Fukushima? Attempting to discern propaganda from reality? Best to realize that BRAWM is just a front for NRC Propaganda

http://enformable.com/2011/10/the-nrc-knew-possibility-of-elevated-thyro...

"To keep it [info regarding elevated radioactive thyroid doses for children from Midway Island to Alaska] away from FOIA, I was keeping some control over these..."

So there it is- the industry knew from the beginning and worked to hide it from everyone- especially avoiding the 'Freedom Of Information Act'.

Don't be a fool. Get legitimate education. While the 'Pro Nuclear Industry' was attempting to hide this information from the world, BRAWM Team members were giving out medical advice to 'eat your spinach and drink your milk'.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2240

"We are testing spinach, which tends to be high uptake relative to other vegetables. Given the amounts we saw in rain, we will most likely see a comparable amount in spinach. We are starting to test local spinach tomorrow. Results will hopefully be up by Friday or this weekend. I would be surprised if we did not see something."
-Dr. Chivers

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1951

"By all means, eat your vegetables (and some wine, too)."
-Dr. Chivers

_____________________________________________________________

This Spring, (after Fukushima) UCB Nuclear Engineering and Prof Kai Vetter-the lead for the BRAWM propaganda team- received MILLIONS in funding and an illustrious position from the Dept. of Energy: http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/04/07/bay-area-pv-consortium/

That's how one 'gets ahead' in the industry folks. You 'play ball' or you get run over.

(5 million $$$ over 5 years and all BRAWM had to do was run defense for the NRC and look the other way)

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1846

"The Department of Nuclear Engineering is pleased to announce that a UC Berkeley-led consortium of seven universities has been awarded a multi-year grant ($25 million for a 5-year period) from the U.S. Department of Energy NNSA Office of Proliferation Detection."

_____________________________________________________________

'NOW' does it make sense to everyone that when the entire world learned that complete meltdowns had taken place in Fukushima- it had absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on BRAWM's stance as regards public health and safety? It didn't make a dent did it?

Here's a little bit of truth folks- the world has never endured a Nuclear Meltdown (especially with multiple cores melting down) exposing both land and sea as Fukushima has. Yet the geniuses at BRAWM supposedly IMMEDIATELY knew that there was no (or very little) threat to public health.

So if we've never endured such a Multiple Core MOX Fuel Nuclear Meltdown of catastrophic proportions- how could anyone immediately know it was safe?

BEFORE we all knew that there were multiple core meltdowns? No threat.

AFTER we all learned that there were multiple core meltdowns? (4 months later it was admitted by Tepco, yes?) No threat.

_____________________________________________________________

Instead of acknowledging the big picture in terms of ingestion, inhalation and other countless methods of possible radiation exposure individual must face, BRAWM chose to isolate the smallest of individual test samples and make broad health risk assessments for the nation.

That is the equivalent of organizing the 'caloric intake' diet of an individual human being, only utilizing a single peanut versus that entire individuals daily, weekly and yearly diet. It's 'Pseudo-Science'.

Enjoy the BRAWM Kool-Aid, suckers. Anyone interested in purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge while you're at it?

Don't expect BRAWM to grow a conscience and retract their misinformation. They are too well funded to consider such a move.

Just know BRAWM for what they are and start paying attention to legitimate sources of information.

You can take THIS to the bank folks:

In the future- these outrageous claims of 'zero or little health risk' by BRAWM and others will be certified as 'lunacy'.

Posterity will marvel at how 'so many people' could have possibly believed such 'obviously blatant falsehoods' such as BRAWM has put forth and continues to put forth, especially given the lack of legitimate and sincere testing.

Isn't it disgusting how BRAWM acts as if it was 'prepared' to test for this Fukushima Catastrophe as opposed to being caught totally unawares?

Testing from a solitary rooftop?
Being forced by locals to test organic milk from local dairies along with other samples? BRAWM couldn't think to do that themselves?

It's easy to forget that BRAWM is just made up of kids eager to please...eager to become 'rising stars' in the 'Corporate Soup' within which they swim. That and a few scientists who know how careers are made.

AGAINST what, pray tell?

;)

AGAINST what, pray tell?

By my lights, BRAWM has consistently been the best available resource.

Open discussion has been permitted. Debates have taken place.

Dissent has been allowed; even spurious attacks, such as the OP.

Bill Duff

Really? Have BRAWM's Projections been as accurate as Gundersen?

I agree that BRAWM has been the best available resource for 'disinformation' and 'Nuclear Industry Propaganda'.

There has been no action more spurrious on this forum than the lies which have undermined public awareness. Those spurrious actions were committed by BRAWM and the UCB Nuclear Engineering Dept.

Wow any evidence for this.

Wow any evidence for this. Making baseless claims seems childish.

Hmmm. Six to one against,

Hmmm.

Six to one against, Anonymous / Bill Duff / goldenkazoo / canyouseetherealme / Jim Stone. Wait... make that, seven.

That straightjacket just keeps getting more and more snug, doesn't it? That's what happens when you, an individual, and your unstable ego swell up to fill it.

A previous poster made the case that anonymity is the refuge of cowards and the unconvicted. For the record, I agree. (I always have.)

Nice to see something akin to sanity wrest the BRAWM Forum away from the malcontents, conspiracy vamps, liars, nut jobs and adolescents, once again.

Rick Cromack.
Allen, Texas
RichardFCromackJr@gmail.com

'Ridicule' makes a very weak substitution for answering to facts

'Ridicule' (from the BRAWM Country Club) makes a very weak substitution for answering to facts.

Some simpletons don't even know what's going on in their own state. I'm certain you are different however, yes Rick?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFmJUND2RwA

_______________________________________________

I notice you didn't mention that guy 'Leo' in your proclaimed 'Looney Line-up'. What was that question he asked?

Oh yeah- here it is:
_____________________________________________________

Dr. Chivers:
"If you wish to fully describe the risk in terms of other variables such as age and organ, then one would have to work with a more complicated model."

I'm happy to hear that you understand what 'variables' are Dr. Chivers.

Do you not 'seek' or 'attempt' to 'fully describe the risk' to people's health?

Dr. Chivers:
"- Abuse of weighting factors
Where data is sparse, this could occur."

Yes, I'm aware of that and I agree.
_______________

Pool your resources with Professor Vetter and the entire team.
I'd like to save time by avoiding the 'being bumped up to a supervisor routine'. I want the entire Team to have the best shot you can.

Can anyone on the Team answer this single question?:

The BRAWM Team Lists 1 Liter Of Water Being Consumed As One (1) Specific ‘Controlled Variable’ Of Radiation Exposure.

Question:
How Many ‘Variables’ Of 'Physical Forms Of Potential Radiation Exposure' Exist Within The ‘Reality’ Of Everyday Life? (Please include, swimming and snorkeling activities of beach enthusiasts, contact while skydiving and hang gliding, hiking, wound exposures, as well as all other forms of ingestion, inhalation, skin contact, etc...)

Would you say it's closer to '5' or closer to 'infinity'?

I advise you not to filibuster. Just get to the heart of the matter.

__________________________________________________

Why don't you show everyone how smart you are, Rick Cromack- and answer that question?

I've looked and as far as I can tell it was never answered and all types of 'anonymous posters' hijacked that person's 'handle' in order to interrupt the information he/she was sharing.

What is the name of THAT particular scientific method?

Why is everyone so afraid of that question I wonder?

Probably because it cuts right to the chase and exposes the scientific methods which BRAWM and it's supporters have avoided like the plague.

Welcome back,cowboy...miss

Welcome back,cowboy...miss yer posts. We were 'thinkin to seen out a posse.

Response to Another "Anonymous" Poster

It is easy to post anti-nuke / pro-nuke propaganda under the guise of "ANONYMOUS." Myself, I believe that unnecessary "man-made" radiation should be avoided at all costs. I am talking about bombs & power plants...not medical testing / diagnostic radiation. That said, I do not believe that the BRAWM Team are a bunch of sociopaths out to placate a "few" citizens who happen to frequent this forum for information. It would be much simpler to NOT post ANY INFORMATION whatsoever...as the EPA is doing.

Why do I believe this? I believe this because they live here in the Bay Area. They have families who live here in the Bay Area. I don't believe that any of them have moved their families to the Southern Hemisphere. (I may be wrong about that.) They eat the food that we are eating...and they try to guide our choices - i.e. informing us of the cesium content in milk and milk products and the fact that it is rising.

I have been eating Idaho potatoes and Washington apples all of my life and now, because of this forum that BRAWM Team allows us to participate in, I realize that these potatoes and apples weren't as "nuke-free" as I thought due to weapons testing & nuclear power plant malfunctions (radiation releases). Thank you, BC for being so well-read!!

Thank you BRAWM Team for all you do for us. I appreciate it!

You are welcome, and yes, I

You are welcome, and yes, I have spent many hours reading up on this stuff.

I am currently OK, but when I first started looking into this, I came very near losing my mind. Now after educating myself, and thanks to the generous free education I have picked up from BRAWM I feel a lot better. I do not think we are screwed, nor do I think are we without some additional risk - I just think the additional risk is quite small.

Now for me, the last real wildcard barring any further large atmoshperic releases is the upcoming report by Mr. Kaltofen on the "hot particles". The man himself poked his head in last week and gave the time and date for the presentation of his group's sampling effort.

"Submitted by Marco Kaltofen (not verified) on Thu, 2011-09-29 18:33.
The data for the air filters tested at WPI will be presented at the 139th meeting of the American Public Health Association, next month, (Monday Oct. 31, 8:30 AM), in Washington, DC. The presentations will be available online after the close of the meeting.

http://apha.confex.com/apha/139am/webprogram/Paper254015.html"

On Halloween of all days. Anyhow, this is going to been an interesting presentation, especially any info related to microscopic fuel flea junk that we may have inhaled.

BROTHER!!!

Here's a little bit of truth folks- the world has never endured a Nuclear Meltdown ...

So if we've never endured such a Multiple Core MOX Fuel Nuclear Meltdown of catastrophic proportions- how could anyone immediately know it was safe?
==========================================

Evidently this poster has never heard of Chernobyl, which was also a "meltdown"; the melted fuel terminating in the famed "elephant's foot":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

The molten core of Chernobyl (that part that did not vaporize in the fire) flowed in a channel created by the structure of its reactor building and froze in place before a core-concrete interaction could happen. In the basement of the reactor at Chernobyl, a large "elephant's foot" of congealed core material was found.

What the BRAWM team is reporting is what they measure. Before we knew of the meltdown, the BRAWM team reported that the measured releases they saw were small. Then we found out about the meltdown.

Evidently this poster doesn't understand that just because we now know that the releases were from a meltdown doesn't change what BRAWM actually measured.

A meltdown that is significantly contained so that the amount of radiation exposure that the public gets is less than the background exposure that the public normally receives with no health effects, is therefore not a health threat.

The low measured exposure that BRAWM measured doesn't change regardless of wheather it came from a meltdown or fuel failure without meltdown.

BRAWM is measuring the end point effect.

Only a Losing argument need misquote through omission

Also your premise is completely errant.

Chernobyl isn't located on the coast- therefore it had not the additional contamination opportunities of the Pacific Sea.

Here is the original quote which you misrepresented:

"Here's a little bit of truth folks- the world has never endured a Nuclear Meltdown (especially with multiple cores melting down) exposing both land and sea as Fukushima has.

Here is how you misrepresented the quote:

Here's a little bit of truth folks- the world has never endured a Nuclear Meltdown ...

So if we've never endured such a Multiple Core MOX Fuel Nuclear Meltdown of catastrophic proportions- how could anyone immediately know it was safe?
==========================================

Evidently this poster has never heard of Chernobyl, which was also a "meltdown"; the melted fuel terminating in the famed "elephant's foot":

_____________________________________________

Given you defend lies- it's not necessary for me to ask you why you choose to lie yourself.

Also- Chernobyl initially received the same dismissive 'everything is safe' lies which are now propagated through BRAWM. Of course, BRAWM isn't alone:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-04-16/206880/

Evidence of lying??

Given you defend lies- it's not necessary for me to ask you why you choose to lie yourself.
=========================

I see no evidence of lying. I see what you "think" ( term used loosely ) is a lie. However, that interpretation is due to your own ignorance.

The main point had little to do with the source ( Fukushima ). Regardless of how the radionuclides were released at Fukushima, be it fuel failure alone or a full meltdown; the actual end effects measured by the BRAWM team are within the variance of natural background radiation exposure.

I realize the anti-nukes were hoping for a larger calamity that hasn't materialized; but that is hardly the fault of the BRAWM team, and is insufficient in logic to impune their motives as less than honorable.

No- you are actually lying- but you might not be aware of it.

Your quote:

"BRAWM is measuring the end point effect."
___________________

In order to measure end point effect BRAWM would need to collect all data (or at least a vast majority of it) from 'beginning points'. That would mean exhaustive testing on a colossal scale for all potential radionucleides, not just 'a couple'. It would mean multiple locations not just a solitary rooftop. It would mean all sources of potential ingestion not just rainwater. It would mean varying altitudes given the distribution by natural weather.

BRAWM (at the behest of the Nuclear Industry at large) has attempted to take an extremely multi-faceted issue and boil it down to a 'pink strip pregnancy test' in order to move this event away from public scrutiny.

You can't have endpoints without beginning points where data is concerned.

If the 'event' which one is quantifying contained 100,000 beginning points and those who were compiling data (through testing) only acknowledged 5 of those beginning points- any conclusions drawn would clearly be 'unsatisfactorily arrived at' in terms of scientific process.

That is what we have in BRAWM's testing. Raw data is sparse at best, therefore the vast majority of 'beginning points' in terms of the data were never even acknowledged, much less accounted for.

Therefore when you state that "BRAWM is measuring the end point effect.", you infer that all the data was acknowledged and it clearly has not been.

This, of course, is a great embarassment to BRAWM, but since they can't cross the EPA and Homeland Security (given many BRAWM Team members work for Homeland Security per their own admission), there is nothing they can do but continue to pretend that they didn't make the most glaring mistake they could have possibly made in gathering data...and that was to 'ignore the data you are supposed to base your scientific conclusions upon'.

(Of course, one could make the case that this was 'intentful', but I am giving the benefit of the doubt.)

I understand very well that such an undertaking is colossal- but if you don't do the work- you don't get to say you did the work- plain and simple.

I won't say BRAWM didn't 'COMPLETELY' do the work...

Rather I would say that BRAWM did the work much as a child in a classroom takes a 'sheet of paper' and folds it into a 'flyable sheet of paper'. The child, in such a case, does not get credit for 'building a commercial aircraft' -but I'm certain one of these 'bright young minds' could make an opposing scientific case for that.

; )

In other words, I'm certain within the 'BRAWMiam Mind', that the "child's paper airplane" needs a commercially trained pilot to "fly it".

You aren't even self-consistent

BRAWM (at the behest of the Nuclear Industry at large) has attempted to take an extremely multi-faceted issue and boil it down .....

This, of course, is a great embarassment to BRAWM, but since they can't cross the EPA and Homeland Security (given many BRAWM Team members work for Homeland Security per their own admission), there is nothing they can do but continue to pretend that they didn't make the most glaring mistake...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't even self-consistent in your vain attempts to trash the motives of the BRAWM team.

Above you state that BRAWM is working for the "nuclear industry"..

Then you say that BRAWM is working for EPA and Homeland Security.

Which is it?

BRAWM has the expertise to measure the fallout of Fukushima and like good scientists and engineers at a fine University, independently undertook the effort to make these measurement.

Just because you don't like the implication of those measurements in that they don't support your preconceived notions of the magnitude of this event, doesn't mean that the BRAWM team was dishonest and working at the behest of either the nuclear industry or the Government.

Again, this shows that the anti-nukes really have no shame; they will LIE and SLANDER honorable people just because they don't support the self-righteous, preconceived, and illogical notions of the anti-nukes.

WRONG!!! Think about it!

In order to measure end point effect BRAWM would need to collect all data (or at least a vast majority of it) from 'beginning points'. ...

You can't have endpoints without beginning points where data is concerned.
==================================

WRONG!! You are just digging yourself in deeper in showing your lack of comprehension and understanding. Put on your thinking cap and try to follow along.

The BRAWM team is telling residents of the Bay Area that the exposure they face is negligible and they do not need to worry. This is based on their measurements.

The radiation / radioactivity that can affect the Bay Area residents is the radiation / radioactivity that made it to the Bay Area from Fukushima. The BRAWM team measured that amount, and based on the magnitude of the measurements, have made their recommendation.

Once you know how much reached the Bay Area, it doesn't matter that we now find out that the Fukushima accident was worse than we thought. We know what arrived here.

Perhaps an analogy would help with your limited comprehension.

Suppose you want to know how "wet" you are going to get in a rainstorm. You stand out in the rain holding a glass, and at the end of the rainstorm, you measure the height of the water in the glass. Suppose the glass had 2" of water in it.

Suppose you originally believed that this was an ordinary sized rainstorm,
and you got 2" of rain falling on you.

Later, you learn that this was a big mega-storm that covered many states; one of the largest super-cell storms ever. Does that change the fact that you had 2" of rain fall on you?

Do you need to measure the rainfall in Oregon, Washington, and Nevada, analogous to your preposterous suggestion above, in order to know how much rain fell on you?

You measured how much rain fell on you - 2". That fact is not changed because you found out that the storm was larger than you originally believed.

I know the anti-nukes are disappointed that the Fukushima event didn't exact a much greater toll. However, that doesn't excuse illogical flights of invalid reasoning in the futile attempt to inflate the consequences of the event for your own political purposes. Think with your brain, and not with your politics.

Wondering....

Why is it so important that the nuclear accident be located near the sea?

As has been discussed here, the atmosphere is the vector for greatest dispersion of radionuclides, and not the sea.

Yes - there will be an effect due to bio-accumulation in fish, but that hasn't been the primary topic of discussion here.

Most people are concerned with the air, and rainwater, and not the sea.

BROTHER SQUARED

"Here's a little bit of truth folks- the world has never endured a Nuclear Meltdown (especially with multiple cores melting down) exposing both land and sea as Fukushima has.
=====================================================

Actually Chernobyl is located on a tributary that feeds into the Black Sea.

Therefore, contrary to the above poster's uneducated opinion; there was opportunity for releases from Chernobyl to feed into the sea - the Black Sea, in this case.

'Elephant's Foot' in your mouth?

Certainly paints you as intelligent.
______________
______________
Actually Chernobyl is located on a tributary that feeds into the Black Sea.

Therefore, contrary to the above poster's uneducated opinion; there was opportunity for releases from Chernobyl to feed into the sea - the Black Sea, in this case.
______________
______________
Evidently this poster has never heard of Chernobyl, which was also a "meltdown"; the melted fuel terminating in the famed "elephant's foot":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

The molten core of Chernobyl (that part that did not vaporize in the fire) flowed in a channel created by the structure of its reactor building and froze in place before a core-concrete interaction could happen. In the basement of the reactor at Chernobyl, a large "elephant's foot" of congealed core material was found.
______________
______________

You are so eager to please in terms of 'defending your collective fantasies' that you can't even get your stories straight without tripping over each other.

Boy do you move quickly to stick that 'Elephant's foot' in your mouth.

Pick a lane...

...Or are you just saying whatever comes to mind the quickest- in order to provide the illusion of 'looking smart'?

If you have a point....

You are so eager to please in terms of 'defending your collective fantasies' that you can't even get your stories straight without tripping over each other.
================================

If you have a point, why don't you make it instead of just wasting bandwidth.

For some reason you "think" it is important that Chernobyl was not located "on the sea"; when you didn't know that the plant sat next to a tributary of the Black Sea.

It was also pointed out that water is not the primary vector for transporting radionuclides from Fukushima to the Bay Area. No - the atmosphere is.

I'm not attempting to "look smart". I'm just providing accurate information.
The fact that you "look dumb" by comparison, is not my problem.

Please go away if you don't

Please go away if you don't have anything other than evil rants to distribute here. There is no mention of anything you allege in your funding accusations in the link you provided--the funding appears related to solar power research (great, that's what we need!) and BRAWM or nuclear engineering isn't even mentioned (but electrical and computer engineering are) and funding is shared with Stanford.

I cannot express how grateful I am for this forum. If I was a BRAWM team member, I would be so fed up with this kind of abuse and shut the site down. I can just hope and plead with BRAWM to continue to take the high-road, which you have done for so long, and PLEASE keep this forum going along with testing, for those of us who truly want to learn and understand.

Provided this up top.

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/1846

"The Department of Nuclear Engineering is pleased to announce that a UC Berkeley-led consortium of seven universities has been awarded a multi-year grant ($25 million for a 5-year period) from the U.S. Department of Energy NNSA Office of Proliferation Detection."

It's right there- or are you saying that the 'U.S. Department of Energy NNSA Office of Proliferation Detection' is Funding Solar R&D?

I have 2 'pleases' for you:

1) Please don't continue to misconstrue. There is nothing evil about the truth.

2) Read. Your statement could only be born of not reading what was provided for you.

BRAWM would do a great service shutting the site down as it has been misinformation and propaganda from the very beginning.

The Nuclear Industry needs the PR however- so the site will continue. What do you think UCB Nuclear Engineering would do? Give the money back to the Dept of Energy? Ha! Give back the titles? Ha!

I like crazy people, keeps

I like crazy people, keeps me entertained. So you seem to lack all knowledge of how scientific funding works. Also, imagining a scenario where scientists are essentially paid by the government to lie and shift their conclusions to what fits the governments wishes is preposterous. Got to love conspiracy theories that have no evidence.

I think you know how I feel

I think you know how I feel about you and the horse you rode in on....

Seriously, if this BRAWM is a psy-op, why even bother? 99% of people don't even know/care that there was a meltdown. So why would the "powers that be" try to build a psy-op to bring a tiny portion of the population into the fold? It would be easier to do nothing at all.

This is nearly the only light on, and I am very glad to have it.

Testing is great even if

Testing is great even if it's a small area of food and soil brawm is looking at . I will aknowledge brawm are not health experts it's important to keep that in mind . yes ucb does train for employment in the nuclear industry important to keep in mind as well but does that discredit there testing I think no.one question that perplexes me is why brawm doesn't step up to test items from different areas in pac northwest as EPA data base shows some areas had more concentration of radionuclides in air filters ,rain than others .

oh no

Oh no not the Cromack guy again.

Geez !