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

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
cpkj's picture
cpkj
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 14 2009
Posts: 26
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

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
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.

 

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
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.

 

John99's picture
John99
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 27 2009
Posts: 490
Thanks cpkj

Thanks cpkj

rocketgirl1's picture
rocketgirl1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 230
jumblies wrote: I'd not
jumblies wrote:

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.

 

"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.

zorfster's picture
zorfster
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 6 2011
Posts: 2
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.

rocketgirl1's picture
rocketgirl1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 230
      jumblies wrote: I'm

 

 

 

jumblies wrote:

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.

 

 

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).

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
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.

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/

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
zorfster wrote: I haven't
zorfster wrote:

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

rocketgirl1's picture
rocketgirl1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 230
I was hoping Dogs would show

I was hoping Dogs would show up.  Thanks Dogs :D

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
"government body or

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

I don't know where you got the ivy league thing from, certainly not me. But clearly I've either not made myself clear or you've misunderstood so let me clarify my position.

What I was saying is that if you are going to put yourself into the public eye and voice your expert opinion, I (me) would expect that you are qualified to speak in the relevant field, you can speak clearly and confidently about the topic and that there is some evidence that you hold the respect of your peers. This latter point I would expect to follow on from the former such that other experts bestow respect, and thus credibility, because they know that you know what you're talking about. If not they'd call you out as a charlatan. This respect can be manifested in a variety of ways such as positions of importance in government (ie. you provide expertise, you are accountable, you are not a politician), a position of influence at a university (eg. professor and not necessarily at ivy league) or you've earned respectable awards (but not the Nobel Peace Prize, not anymore).

Consider these folks...

Brian Cox is a Professor of Physics at Manchester University (not ivy league). He has also presented numerous programs about astronomy, the cosmos and how the universe came to be. When you listen to him he clearly knows what he's talking about. He's qualified, has gained the respect of his peers (eg. through various awards) and speaks authoritatively.

Lord Robert Winston is a Professor of medicine, a TV presenter, a labour MP and holds numerous Fellowships. Again, when you listen to him he clearly knows what he's talking about. He's eminently qualified, has gained the respect of his peers in academia, medicine and politics. He also speaks authoritatively.

Albert Barlett is a Professor of Nuclear Physics at the University of Colorado (not ivy league). Aside from his professional background, it was his Exponential Function lecture that started opened my eyes, got me interested in world politics, finance and planning for the future. He also clearly knows what he's talking about and has the respect of his peers.

Chris Martenson got his Doctorate in Neurotoxicology at Duke University, holds an MBA from Cornell University (ivy league). He's held a couple of VP positions at Pfizer and now helps us prepare for the forthcoming collapse.

So the above people above have what I would expect from someone speaking as an expert. HOWEVER...just because someone has qualifications and earned the respect of their peers, that doesn't mean they should be trusted. The first 3 aren't from an ivy league university yet they are clearly experts. ChrisM got his MBA from an ivy league university yet we don't discount him.

Consider these folks...

Alan Greenspan earned his degree and masters in economics at New York University (not ivy league) before ending up as Fed chairman, advocate of de-regulation, arrogant bastard and destructor of the US economy. He was qualified and earned the respect of his peers. Of course, many of those peers were criminals.

Ben Bernanke was a Professor at Princeton University (ivy league) before he took over as Fed chairman and desctructor of the US economy. He is qualified, has earned the respect of his criminal peers, talks a good talk but I don't believe a word he says.

Of course, I single out these 2 as they're topical but there are many scumbags who are qualified, talk with authority and have the respect of their peers. One is an ivy leaguer, the other isn't and yet both guys have lost their way (intentionally or otherwise). Ivy league isn't an indication of being better than other nor worse (check out Malcom Galdwells book Outliers).

Anyway, what I expect is that the expert has these things but I also apply some common sense. Do I believe them? Does what they say make sense? What are other people saying about them?

Cut to Leuren's interview...in my opinion she does not speak with the authority (clarity and confidence) I would expect from an expert. She babbles. She forgot what she was saying halfway through an answer and has to ask for the question again. She isn't a qualified nuclear physist (or nuclear anything) and I can find no evidence that she held any position such as a Professorship nor any respectable awards etc.

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

That's cool. I respectfully respect that you respectfully disagree with my expectation. Hopefully I've at least made my position/opinion clearer. Good grief, we may even end up on the same page!

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments