As Int'l Fukushima Truths and realities leak through gag orders on media, disinfo, lies and propaganda flow out of Obama camps to COVER THEIR ASS.

The same holds truefor Pilgrim nuclear power plant on Cape Cod, Indian Point less than 25 miles from midtown Manhattan, and countless other nuclear sites around the country. In an emergency, despite the false assurances of the NRC and the local nuclear utility, there’s no reliable way out. 

MISTAKE #3:

You don’t recognize the misdirection of “Nuclear Spin-Speak.” The nuclear industry uses a wide array of languaging tricks to keep the public and even reporters from noticing how naked that “little man behind the curtain” really is. You’ll find manipulative language in virtually every pronouncement sent out by the nuclear industry’s well-paid, full time media and PR teams. Keep these languaging insights in mind whenever you listen to or read news dealing with nuclear issues… and especially if you report on them:

• “Significant” – Any time a problem with a nuclear facility is reported, the word“significant” is inserted with a negative in front of it, as in, “No significant radiation leak” or “No significant danger.” But that’s not the same as no radiation leak or no danger. According to both Physicians for Social Responsibility and the government’s own Biological Effect of Ionizing Radiation report (BEIR II)2

, there is no level of radiation below which exposure is safe. Effects are lifelong and cumulative, meaning there is no such thing as an “insignificant” dose.

- Negative + Significant” is a word combo meant to deflect fear and discourage closer examination of what’s being reported. (At a public hearing with the NRC on San Onofre, when I asked for a number or percentage that differentiates“significant” from “not significant,” no one could give me an answer.)

• “Immediate” or “Imminent,” as in “No immediate danger to health or safety,” or the recently instituted “No imminent danger.” Literally speaking, both words are correct.

Unless one is exposed to a catastrophic level of radiation, the effects take time to show up – years, even decades.

So unless one is a first responder at a nuclear disaster, like Chernobyl liquidators or one of the brave Fukushima Fifty, who worked through early days of the TEPCO triple melt-down despite deadly levels of radiation exposure, health problems probably won’t show up for years –not “immediately” or “imminently.”

But health problems will show up over time. In our ADHD society, deploying the words “immediate” or “imminent“ 

[2] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X

• Diminishing adjectives-- Whenever a problem shows up at a nuclear facility, the nuclear industry PR machine immediately lessensits perceived importance by the use of such adjectives as “small,” “tiny,” “brief,” “inconsequential,” etc.

For example, my local NPR station repeatedly referred to San Onofre’s radiation leak on January 31, 2012 as “tiny” – the exact word used in Southern California Edison’s press releases.

But because of radiation concerns, NO leak of ANY size at a nuclear reactor can be considered benign. Indeed, that “tiny” leak ultimately helped indicate design flaws in two new steam generators that led to the permanent shut-down of both reactors on June 7, 2013.

So any time you hear word of a nuclear accident or leak preceded by the adjective “tiny,” “small” or any of their kin, be skeptical of its use and, when in doubt, focus on the noun: “leak” or “accident.” 

• “Nuclear Oversight” – This term for the protection we assume the NRC provides cuts two ways because the word “oversight” has two completely opposite meanings:

o Overseeing – the action of supervising, watching over, directing or supervising;

o Overlooking – an unintentional failure to notice or do something.This canny choice of wording (someone’s intentional linguistic joke?) works whether one believes that the NRC (or IAEA, UNSCEAR, NRA, NEI, et al) is doing a good job or an incompetent job of “protecting people and the environment.”

• NRC Level Notifications – These are the labels attached to problems at a nuclear facility to make the public and the media aware that Houston, there is a problem. There are four levels, but the first two are the ones that are used – and gamed –most often:

o “Unusual Event” – A Level 1 accident at a nuclear facility is officially labeled by the NRC as an “Unusual Event.” Yet a brief review of the NRC’s accident logs clearly demonstrate that there is nothing more usual than an NRC “unusual event,” as they happen just about every week.

 This wording choice make sit seem in the reader’s/listener’s mind that“nothing important has happened, don’t worry your pretty little head about it, step away from this notification of a nuclear problem.”

In truth, every accident at a nuclear facility deserves to be cause for alarm, because of the life-threatening nature of the materials involved and the potential for things getting worse very, very quickly.

o “Alert” – A Level 2 accident at a nuclear facility, which is always described by the NRC as “The second least serious of four nuclear plant emergency classifications assigned by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” It could also be referred to as “The third most serious of four nuclear emergency classifications.”

A more neutral phrase would be, “An Alert is the second in increasing significance of four emergency classifications.”

Any time the NRC admits to a:

 Level 3 “Site Area Emergency”

    or

 Level 4 “General Emergency,”

BE ADVISED to assume something catastrophic has happened or is happening, and take appropriate protective measures. [and that your local depatrment of health and local news outlets should be all over it. If not,ASK WHY ?

• Fukushima Language Manipulation – One misdirecting phrase used repeatedly by major news sources in connection with Fukushima is, "The worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl." The truth is that Fukushima is the worst nuclear disaster ever… and it's not over yet, as recent news has shown.

Three nuclear reactors in meltdown. No verifiable information on the current location of the melted fuel rods, known as corium, which continue to "China Syndrome" towards the ground water.

Radioactivity so high Unit 2 cannot be entered and decommissioning will require special robotics, as humans won't be able to withstand the bombardment.

Decades of spent fuel pool perched atop the fragile remains of Unit 4, putting an estimated 14,000 Hiroshima atom bombs-worth of radioactive materials at risk.

- [ Air and Sea Emmisions per hour at 2.5 years later are now  measureing at 10 Hiroshima bombs per HOUR , and have done for every day since March11, 2011.....and from your media outlets and newspapers?  crickets ] ]

TEPCO now admits that radioactive water has been leaking continuously since March 11, 2011. This radioactive water has breached the harbor built to contain it and is pouring directly into the Pacific, at same or higher levels of radiation as mmediately after the accident, at a rate of 72,000 gallons per day. [that is over 300 tonnes]

This leads directly to the use of the word “leak” in connection with Fukushima. A “leak” implies a small hole in an intact structure, which just has to be plugged to solve the problem.

With water surging out at a rate of more than 300 tons per day – all of it contaminated with radiation – “leak” is an inappropriate noun that diminishes the seriousness of the situation.

“Decommissioning” Fukushima – “Decommissioning” implies that an intact nuclear reactor is being dismantled – a far more complex, costly and timeconsuming process than we’ve been lead to believe, as residents around southern California’s now defunct San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are learning the hard way.

But Fukushima is a destroyed wreck of a nuclear reactor complex, not an intact structure. This facility cannot be “decommissioned.”

What can be done to contain and mitigate its dangers deserves to be the subject of an international intervention of the world’s top scientists and engineers… something that has yet to take place.

‘Radiation releases too low to have any impact on human health‘ — As regards this oft-cited reassurance that whatever radiation has been released into the atmosphere is too small to harm us, according to the U.S. Government’s BEIR VII Report (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation), there is no level of radiation exposure that is safe.[3]

Radiation exposure is cumulative throughout one’s lifetime and there is no threshold below which exposure is without risk of eventual harm. 

MISTAKE #4:

You Fail to Recognize or Follow Up on Nuclear Stories With all the internal pressures of running a newsroom, it’s easy to miss any nuclear story that isn’t currently making a lot of noise.

 Yet the story never goes away because the dangers continue to exist, year after year, with ever more verifiable statistics to back them up.

Special reports,investigative series, periodic features –periodically checking your local nuclear facility can

yield award-worthy mater ial for the news operation that covers the story and gets it right. 

So how many of these nuclear stories have you been following:

http://fukushima-diary.com/

http://nuclear-news.net/

https://www.youtube.com/user/MsMilkytheclown

http://enenews.com/

http://www.fukushimafacts.com/Default.aspx?PID=43&T=Radiation%20News

http://rt.com/trends/fukushima-nuclear-disaster/?gclid=CJaY7dSQtaoCFUYmpAod_22I4w

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Ffukushima-radioactivity.jp%2F

http://www.enviroreporter.com/

http://optimalprediction.com/wp/

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radstds/radstdshome.htm

And this was the Obama administration  official response  and the concerms from peers reviews of it:

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radstds/concernswithpagsandncrp2013.pdf

http://www.ncrponline.org/Docs_in_Review/NCRPM1302.pdf

http://www.nirs.org/radiation/radstds/10312011epapres.pdf

http://www.einstein.yu.edu/administration/environmental-health-safety/radiation-safety/

http://www.einstein.yu.edu/docs/administration/environmental-health-safety/radiation-safety/radiation-safety-manual-2011.pdf

• Cancer rate increases within 10 miles of nuclear reactors – especially leukemia rates in children. Have you checked your local statistics lately?

• Lack of Security at Nuclear Facilities – an 83-year-old Buddhist nun and two elderly “accomplices” breached security at the Savannah River Site to stage a (fortunately peaceful) protest.

A woman who might have been drunk drove into secure areas at the same location. High-security nuclear facilities regularly fail planned tests of security. Might your local power reactors be one of them?

• Thyroid Cancer Rates at Three Mile Island – While it’s “common knowledge” that “nobody died at Three Mile Island,” a recent analysis of statistics from the EPA and CDC show that the highest thyroid cancer rates in the country are recorded within 50 miles of the nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island.[4]

Who’s downwind of your neighborhood nuclear power facility… and what might the invisible impact of its releases be on the local community?

• WHO/IAEA – Since signing an agreement in 1959, the World Health Organization is not allowed to release any information relating to radiation and health without the approval of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has as part of its mandate the promotion of the (peaceful) use of nuclear power. This entirely subordinates the WHO in its position on the health consequences of nuclear activities, removing it as a reliable, unbiased “expert source.” 

[3] http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X

[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22565486

Where have you been citing WHO statistics to reassure your audience and what have you done to find credentialed experts who can counter their claims?

• Food chain safety - The United States allows 12 times more radiation in food than Japan. Thus food that is illegal to sell in Japan is not only legal to export to the U.S., but requires no special inspection, testing or labeling. Independent tests have already discovered radiation in west coast Bluefin tuna, seaweed, organic milk, produce including spinach, prunes, pistachio nuts and others. [And thanks to the Clinton led State Dept. long term Trade agreements have  since 3/11  been introducing contaminated foods into the American food supplies. 

Neither the EPA nor the FDA tests for radiation in food. Are you located in an agricultural community? Are your local farmers aware of the risks… or the steps they could take to help protect their crops and livestock? 

[for education and supplies for croplands,watersheds, ponds, gardens, livestock, herds and pets try www.midamericalandrestore.com ]

• Radiation-related illnesses in U.S. Sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan – The USS Ronald Reagan was sent to Fukushima on an humanitarian mission in the immediate aftermath of the 3/11 nuclear disaster. Neither the naval personnel nor Marines were adequately informed of the risks of exposure nor given appropriate gear to protect themselves against radiation.

In the wake of this exposure, many have developed severe illnesses: cancers, tumors, debilitating immune system and reproductive system disorders. Now, over 150 of these American military personnel have joined in a class action suit against Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

(They cannot bring suit against the U.S. government because before they were allowed to disembark from the ship, they had to sign a waiver indemnifying our government from all liability. [5]   WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? DNA and reproductive problems with birthdefects for these troops are a PROVEN AND ESTABLISHED, AND ACCEPTED PROBLEM IN OTHER SUCH SITUATIONS ! 

Are any of these military personnel from your local community? If so, what hardships are they currently facing? [6]

• What are the radiation levels, tritium releases, cancer rates, safety record, activist complaints regarding the nuclear facilities in your coverage area? As regards Japan, a full accounting of the manipulations around radiation levels and dangersin Japan would require a very thick separate report.

MISTAKE #5

Think You’ve got Insurance Against a Nuclear Accident?  Check Your Homeowner’s Policy.

It may come as a shock to you, let alone your audience, but no insurance policy covers damages from a nuclear event. If you check your homeowner’s policy under “Exclusions,” you will find that direct damage and radiation contamination are excluded from any compensation, no matter complete your coverage or how high your premiums. [5] http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/96/  [6]

KSL5 News in Salt Lake City recently covered a Utah seaman disabled after being exposed to radiation on the USS Ronald Reagan:   http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26440227&nid=148

Not even Lloyds of London will write a policy indemnifying you against a radiological accident. Do you think they might know something you and your audience don’t? And mightn’t it be a good idea to inform them? 

This report represents just a small sampling of existing nuclear stories and the ways they are ignored, manipulated or gamed.

Your community, every broadcast coverage area contains at least one such story, be it from Fukushima, reactor leaks, fuel rod or weapons manufacturing, tailings from uranium mining, “Downwinders” of nuclear tests, or even leftover detritus from the Manhattan Project. 

There are Pulitzers hidden in these nuclear stories, more than enough to go around.If no media outlet in your area is yet covering your local nuclear issues, here’s your chance to get the jump on what will inevitably grow into one of the biggest stories of the 21st Century. Those of us who recognize the ongoing threats posed by the practices of the nuclear industry rely on you, members of mainstream media, to use your skills, skepticism and discernment to present the facts without spin, manipulation or malice.

Utility companies and industry associations spend millions on public relations strategies and representatives. They’ve got their talking points figured out years in advance and pass them on to you neatly packaged, in a timely manner and assume you’ll take their information and run with it. 

Those who see another set of truths operate on a bake sale budget – but that does not diminish the importance of what we have to say. It’s truly a David and Goliath battle –but as the activists in southern California who fought against the trouble-plagued San Onofre nuclear station like to point out: David won. And in the process created some really powerful, high powered media coverage opportunities. 

SO WHAT DO WE ASK OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?

We rely on News Directors, producers, reporters, bloggers and elected and appointed officials to use your skills, skepticism and discernment to present the facts without spin, manipulation or malice. In the spirit of journalistic fairness, we ask you in mainstream media to:

• Look beyond the nuclear establishment when seeking sources for your stories.

• Be suspicious of “nuclear spin-speak” and eliminate it from your reporting.Report information in neutral language that neither increases nor diminishes the problem(s) at hand.

• Interview sources with informed opposing perspectives. There are highly credentialed experts, complete with verifiable data, statistics and footnotes, to back up the anti-nuclear perspective. Credible activist groups and representatives exist in proximity to virtually every nuclear site in the country. Do your due diligence, seek them out, get their input – and watch the power and importance of your coverage increase. 

• Follow up. Nuclear is not a one-time story. As we’ve seen from Japan, a nuclear facility can have 40 good years and one bad day… but that one day has the potential to change our lives forever.

Indeed, with Fukushima pouring highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean every day, re-criticality (nuclear detonation) a real possibility, and the plutonium that would be released having a half-life of 24,000 years, the clock is not about to run out on the need for coverage of nuclear issues.

There are 23 nuclear facilities in the United States of the exact same model as Fukushima’s destroyed reactors and eight others of similar design. Are any of them in your coverage area? If so, what are the local dangers? Your audience deserves to know. 

So what now?Look, I know: you’re on a budget. Time, personnel, money – everything is limited and you’re being squeezed to the max. You’d like to do a better job covering your local nuclear issues but it takes resources to get up to speed on an issue as complex as the nuclear one.

BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO IT ALONE.

How would you like to find some cost effective short-cuts to: 

• locate verifiable international experts who can provide balance for your local stories;

• contact articulate local activists familiar with the nuclear stories in your coverage area;

• locate leads and links to high quality research archives;

• hire research expertsto assist you for a specific story in a time crunch; 

• purchase a series of pre-produced short features that explain the nuclear issue in audience-friendly, easily understandable bites; 

• or receive assistance on deadline to help you cover your local nuclear story…

For these needs or any other, take a moment and contact:

Libbe HaLevy, Producer/Host, Nuclear Hotseat

[email protected]

I have an overview of nuclear issues that can make sense and point out story angles in 

any nuclear market. My contacts and interview archives include nuclear engineers, 

researchers, doctors, epidemiologists, oceanographers, international activists, politicians. 

Among my more than 100 Nuclear Hotseat interviews:

• Naoto Kan, former Prime Minister of Japan when the Fukushima disaster began

• Dr. Helen Caldicott, world-renowned pediatrician and international anti-nuclear activist based in Australia

• Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev and Former Science Advisor to Boris Yeltsin

• Nuclear engineer and former industry insider Arnie Gundersen. 

• Joseph Mangano, epidemiologist who first discovered statistical evidence of otherwise unexplained 20,000 “excess deaths” in infants in the United States following Fukushima. 

• Toxicologist Dr. Janette Sherman, Joseph Mangano’s partner in radiation studies, who co-edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature with Alexey Yablokov

• Kumar Sundaram, leader of the Indian Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace and organizer of mass protests against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant

• First Nations activist Marius Paul on fighting a planned nuclear waste dump in the wilds of Saskatchewan

• Interviews with survivors of Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. 

I can help you find what you need to not only get your local nuclear story, but to get it right.

AVAILABLE SERVICES

• Fast Nuclear Facts – Audio series of verifiable nuclear facts to provide basic information. :30 or :60 format, recorded audio or as text for use by local announcers.

• Special Reports – In-depth research into specific issues, including links to sources, recommended interviewees and contact information.• Numnutz of the Week for Nuclear Boneheadedness – Satiric weekly :60 audio on the most wrongheaded aspects of the nuclear industry. A regular feature of Nuclear Hotseat. Recent examples: 

o Plans in Japan to build a tourist village less than 25 miles from the Fukushima exclusion zone, including tours of the still-leaking disaster site;

o The new Chair of the Republican Party in Oregon being on record as wanting to spread nuclear radiation over Oregon from an airplane “to improve the state’s health.”

• Radiation Protection Tips – For informational purposes only, created by a certified nutritional educator covering supplements to take, foods to eat, foods to avoid, physical detoxification protocols, at-home safety, outdoor protection. 

• Individual time-sensitive research and consulting.

BIO

Libbe HaLevy is an expert on nuclear issues based on her 2-1/2 years producing and hosting Nuclear Hotseat, a weekly international news magazine. She was one mile away from the 1978 nuclear disaster at Three Mile Island near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Libbe is a journalist, author, producer, motivational speaker, award-winning playwright and librettist, and an online media strategist. For Nuclear Hotseat, Libbe has interviewed Japan’s former Prime Minister Naoto Kan, Dr. Helen 

Caldicott, former nuclear insider Arnie Gundersen, epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, activists in Japan, India and Europe, whistleblowers and dozens of individuals involved in the nuclear issue around the U.S. and Canada. Her nuclear memoir, Yes, I Glow in the Dark! – From Three Mile Island to Beyond Fukushima via Broadway, Israel and Recovery, will be published Autumn, 2013. 

Libbe HaLevy is available for speaking engagements, trainings, seminars and individual 

and group coaching on nuclear issues. Contact her at:

Libbe HaLevy, Producer/Host, Nuclear Hotseat

[email protected]

213-369-8760