pacific ocean

Black Propaganda: What Natural News Reporting 30 Bq/m^3 Actually Means

January 22, 2014 – Jim Stone

Black propaganda: The act of referencing reliable sources of information and then lying about or misrepresenting what they said, to make a case opposite of what those sources said by badly distorting, omitting or outright lying about what they said For the purpose of fooling people who will not actually read the referenced material and figure out it was lied about (and that means practically everyone).

The recent Natural News report is a perfect example of black propaganda.

To counter this black propaganda, I am once again going to state that there is no way Fukushima can destroy the Pacific, but it totally screwed a large area of Japan.

It is important to know what the numbers mean. 30 Bq/m^3 means that if you take a litre of seawater, and manage to capture ALL RADIOACTIVE DECAYS taking place in that litre of water (that is impossible to do,) it would produce ONE CLICK every 33 hours. And that’s the maximum from the most alarmist source. A complete fail. But Natural News knows that most people do not understand radiation or becquerels or anything else, so they prominently front paged the report, pretending it supported the dead starfish story. The levels in the alarmist report pretty much matched what I figured would happen, and told people not to worry about. So the spookiest thing out there MATCHED WHAT I SAID ALL ALONG, AND TOLD PEOPLE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT.

The safe level for drinking water is 10,000 Bq/m^3 and this was included in the power point presentation that Natural News referenced. This means that as I said, Fuku radiation in the Pacific is well below background levels and only increased them slightly. The BQ is such a small measurement that it takes millions of BQ to mean anything significant at all.

If the other report of 2 Bq/m^3 is true, it would mean that a litre of seawater would, if all decays were captured, produce one click per month. Folks, I have actually had geiger counters, and even below ground they will click a couple times PER MINUTE. This is because there is background radiation, and even at 30 Bq/m^3, the worst case scenario, Fukushima seawater is below that level. There is no way in hell the dead starfish can be blamed on Fukushima.

Natural News initially posted the Fukushima report. What happened to them since then? They used to be able to get a story straight, and since the original report the story has developed – Reactor 3 basically destroyed a large swath of Japan, was caused by an act of war, and now the Israeli mafia is providing homeless people to do the cleanup, and at least 800 of them have died so far. That’s a HUGE report, a HUGE topic, WHERE THE HELL IS NATURAL NEWS ON IT? If Natural News is uncomfortable with the Israeli tie in, then WHY CAN’T THEY OMIT A PART OF THE TRUTH AND AT LEAST SAY HOMELESS ARE CLEANING UP FUKU? I have the answer – it is because it opens a can of worms no one can close, and all the worms live in holes and cracks in the Israeli mafia.

The actual math behind the spookiest thing the latest report from Natural news could possibly represent, while using as a reference the entire volume of 30 Bq/m^3 rather than just one litre.

Here is what 30 Bq/m^3 would actually show on a geiger counter that had a very large detector tube. Most geiger counters are completely useless for reading anything with a radiation level that low. Sorry folks, it has to be presented as math.

Lets say you have a HUGE detector tube, with a cross section of 100 square centimeters. This would be in a specialized piece of equipment, not an Ebay geiger counter. Since 1 m^3 has six sides, each with an area of 10,000 square centimeters, and radiation leaves in random directions, there are 60,000 square centimeters of surface area the radioactive decays can exit from. 60,000/100 = 600. This means that if your detector tube has a 100 square centimeter cross section, 599 out of 600 decays will miss it because your reference source (one cubic meter) is much larger than your detector tube. You will need 600 total decays on average before ONE will hit your detector tube. At 30 decays per hour, 600/30 it would take 20 hours before your ultra sensitive super duper $50,000 geiger counter got a single click from Fukushima radiation. Meanwhile it will have clicked thousands of times from gamma ray bursters, radon, black holes, super novas, neutron stars and pulsars. It is a simple fact that we live in a radioactive universe. And actually, by the time you pay for a geiger counter that has a tube with a 100 square cm cross section, it will not produce clicks, that type of detector tube picks up so much that it has to go into an averaging unit, which sums the total down to CPM. A puny geiger counter from Ebay would only pick up about 1/20th as much, and click once or twice a month from Fuku radiation in seawater. All other clicks would come from the cosmos.

I guess there will be idiots on Youtube taking their geiger counters down to the ocean, right out in the open sunlight (which will produce many clicks), get it clicking from improper setup, and fool a lot of people. The geiger counter I played with as a kid would freak out if you put it up to a fluorescent light bulb and scream if you exposed the detector tube to direct sunlight, and many scammers know there are many ways to fool a geiger counter if you set out to do it. They are not fool proof machines, and in the hands of fools they can generate total hysteria.

The real issue is what they pick up on land while properly used. This would be done simply by setting one on the kitchen counter, out of direct sunlight or direct line of sight from any light bulb or television or computer monitor that was turned on. When properly used even a crappy geiger counter can at least see a difference in the background radiation after Fukushima on land. There are indeed hot spots ON LAND, NOT THE OCEAN, which I have ALWAYS SAID, and I would not make any plans for a vacation in Japan any time soon where most of it landed.


Fukushima Contamination Hype: Facts, or “Fear Porn”?

January 13, 2014 – Farganne



Fear about Fukushima and its “poisoning of the Pacific” is rampant these days. On Facebook, I have noticed that the hysteria amongst my “truther” friends has grown to such a pitch that they get angry if I dare to question the reality of radioactive tuna, disintegrating starfish, and a nuclear apocalypse looming over the Pacific Northwest. The term “fear porn” has gained a lot of traction, and in this instance I can see why: intelligent people have become so addicted to their Pacific Ocean horror fixation, they refuse to evaluate any data that might contradict it.

Are there dying animal populations? Should residents of the Pacific Northwest be concerned? Does the Pacific Ocean contain large amounts of radioactive material? While the answer to all these questions is a definitive “Yes”, there is, as usual, a lot more to know.

Mainstream media outlets predictably peddle the lie that all four obliterated reactor containments at Fukushima remain unbreached. Meanwhile, the so-called “alternative media” has been hammering truth seekers relentlessly with dire claims that are equally misleading. These two false scenarios – one, everything is under control, and two, the Pacific Ocean has been destroyed – constitute the usual goalposts by which people are routinely deceived, manipulated, and distracted from reality.

Usually, the goalpost dialectic leads the public down a predetermined path of brainwashed opinion, and reality is somewhere outside the confines of the posts. In this case, however, reality is not only outside the goalposts, but in between them as well.

Let’s look at the latter reality first.

Animal Die-Offs

Yes, there was a starfish apocalypse. Dead starfish by the millions littered the ocean floor off the British Columbian coast. Their arms were falling off. Their guts were gooshing out. When marine biologists collected them in tanks for analysis, they sometimes turned to jelly before they reached the laboratory. This starfish die-off is confirmed by multiple sources; it is in no way a hoax.

“Alternative news” sites such as promptly attributed the die-off to radiation from Fukushima. Droves of truthers, already terrified by reports of radioactive tuna and Google Maps images showing the killer radiation overtaking the Pacific like a psychedelic oil slick, fell for this bit of disinformation hook, line, and sinker.

The truth is that such die-offs are a regular occurrence in nature, as any professional biologist knows. Die-offs happen when populations outstrip food supply; malnourishment leads to starvation and, more importantly, disease, which quickly propagates, effecting a population crash.

After the crash, the survivors, presumably the fittest, enjoy less competition for a rebounding food supply, and there is a population explosion.

Dr. Craig McClain, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, identifies the syndrome that caused the die-off, and gives three reasons why it had nothing to do with Fukushima: (1) as an observed phenomenon, it predates Fukushima by 3 – 15 years; (2) it also occurs on the East Coast; and (3), other forms of life in the region remained unaffected.

Far from being unusual events, animal die-offs happen all the time, and normally go unremarked by all but the scientists who monitor them. Unscrupulous outlets like and are now hauling reports of them into the alternative media limelight and attributing them to Fukushima fallout without presenting a shred of evidence. In doing so, they spread not only disinformation, but needless fear.

Atmospheric Fallout

I have noticed many claims of high Geiger counter readings in the Pacific Northwest. As I live a few hundred kilometers upwind of Fukushima (west of it), I have no way to verify these claims personally, so my inclination is to suspend judgment until I have more data to work with. From there, I employ my BS detector, which is calibrated to my satisfaction.

According to Jim Stone, the engineer and ex-NSA analyst who proved that Fukushima was an act of environmental terrorism, the outlook for the North American Pacific coast is troubling. Not dire, but there are causes for concern. The nuke that destroyed Reactor 3 and blew its fuel core sky-high did indeed produce particles that were blown eastward and are most likely to end up in riverbeds. Stone says that if he were to go camping anywhere in that region without a Geiger counter, he would avoid dry riverbeds by default.

So, radioactive particles that are not naturally occurring – suddenly they occur. That isn’t good, but neither is it the end of the world, when one considers the many nuclear test detonations conducted by the Cold War superpowers and other “first-world” nations. True, such explosions are not as dirty as the one at Reactor 3, but they certainly don’t vanish without a trace. Said test detonations have been identified as one factor in the cancer rate explosion of the 20th century.

Then there are articles like this one from, which argues that high readings in California were owing to naturally radioactive sand. I’m not saying it discounts all other claims of high readings, but it does make me reflect on the possibility that (1) more people than ever, out of fear, are buying Geiger counters and taking readings, and (2) they assume that any reading above normal is directly due to Fukushima.

What most people don’t realize is background radiation is not uniform. There are naturally occurring hot spots that vary widely in intensity. In some parts of Iran, people thrive in regions where the radioactive norm is many times that in the United States.

So I think it makes sense to take the amateur Geiger counter readings with several grains of salt.

Stone makes another good point. In Washington State, police cars are equipped with Geiger counters, and they still sometimes detect radiotherapy patients and pull them over. This indicates that the background radiation in that region has not spiked because of Fukushima; otherwise, the cops’ Geiger counters would be jammed and useless for detecting cancer patients.

Bottom line: some particles from the obliterated core of Reactor 3 have certainly found their way to North America, but the reality does not begin to approach all the hype.

“The Pacific Ocean is DYING!”

This is where my friends have been getting most emotional, most reactionary, and understandably so. People love whales and dolphins, and a whole lot of them enjoy seafood too. If the Pacific dies, well, how much more catastrophic can you get, short of a planetary mass extinction event?

It turns out that this claim, that “The Pacific Ocean is dying”, is the most tenuous of them all.

For this section, I am going to appeal to what I consider to be a qualified authority, and let Jim Stone speak for himself:

The Pacific is not destroyed for several reasons. One of them is the fact that for millions of years almost all of the reactor cores will sit where they are right now, that material is not all getting put in the ocean – in fact, only a fraction of a percent will ever be there (short of what reactor 3 put there during the blast, which was a lot).

Another reason why the Pacific will not be destroyed is the fact that it is just too much volume to contaminate seriously with only three reactor cores. The U.S. did a large number of atomic tests out in the Pacific, many of them using up to a thousand pounds of enriched uranium and it did not wreck the ocean. I would estimate that at a minimum the U.S. blew up a total of at least 20 percent of the total volume of radioactive material in the melted down reactors during past atomic tests out in the Pacific, and it cannot be measured now. And Tsar Bomba which was lit off by Russia contained approximately 5 percent of the radiological potential of the reactors out at Fuku and released it all into the environment in one big blast. The area is not dead now (though it was significantly fried at the time).

The ocean happens to be an ideal sink for radioactive waste. One key factor is that even gamma radiation cannot penetrate more than two and a half feet of seawater. Water itself is a radiation shield. This will serve to enormously squelch any damage Fukushima does to the ocean and certainly people living on the coast will not get anything measurable from the sea even while swimming in it. If it was open air, where gamma rays can travel miles, well, that might be a different story.

It takes only a fuel pool with a little water to soak up ALL the radiation from many reactor cores. To say even reactor 3´s entire expelled core could poison the ocean is beyond stupid – it’s ludicrous. Three hundred tons of radiactive water may weigh a lot in the bedroom, but compared to the ocean it is not even a bird turd dropping in the Panama Canal. When you also factor in the fact that this water will have less than a milligram of dissolved nuclear material, it’s ludicrous to say that whatever is seeping into the ocean from Fuku could cause a problem. Any contamination being read happened when the dust of reactor 3 precipitated into the ocean, NOT what is seeping in now. The big dirty already happened . . . .

Again, when I asked him if he was avoiding tuna, his reply:

Why would I avoid tuna? The Fuku scare is BULLSHIT. That’s like avoiding tuna because nuclear tests were done in the ocean 50 years ago. True, reactor 3 matches that but to think the entire ocean is shot is ridiculous…

Of course I eat tuna. If tuna was even marginally radioactive, if it had even a trace of radioactivity all the port alarms would go off every time a fishing boat came to town. Those boats are made out of steel, not lead and things remain awful silent in Ketchican.

I’m no scientist, but Stone’s claims make sense to me. I checked it out, and water is indeed an excellent radiation sink. The Pacific tests really happened – ask the natives of Bikini Atoll. The analogy of the bird turd in the Panama Canal also seems about right when you consider that the Pacific Ocean occupies fully 30% of the planet’s surface.


I know that I have not addressed all the Fukushima contamination claims, just the main ones. If you are freaked out by the hype, I suggest that you consider the possibility that you are getting roped in by a fear porn campaign designed to … do what?

Now we come to the reality outside the goalposts.

Stone thinks that the purpose of the disinformation is to divert truthers’ attention from the real issues surrounding Fukushima. Those are that (1) the disaster on 3/11/11 was a coordinated attack on Japan, (2) the majority of environmental damage outside Japan came in the immediate wake of that attack, and (3) the most serious issue is all the expelled fuel that remains lying out in the open near Reactor 3’s destroyed containment. So lethal is that debris that not even robots can survive proximity to it, and it threatens to render much of that region of Japan uninhabitable for centuries to come.

I think there is another purpose to it, as well. I think the “elites” enjoy scaring the masses, and in a sense they feed on it. Fear is an excellent tool for keeping people’s minds in chains, especially when they happen to be a demographic (frequenters of “alternative” media) who are consciously trying to shake off those chains and become mentally free.

If you haven’t yet read Stone’s report proving that 3/11/11 was an act of war and Israel was involved, you can download it in PDF format here.