Pretty much all of them.
Anyone want to add links and comments, let me know
Anyone have some solid theories on why?
-----------------------------------------------------
They have a search box near the top, type in Fukushima. Crickets.
http://www.bluemarinefoundation.com/
Woods Hole has not ignored Fukushima, they simply look for the wrong thing, then downplay it.
http://www.whoi.edu/
and their search for Fukushima shows a lot of articles....downplaying.
https://www.whoi.edu/search.do?g=ext&q=fukushima&searchbutton=GO
---------------------------------------------------
Couldn't resist - Popular Mechanics -- hardly needs a pot shot
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a19871/fukushima-five-years-later/
--------------------------------------------------
Greenpeace does cover Fukushima, but gets many parts wrong
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/yes-things-are-very-bad-at-fukushima-but-its-not-the-apocalypse/
We have checked these stories and our conclusion is clear: these are not
stories based in fact. For example, while unprecedented amounts of
radioactive cesium have ended up in the Pacific Ocean, significantly
contaminating sediments and fisheries along the Japanese coastline,
there is no plausible mechanism that could transport significant levels
of contamination across the Pacific to reach beaches in the US or
Australia.
----------------------------------------------------------
Funny how, because its 'Russia did it', Chernobyl gets current airplay
https://twitter.com/nukereaction
For the same reason that we spend too much time talking about climate change--it suits the narrative for the existing worldview.
ReplyDeleteExactly, ignore the elephant in the room, and focus on something that we really have little control on.
DeleteI would say though, its not the worldview at the centre, its the projection of the narrative that "they" want to be the worldview.