Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Leuren Moret – Coverup – California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan

Login or register to post comments Last Post 11949 reads   11 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 11 total)
  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 01:41pm

    #1
    cpkj

    cpkj

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 14 2009

    Posts: 9

    count placeholder

    Leuren Moret – Coverup – California Northwest USA BC Canada under radiation threat as high as Japan

Is this credible?  I tried searching this leuren Moret to see how credible she is, not much found.

http://vimeo.com/22003021

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 02:59pm

    #2
    jumblies

    jumblies

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 13 2010

    Posts: 120

    count placeholder

    I’d not heard of her but a

I’d not heard of her but a little poking around suggests her ideas are pretty “out there”.

http://www.whale.to/a/moret_h.html

Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who has worked around the world on radiation issues, educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after experiencing major science fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. An environmental commissioner in the City of Berkeley

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/2010/03/leuren-moret-biography-independent-scientist-expert-witness-at-the-tokyo-international-tribunal-for-war-crimes-in-afghanist.html

Leuren Moret was an Expert Witness at the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At Tokyo.  She is an independent scientist and international expert on radiation and public health issues. She is on the organizing committee of the World Committee on Radiation Risk, an organization of independent radiation specialists, including members of the Radiation Committee in the EU parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk.  She has been an environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley. Ms. Moret earned her BS in geology at U.C. Davis in 1968 and her MA in Near Eastern studies from U.C. Berkeley in 1978.  She has completed all but her dissertation for a PhD in the geosciences at U.C. Davis.

It bugs me when people are called things like an “international expert on radiation” because that’s really someone stating an opinion. If they were a reknowned expert then you’d simply mention the government or university bodies of which they are chairs/professors etc. And international? I mean, are they going to say she’s a radiation expert but only in Basildon?

http://truth11.com/2011/03/24/haarp-japan-scientist-leuren-moret-japan-earthquake-and-nuclear-%E2%80%9Caccident%E2%80%9D-are-tectonic-nuclear-warfare-video-japan-not-natural-earthquake-initiated-by-external-energy/

…declared in an exclusive 65-minute video interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre that the “Japan earthquake and “accidents” at the Fukushima’s 6 nuclear power plant units starting March 11, 2011 are in fact deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare, carried out against the populations ecology of Japan and the nations of the Northern Hemisphere, including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico

I don’t know if this is possible or not, but even trying to use earthquakes as a weapon seems a bit of a stretch, even for the US military.

 

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 03:18pm

    #3
    jumblies

    jumblies

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 13 2010

    Posts: 120

    count placeholder

    I’m about halfway through

I’m about halfway through the video interview and whilst i cannot comment on the accuracy of what she’s saying (i’m not an international expert on radiation), she comes across to me as someone who has some knowledge but doesn’t have the breadth/depth of experience that I would expect from someone who I would take seriously. I may be being unfair, but she just seems somewhat scattergun with her analysis and predictions of the global impact.

And I wish she’d stop dangling that spikey model infront of the camera.

 

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 08:00pm

    #4
    John99

    John99

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 27 2009

    Posts: 146

    count placeholder

    Thanks cpkj

Thanks cpkj

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 10:40pm

    #5
    rocketgirl1

    rocketgirl1

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 23

    count placeholder

    jumblies wrote:I’d not

[quote=jumblies]

I’d not heard of her but a little poking around suggests her ideas are pretty “out there”.

http://www.whale.to/a/moret_h.html

Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who has worked around the world on radiation issues, educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after experiencing major science fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. An environmental commissioner in the City of Berkeley

http://exopolitics.blogs.com/peaceinspace/2010/03/leuren-moret-biography-independent-scientist-expert-witness-at-the-tokyo-international-tribunal-for-war-crimes-in-afghanist.html

Leuren Moret was an Expert Witness at the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan At Tokyo.  She is an independent scientist and international expert on radiation and public health issues. She is on the organizing committee of the World Committee on Radiation Risk, an organization of independent radiation specialists, including members of the Radiation Committee in the EU parliament, the European Committee on Radiation Risk.  She has been an environmental commissioner for the City of Berkeley. Ms. Moret earned her BS in geology at U.C. Davis in 1968 and her MA in Near Eastern studies from U.C. Berkeley in 1978.  She has completed all but her dissertation for a PhD in the geosciences at U.C. Davis.

It bugs me when people are called things like an “international expert on radiation” because that’s really someone stating an opinion. If they were a reknowned expert then you’d simply mention the government or university bodies of which they are chairs/professors etc. And international? I mean, are they going to say she’s a radiation expert but only in Basildon?

http://truth11.com/2011/03/24/haarp-japan-scientist-leuren-moret-japan-earthquake-and-nuclear-%E2%80%9Caccident%E2%80%9D-are-tectonic-nuclear-warfare-video-japan-not-natural-earthquake-initiated-by-external-energy/

…declared in an exclusive 65-minute video interview with Alfred Lambremont Webre that the “Japan earthquake and “accidents” at the Fukushima’s 6 nuclear power plant units starting March 11, 2011 are in fact deliberate acts of tectonic nuclear warfare, carried out against the populations ecology of Japan and the nations of the Northern Hemisphere, including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico

I don’t know if this is possible or not, but even trying to use earthquakes as a weapon seems a bit of a stretch, even for the US military.

 

[/quote]

“government body or university”???  Even our very own Chris Martenson states his personal opinion about so called Ivy League Universities.

Here’s an excerpt from CM’s page….Once I figured out that most of the (so-called) better colleges place “effective teacher” pretty much near the bottom of their list of characteristics that factor into tenure review, I switched gears, obtained an MBA from Cornell (in Finance),………….

I mention this because of your inference that a “reknowned expert” should automaticly be from a “government body or university”.  Maybe for the “reknowned” part but certainly not the “expert” part.

It “bugs me” when people think that in order to be credible that you have to be a .gov or university chairs/professor . I say this somewhat jokingly as I don’t want to come off as offensive.

Why is it Universities and .gov have ignored the issues of The Three E’s? CM is not renowned and yet his research is certainly “expert” enough for me.

I’m not inferring that Ms Moret is credible in any way.   I haven’t even read the link yet.

Again, trying to be respectful here, I respectfully disagree with your above assertion.

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 10:57pm

    #6
    zorfster

    zorfster

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 06 2011

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder

    Radiation or radioactivity?

I haven’t watched the video yet, and I’m new to the forum, so I don’t want to step on any toes, but one thing I find consistently shocking in the reporting of the Japanese fiasco/tragedy is the conflation of “radiation” and “radioactivity”.  Whenever a cheerleader for nuclear power comes out, the first point is usually that we all get plenty of background radiation every day, and that measured levels of radiation outside the disaster zone are within or below natural bounds.  The old chestnut of cosmic ray radiation when you’re on a plane, etc.  Radioactivity is a totally different matter.  Radioactivity can destroy or bond with DNA, radiation not so much.  A given amount of radiation is not equivalent to a comparable quantity of radioactivity, so when background radiation levels or similar levels in seawater are quoted as proof that there is no problem, reach for the remote.

The issue in Japan and therefore globally is the radioactivity coming from the site.  The honest answer is we don’t know what these levels of radioactivity do to us because we’ve never exposed humans to radioactivity under controlled circumstances in order to find out.  They found radioactive particles in Oxfordshire, 6000 miles from Fukushima.  The BBC was keen to point out that radiation is a natural phenomenon.  In my opinion, if radioactive particles are blowing over your garden, you have a problem.

If you want a very good rundown on the fundamental insanity of nuclear power, check out a documentary called “Into Eternity”.  It’s about the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility in Finland.  Mind-boggling stuff.

  • Wed, Apr 06, 2011 - 11:05pm

    #7
    rocketgirl1

    rocketgirl1

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 23

    count placeholder

         jumblies wrote: I’m

 

 

 

[quote=jumblies]

I’m about halfway through the video interview and whilst i cannot comment on the accuracy of what she’s saying (i’m not an international expert on radiation), she comes across to me as someone who has some knowledge but doesn’t have the breadth/depth of experience that I would expect from someone who I would take seriously. I may be being unfair, but she just seems somewhat scattergun with her analysis and predictions of the global impact.

And I wish she’d stop dangling that spikey model infront of the camera.

 

[/quote]

 

I agree and the spikey model was very annoying.  She even forgot one of the questions after she rambled for a bit (happens to me all too often, admittedly).

  • Thu, Apr 07, 2011 - 01:50am

    #8
    SteveW

    SteveW

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 21 2010

    Posts: 140

    count placeholder

    All I need to know

[quote]The radiation effect of this false flag global radiation war intensified this week as radiation maps produced by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) now confirm that the Midwest of the United States, all of California, the states of Oregon and Washington and the western part of Canada are under a radiation threat with radiation levels as high as that in Japan in areas adjacent to the six units of the Fukushima nuclear power plant that started in melt-down on March 11, 2011.[/quote]

This from the website completely turned me off from viewing the video. The “false flag” and “radiation levels as high as that in Japan in areas adjacent to the six units of the Fukushima nuclear power plant” indicated that this was an outright lie.

Any real problems should show up here:

http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

 

  • Thu, Apr 07, 2011 - 02:34am

    #9

    Dogs_In_A_Pile

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 04 2009

    Posts: 810

    count placeholder

    zorfster wrote:I haven’t

[quote=zorfster]

I haven’t watched the video yet, and I’m new to the forum, so I don’t want to step on any toes, but one thing I find consistently shocking in the reporting of the Japanese fiasco/tragedy is the conflation of “radiation” and “radioactivity”.  Whenever a cheerleader for nuclear power comes out, the first point is usually that we all get plenty of background radiation every day, and that measured levels of radiation outside the disaster zone are within or below natural bounds.  

[/quote]

Cheerleader or otherwise, it’s true.  We all get radiation exposure everyday.  Pack a day smokers pull down around 5 Rem per year.  People living in Denver or Boulder, CO receive about 1 Rem (10milliSieverts) per year, primarily gamma.  Pack a day smokers in Denver or Boulder are just plain dumb.  Laughing

Radiation drops off as an inverse square function.  Eventually, even the highest levels measured at Fukushima will drop off to be indistinguishable from background levels.  And it’s not as far as you think.

[quote]

The old chestnut of cosmic ray radiation when you’re on a plane, etc.  Radioactivity is a totally different matter.  Radioactivity can destroy or bond with DNA, radiation not so much.  A given amount of radiation is not equivalent to a comparable quantity of radioactivity, so when background radiation levels or similar levels in seawater are quoted as proof that there is no problem, reach for the remote.

[/quote]

Huh?  A given amount of radiation is and absolute measurement of an isotope’s ‘radioactivity’.  Radioactivity is a noun, and is the state, property, or process of being radioactive.  Also defined as the radiation, including alpha particles, nucleons, electrons, and gamma rays, emitted by a radioactive substance. 

I’m not sure what you mean when you say radioactivity can “bond with DNA, radiation not so much”?  Alpha, beta, gamma or neutron radiation absolutely interacts with cells.  Because the size of each particle is different, and the energy levels are different, the relative effects are different for each of the types of radiation.  Neutron radiation is particularly damaging because it is a large, high energy particle, it’s not easily shielded and it tears up whatever it hits.  Alphas are also very large – an alpha is a helium nucleus (4He2) and can do a lot of damage if the source radionuclide is deposited internally.  However, since the alpha is so large, it is attenuated quickly if external to the body.  An alpha is easily shielded by a sheet of paper or the layer of dead skin.  Beta particles can be either negatively or positively charged and can penetrate further into tissue where they can cause damage.  Gammas are essentially pure energy and are very penetrating.

From a biological effects standpoint, four things can happen when a living cell is exposed to radiation.

1.  Nothing.  The particle passes through the tissue and doesn’t interact with the cell.

2.  The injured or damaged cell repairs itself with no residual effects.

3.  The cells dies and is replaced through normal biological processes with no residual effects.

4.  Damaged cells repair themselves incorrectly resulting in a biophysical change.  This damage can then be replicated as the cell’s new “normal”.

The severity and impact of the above damage mechanisms vary with the dose level.  Generally speaking, high radiation doses (>50 Rem) tend to kill cells, while low doses (<10 Rem) tend to damage or alter the genetic code (DNA) of irradiated cells.  High doses can kill so many cells that tissues and organs are damaged immediately.  500 Rem delivered acutely, in minutes or a few hours, is known as LD50/30.  It is lethal for 50% of those receiveing that dose and they will be dead within 30 days, even with prompt medical attention.  5000 rem delivered acutely is instantaneously incapacitating and always fatal. 

The challenge with the lower dose levels, is that it is difficult to unequivocally attribute a cancer that develops later in life to a dose received in earlier years since there are many other carcinogens people are exposed to during their lifetime.  Suffice it to say, any radiation exposure poses a risk of causing cancer or genetic hereditary effects.

[quote]

The issue in Japan and therefore globally is the radioactivity coming from the site.  The honest answer is we don’t know what these levels of radioactivity do to us because we’ve never exposed humans to radioactivity under controlled circumstances in order to find out.  They found radioactive particles in Oxfordshire, 6000 miles from Fukushima.  The BBC was keen to point out that radiation is a natural phenomenon.  In my opinion, if radioactive particles are blowing over your garden, you have a problem.

[/quote]

Sort of.  The issue in Japan is a dual headed threat.  There is the whole body exposure concern from general radiation levels and there is also the concern with the release and dispersal of radioactive contaminants.  The issue for the rest of the world is the spread of radioactive contamination.  Radioactive material from Japan has been released and distributed via wind and weather.  Cesium-137, Iodine-131 and Tellurium-129 were detected here in SE Virginia 13 days after the accident so it is being distributed.  The simple fact is that the levels detected (so far) have been very low.  The fact that they are blowing over your garden isn’t necessarily a problem.

[quote]

If you want a very good rundown on the fundamental insanity of nuclear power, check out a documentary called “Into Eternity”.  It’s about the construction of a nuclear waste storage facility in Finland.  Mind-boggling stuff.

[/quote]

Q:  What do you call a cheerleader for the other team?

A:  A cheerleader.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and position regarding nuclear power and I’m not here to try and change your mind.  What I will do is provide facts and personal experience so you and others can make an informed decision.

  • Thu, Apr 07, 2011 - 12:35pm

    #10
    rocketgirl1

    rocketgirl1

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 11 2009

    Posts: 23

    count placeholder

    I was hoping Dogs would show

I was hoping Dogs would show up.  Thanks Dogs 😀

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 11 total)

Login or Register to post comments