?

Log in

No account? Create an account
mai 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
red penguin of doom

I have a car... it runs on RADIATION

Posted on 2011.03.25 at 09:26
I woke up at 4:am last night, so uncomfortable I wanted to be dead. Migraine had matured, etc., etc. That began to improve, but I have to be very careful now, because what I refer to as "the underlying symptoms" - the longer-term, more ominously threatening ones - are rising. I have to watch it. I dreamt that the space shuttle almost fell on our building but instead plopped into the intersection next-door, which was all very deep asphalt. Plop. That's how the world ends. With a plop. Flush. And then, there it was, outside, revving... revving: That demented car again!!

There's so much lazy, 1984 thinking these days, I can't even keep track of it anymore. For one thing, everybody today seems to think that it is the President who goes to war - when, Constitutionally, it is the people's CONGRESS. Or, Obama responds to Bolivia's insistence that he give back his NOBLE PRIZE, (there's another one, btw), by saying, "The American People don't see any inconsistency between working for Peace and going into Libya." Oh? We don't? Gee, thanks for speaking for me, Big Brother. Just like, thanks, as well, Scott Walker, or Faux News. I don't see inconsistency...

See, war is war, war is not peace. We are selectively in Libya because Western Europe, (BRITISH PETROLEUM), is telling us to go to war for oil - the humanitarian rationale is just that, and we are again sneakilly flouting international law, via the U.N... Germany, China, and Russia do not agree with this mission. (Meanwhile, Gingrich accuses Obama, regarding Libya, as, "Timid!" on the one hand, and, "Reckless!", on the other). We habitually get into wars based on lazy thinking, and wonder why the world is suspicious of our militaristic, throes-of-empire agenda...

Even Ed Schultz says, "Hell, when you've got the rest of the world on your side, then WHY NOT go in and take down a TERRORIST?!" Oh - I thought he was a transvestite, and that's why we hate him. And, wasn't he buddies with Geo. Bush, btw?? I think he's basically some power nut who actively hates BP. I also hate BP. Yes he's bombing his people, but he wrote to Obama that AL-QAIDA, ("A.Q."), has been behind the instigations of violence against him. Well, do a little research on AQ, and on Anwar al-Awlaki, there's ample reason to conclude that they instigate ON OUR BEHALF.

Then, there is all the lazy thought about the nuke crisis and radiation, (which is fortunately being replaced by Libya in the news, even while the radiation level over the U.S. increases). We all (should) know by now that Tepco people falsified information to keep the plants legit and online, and that G.E./Tepco used childish stats which gravely underestimated risks, e.g.of earthquakes + tsunamis, to rationalise building the plants, where and how they did, just as Geo. Bush used "W.M.D.s" as an excuse to go into Iraq. And the problem is: SO MANY PEOPLE JUST EAT THIS UP LIKE BABY FOOD! Just like people ignoring the vast amount of externalised expenses to health and taxes and environment, cause by the BP Gulf Disaster. "If we don't see it, it isn't there".

If we don't see the initial, fast-fade burst of radiation; if we don't capture the full extent of diffused radiation; if we don't catch the links to thyroid cancers; if we don't imagine the effect of other plants melting down in the future; and if Geiger counters can't represent the full, ALPHA, extent of radiation, and if radiation burn/rashes only hit certain people: THEN IT ISN'T THERE.

"If the authorities' statistics don't see it, it isn't there!"

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION

"Well, nukes haven't been as radioactive as coal plants, so we can tolerate a little MORE radiation from nukes!"

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION

"But Three Mile Island was THIRTY YEARS AGO!"

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION

"Yeah, but that plutonium particle headed for my brain is 'within safe background levels'".

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION

Ask any radiologist. Statistics can NOT control for the thousands of factors involved in radiation exposure, including specific and cumulative or interactive DNA damages, or in individual responses, or the very uncertainty of subatomic particle/waves themselves.

"But radiation is GOOD for you!" - Ann Coulter.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION

Comments:


Kath
asmallcrime at 2011-03-25 21:52 (UTC) (Lien)
Fuck no there isn't - and Ann Coulter you are such a dumb bitch! Seriously. :-/ Jesus, I swear it's like the Armageddon around the world right now. Damn! >.>
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2011-03-26 16:31 (UTC) (Lien)
yep - and i think this is only the beginning

:(
Previous Entry  Next Entry