Radiation Danger Covered Up Ever Since Nuclear Weapons Invented

Government Has Been Covering up Radiation Danger for 67 Years

The U.S. and other governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear power industry.

It turns out that the U.S. tried to cover up the destructive nature of radiation produced by nuclear weapons 67 years ago. As Democracy Now reports:

The army was well aware in 1943 of the enormous potential for radiation dangers to civilians and military personnel as a result of the use of radioactive weapons ….

[The New York Times] was essentially putting out the official government narrative [regarding the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki], which is that atomic radiation is not harmful, is not a major byproduct of the nuclear weapons program. You know, it’s only the blast that has essentially a very short impact. The reason that this has importance is that for really a half century, this narrative became the government’s response to all protests against nuclear power, the nuclear weapons programs of the 1950s and 1960s and the Cold War. So, [The New York Times] essentially set the table that the government was to occupy for the next half century as they disputed any attempt to rein in, you know, the rapid acceleration of nuclear weapons and power programs.

Nothing has changed. Governments worldwide continue to this day to cover up the amount – and health effects – of radiation released by military and energy facilities.

And the same considerations which drove the cover up in 1945 are still driving it. The archaic uranium reactor designs developed more than 40 years ago are good for making bombs.

This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jay Rowland

    Democracy Now is funded by foundations that have roots to Oil money. Find another source.

  • an observer

    The currency of the current dying trans-Atlantic financial system is petro-dollars.
    Nuclear power is a threat to that empire.
    You’re being played.

    • pac plyer

      Yeah,

      Just wait till the glowing Uranium dollar comes out. Then you are going to know the real meaning of being played. Oil is bad, but Nuclear power is insane.

  • The Energy Doctor

    With all of the disinformation out there, it is hard to know the truth. But, I saw an interview with a retired nuclear engineer that helped design the reactors like Fukishima had. He said they were originally designed to reuse the uranium until it had no radiation at all. He says that is why the containment parts weren’t so foolproof since the remaining material would have no radiation danger. He said the Feds made them change so the fuel rods were not reused. HMMMM?
    The farther you go down the rabbit hole, the more evil and crazy TPTB are.

  • Dan

    Geez what brilliant responses…post hoc ergo prompter hoc. See GW’s Aug 13 post on “internet disruption” and “rules of disinformation” e.g. ignore the facts and attack the messenger. You must be very proud of your edumacations and your highly developed logical prowess……..

  • http://www.worldcomplex.blogspot.com mickeyman

    A related issue that might be worth writing up a bit is the ongoing use of depleted uranium weaponry. The UN cleared their use on the basis of radiological impact after the Serbian event, but they were more cautious in their 2003 report on Iraq, where they noted that an amount roughly 100 times greater was used. Most official studies overlook the impact of the uptake of fine (micron-size) uranium dust into human bodies. Uranium takes the valence of calcium and replaces calcium in its many roles in the body, causing enormous disruption. Several years ago there were stories about massive numbers of birth defects and cases of childhood leukemia in Iraq which were tentatively linked to depleted uranium, although the authors agree that there the war damage has left numerous other potential environmental triggers in Iraq. Some information here: http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/Iraq_DS.pdf

  • Jay Rowland

    You can bash Nuclear power all you want. My point was that you should not use Democracy Now as a source to do it. There relationship with Oil money makes them not so credible.

  • Neutron Activation

    I’ve got news for you people 95% of uranium milling and fuel fabrication is done by the oil industry Kerr McGee is one of the largest US producer of nuclear fuel elements and they are primarily AN OIL COMPANY.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr-McGee

  • Lance

    The dangers of radiation are well known. Tell me something that I don’t know.

  • ML

    Those in the business of making money off our demands for energy embraced nuclear enrgy because the average Joe could never afford to make energy with nuclear technology. This is why solar, which should have taken over decades ago as a source of energy hasn’t taken hold and is kept so expensive. It would give the individual the power to make their own energy. Can’t have that!!!
    Follow the money, indeed.
    We do need to wake up to the lies and the pollution that occurred and is still occurring in this country and in the Northern Hemisphere as a result of nuclear power. Here’s an article that didn’t get much notice. (Whatever happened to the idea of compensating those affected by the nuclear bomb testing in the 1950s and 60s?) http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-01/us/nuclear.fallout_1_nuclear-tests-fallout-hot-spots?_s=PM:US
    My favorite source on getting at the truth with regards to nuclear is anything John W. Gofman, PhD, MD wrote. What he wrote about 40 years ago is just as true now as it was then.

  • http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com Leslie Corrice

    OMG! Another vacuous conspiracy theory. Anything to support your discriminatory agenda against nuclear energy and favoritism towards fossil-fuel burning, right?

    • Richard Ryckoff

      L. Corrice:

      You need to educate yourself.
      Research based on the evidence (behind a given policy, issue or event) is NOT ‘conspiracy theory.’ It should be called fact-based sound conclusions.
      Throwing the term ‘conspiracy theory’ at a writer/researcher is an intellectually lazy way to wage a false attack. It’ s a cheap, non-substantive tactic.
      The amount of DOCUMENTATION on the nuclear energy industry’s continual lies and fraud is overwhelming and is a 70-year record of horror. The entire nuclear industry was FOUNDED on fraud and lies.
      You also erroneously conclude the writer favors fossil-fuel burning.
      How did you manage to put forward that many egregious errors in 2 sentences (+ 1 exclamation)??

      • Marcia Wruck

        Very well stated Richard. My thoughts were how much of a mirror the term vacuous was for Leslie.
        After a lot of reading and self-study, I do believe the radiation issue is in part a government cover up for bomb making material and a series of botched bureaucratic decisions.
        One mantra haunts me from my studies: the privatization of profit and the socialization of cost and risk. Gofman encouraged people not to pay their electric bills out of consideration that they were participating in mass random murder due to the inability of any nuclear power facility to fully contain radioactive materials.

 

 

Twitter