ALEA IACTA EST. (THE DIE HAS BEEN CAST)

HAS THE DIE BEEN CAST? 

People need to be aware of what's happening with Fukushima Daiishi radiation disaster - that it is very likely worse than Chernobyl, and enough radiation may be entering the food chain at harmful levels in North America. This is according to certain sources, but are all the sources legitimate? It's tricky who and just what to believe.

Radioactive fallout from Fukushima was initially airborne as indicated by "low" levels of Iodine-131 present on the West Coast of North America, but the larger threat continues with the possible dumping of the radioactive fuel rod cooling pools into the Pacific Ocean.


A popular misconception is that irradiated water dilutes in the expanse of the Pacific Ocean, but radioactive isotopes DO NOT DILUTE in seawater, but instead are suspended in currents, then accumulate on coastlines, and remain in the soil for the duration of their half-lives, which range from a few days to near forever.  Although Tellurium -132 has a briefest half-life, presence of it indicates core damage at the very least, and core meltdown at the very worst. Below are the isotopes of importance with effects and half-life information.

• Cesium-137 accumulates in fatty tissues, liver, spleen and muscles. Half-life = 30.1 years.
• Iodine-131 accumulates in thyroid, breast and ovaries. Half-life = 8 days 
• Strontium-90 concentrates in your bones and liver. Half-life = 29 years
• Barium-140 causes bone tumors up to 30 years later. Half-life = 12.3 days
• Tellurium-132 causes cell mutations, repeatedly via replication. Half-life = 3 days
• Plutonium-244 concentrates in your liver. Half-life = 80 million years
• Uranium-234 causes kidney damage, accumulates in your bones and liver. Half life = 246,000 years

Reports are possibly being censored by corporate media and the feds for economic reasons. Why create a panic if "some" radiation poisoning is inevitable and "relatively" harmless? There were rumors of the EPA raising "safe" radiation levels for water, food and soil in 2011, but I find nothing else about it since. Studies and reports are out there by alternative and international media - just keep googling. 

Some links below:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2665

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034004/article#.UAOwv-agHY0

http://enenews.com/uranium-234-detected-hawaii-southern-california-seattle/comment-page-1

http://organicnewsnet.wordpress.com/tag/uranium-234-hawaii-california-and-washington/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24292

http://www.businessinsider.com/fukushima-children-have-abnormal-thyroid-growths-2012-7

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-japan-nuclear-tuna-idUSBRE84R0MF20120528

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/03/california-slammed-with-fukushima-radiation/

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/04/02/us-government-responds-to-fukushima-by-trying-to-raise-radiation-limits-epa-pulls-8-of-18-radiation-monitors-out-of-ca-or-and-wa/

http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2012/05/alert-barium-140-indications-of.html

Some "facts": 

• High levels of Uranium-234 in [organic] milk in Hawaii in April 2011.
• Cesium-137/134 reported at "trace" levels end of May 2012 in San Diego Bay
• Cesium-137/134 detected in prunes and almonds in California in early July 2012
• Iodine-131 measurements range from from "high" to "trace" levels in Anaheim, CA from fallout. 
• Indications of barium-140 could mean recriticality events at Fukushima as recent as late March or April.

This could be a nuclear disaster happening in a slower more insidious manner than the all out nuclear war people fear, but so far people just roll their eyes or get really upset when I post articles on Facebook. People just don't want to give up their sushi!

The die has been cast. Alea iacta est.

THOUGHTS OF THE DAY

I'M BACK! Last few times I tried I could not get into my own blog to add a new post. Seems Blogger changed things a bit, but I've focussed enough to figure it out.

After commenting on Weather Underground blog about the continuing saga of whether climate change exists, and furthermore, if it's anthropogenic in part or whole, I decided to go back and try to update my own blog again. I do often chicken out when adding comments to blogs, which means editing out, so that's why I need to keep this blog going--to include what I often edit out of other blogs, not wishing to seem like a troll.


TO CATCH UP ON MY THOUGHTS OF LATE:
I recently heard on one of the news channels about the need for a strong, viable 3rd party. Some miss the likes of Ralph Nader (or even Ross Perot). As a strong proponent of this idea I finally arrived at a name for this party. I propose to name it the Gray Party to achieve some balance between the polarizing black and white tactics of the two main parties. It will be the party of the middle man, the middle class, the middle road. The color will be purple (red+blue) and the totem is a phoenix. So who would be the candidate? Al Gore, please raise your hand? Bill Mahr? Rachel Maddow? Charlie Rose? James Carville? I can think of many thinker-celebs that would probably be a great fit for being a candidate in 2014 (Sorry, Hilary I know you won't likely change parties...)
Then I remembered there are no longer limits to how much money corporations, etc. can donate to a campaign. So who could handle that as a third party candidate, who could even afford to run? Still, I remain optimistic and idealistic. DARE TO DREAM!

THE IRONY. After the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act it was eye-rollingly ironic to watch Romney talk about repealing "Obamacare" when much of it was based on "Romneycare" which Romney himself championed when he was governor of Massachusetts. 
I think people in general are very confused about what is true/false and right/wrong these days. There is so much spin, propaganda and obsfucation going on and not enough calling out the liars. Would not surprise me at all if some people actually vote for the GOP candidates just because they are "the right". 


THE SPIN. Let's spin on the many definitions of "right" in the following sentence: 

Having the right to make a profit does not necessarily make the means of obtaining that profit right, but this freedom is often a righteous opinion of the right.

CHANGED ENVIROMENT + HUMAN MUTATION = FUTURE ADAPTATION?

What is the possibility that certain mutations such as autism or schizophrenia could be successful adaptations to a future environment, where those individuals would then have the edge on survival?

I watched a homeless person in a grocery store having a nice conversation with himself when this thought arrived. I look around and see people everywhere so comfortable with structure and wonder...what if most of today's "normals" generally, would not have the survival skills necessary to adapt successfully in the face of sudden environmental change? 

If it our current structure was obliterated by the effects climate change or war, then what traits would become more useful? The traits of the CEO or the transient? I think the transient folks would certainly have an edge with skills for living with less. These traits which now may keep such people on the fringe of society, may be beneficial and highly successful in a different societal environment.

Autistic individuals, with many being savants and brilliant in their isolation, would possibly thrive in a world with less "noise" and social interaction. With no experience with autistic children, this is total speculation, but have these questions been asked? What is non-adaptive now, may be beneficial in a changed environment, and possibly this is why the mutation is occurring now in 1 of 88 births.

Mental or cognitive "illness" may just be a matter of context. Both examples above may be highly adaptable by the changes brought about by a complete breakdown of technology and change of environment.

OUR PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO PRESERVE OUR SECULAR TRADITION

Religious conservatives see an escalating war with the Obama White House. One Catholic bishop called it "the most secularist administration in history." Quote from, Has Obama Waged A War On Religion? by BARBARA BRADLEY HAGERTY (NPR website, 1.8.2012)
In my reasoned opinion, Obama is not attempting to limit religious freedom. He is protecting our right for freedom of ALL choices (religion being one of them) against legislation that seeks to impose "moral" doctrines with revisions to the US Constitution. Religious conservatives are attempting to use disinformation and propaganda to politicize and obfuscate historical facts. 


FACT: The Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are both secular documents. 


The most secularist administrations were the first five: Washington (an Independent), Adams (Federalist), and Jefferson, Madison, Monroe (all Democrat-Republican party) as they INVENTED it. Most of our Founding Fathers were deeply religious (and many were ministers) and they saw the wisdom of the separation of church and state because of history. 


Now conservative evangelistic politicians (Catholics included) are attempting to reform our separation of church and state much same way Islamic fundamentalist extremists like the Ayatollah Khomieni did in Iran in 1979. Obama is protecting our secularist tradition from the current radical fundamentalism of the Christian Right.


Obama is protecting our freedoms and our secular tradition which provides civil liberties for ALL and preserves choice and offers options for those choices. One does not have to choose use contraception, but our constitution guarantees we can choose to, or not. 


While our president and like-minded lawmakers maintain the separation of church and state in a growing atmosphere of religious extremism, unfortunately, the conservative religious right tries to label Obama as an Islamist, or unpatriotic, or a socialist, all of which he plainly is not. It is all propaganda and fear tactics of political and fundamentalist zealots.


Click below to read the article:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion