A simple question.

I am cutting to the chase here. Whenever someone is interviewing the likes of Arnie Gundersen, Helen Caldicott, or Chris Busby, or any other ostensible environmental activist, please ask one simple question:


It appears that they would answer “YES”.

9 thoughts on “A simple question.

  1. Well that depends on what the meaning of “yes” is. Much like pondering what the meaning of “is” is.

    They are all talking in code now amongst their own inner circles. Difficult to understand how you can be an advocate your entire life for a cause or principle and then once the masses need your advocacy you chose to only half show up. They run compromised missions when they don’t display an open palm. The knowledge must be shared. Spare the paternalism. Lead the way to the light. Obscuring information in these life and death times is tantamount to mass murder.

    For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.” — Luke 12:48

    • shinethelight, good quote.

      I will actually cut Gundersen more slack than Busby at this point, because Busby has a lot more brains than Arnie does. There is no excuse.

      • What would you do when a lawyer contacts you with details about your grandmother that you didn’t know, copies of your phone calls from ten years ago, as well as tax forms from that business you had 20 years ago? You would realize that you have no chance other than to do what the lawyer’s controllers wanted. This is the way the world works. I know of cases of this type of thing, including cases that prove that, say, a small company had the juice with the NSA/CIA to do that, which means that the small company was part of the military-industrial complex from the beginning, not the “rags-to-riches” story in the media promote as the company reaches the top and the CEO becomes an icon.

        Just assume that Busby was threatened in some way.

        • This is certainly possible. I don’t mean to denigrate Busby’s contributions, they have been phenomenal. But whether by design or by intimidation, this means we cannot trust his assessment of Fukushima.

          This seems to be a common thread, these people do and say many good things, but when it comes to the most important item, the dimensions of the catastrophe, what they say seems strangely inconsistent.

          • Busby readily admits he is not keeping up on Fukushima data. He recommended more than a year ago that the entire region be treated as a nuclear wasteland, evacuate, use resources for people, not spreading contamination. He has stated he is not acquainted with current conditions. His focus is on legal actions >>> http://www.nuclearjustice.org and uranium in weapons in the middle east.
            Interview with RadChick or RadChik

            Gundersen has lectured on the false notion of a ‘cold shutdown’, but I don’t want to try to find that on his website. I haven’t kept up with recent comments however.

  2. I just listened to this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdxTw0el6Lw Busby begins by saying that there is nothing to worry about with Fukushima, and ends by suggesting people follow his idea of a legal campaign based on the human right to clean air, etc., yet he just cut off a legal campaign at the knees by, as a scientist, declaring that there is nothing to worry about.

    • Busby might have a personal reason for minimizing Fuku. If there is less radiation, and the same number of deaths, it makes the ECRR model look better. It don’t know if this is the case. What he was saying about car air filters in Canada was nonsense… they are inefficient and only trap large particles. The risk in N America is lots of tiny particles, he knows that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *