry is a 45 year old broadcaster, musician and published alternative media author hailing from Gainesville, Florida. He is best known for his work on Plume-Gate, the orchestrated cover-up by U.S. authorities of the radioactive plume and fallout from the Fukushima meltdowns. Find out more about Hatrick Penry and Plume-Gate at his website hatrickpenryunbound.com, his YouTube Channel, word press blog: ‘Uncovering Plume-Gate’ and BlogTalkRadio broadcast HatrickPenryUnbound.

Hatrick Penry also wishes to acknowledge Shazzamm and MB for their inspiration and dedication to exposing Plume-Gate. I love you guys!

Copyright 2013

(Special thanks to Shazzamm1971 for his role as an expert consultant)  

http://hatrickpenryunbound.com/?p=3683

Thanks to Aliasooze for the link.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
8192

2 Responses to Something Wicked This Way Comes: The story of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest, provable cover-up

  1. Steve Apple says:

    Hey All,

    THIS WAS POSTED ON THE DEBATE ARTICLE BY ALIASOOZE,I just hit the link read and forwarded to team Henry

    aliasooze says:

    December 18, 2013 at 6:11 am

    Something Wicked This Way Comes Fukushima
    http://hatrickpenryunbound.com/?p=3683
    There are many YouTube videos on the subject too.
    This website is mostly made up of FOIA documents. It’s hard to argue with documents.

    maybe the craig guy and his other sidekicks (the one that forbidS KNOWLEDGE)will quit their shill jobs and actually read some TRUTH

  2. aliasooze says:

    Thanks for posting this Steve. As depressing as it is I think people should know that Reactor 4’s pool probably went dry within the first week. At least they will know it’s BS every time they talk about removing the rods and how dangerous it is.
    Mr. Muga did a fabulous job of putting this information together, didn’t he?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *