Fuskushima Daii'ici #4

Making sense of Fukushima Reactor no. 4
Seemorerocks

I read the following comments from Graham Wells on Facebook in response to yesterday's interview on the Lifeboat Hour :

"Mike Ruppert has lost all credibility with this kind of talk: "They indicate that all of the fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool at Reactor 4 has already been burned completely and released into the atmosphere even as we choke on ridiculous media stories portray (sic) a dog-and-pony charade about TEPCO removing rods."

"While the BBC does some bad reporting on energy, are we to believe that the video below, presented by a well-known reporter, is just faked? And that none of the people who have been to the site would have mentioned that the Spent Fuel Pool at Reactor 4 is empty? Arnie Gundersen is much more credible"

Apart from being disrespectful towards a researcher (Mike Ruppert), it also shows that probably Mr. Wells did not take the time to listen to the whole broadcast. 

If he had he would know that his comments should have been addressed to Mr. Hatrick Penry, the interviewee who has spent many hours going through documents from the NRC released under the FOIA.

What is not in doubt is the veracity of the documents - they are 100 per cent genuine and show that NRC officials were convinced that the fuel pools at Reactor no.4 had run dry.

As if to confirm all this we have this broadcast from Arnie Gundersen (on 31 March, 2011) who seems to confirm this conclusion:

I would hope that we could all agree with this so far.

Where there might still be room for some discussion is what this all means.

Was is also is not in doubt from my perspective that what we have been getting from Tepco (in toto) as well as from US sources has been cover-up of something that is much worse than what we have believed.

The FOIA documents show that this discussion then became an agreed position that was then sold to the public

The FOIA documents show that this discussion then became an agreed position that was then sold to the public.

Somehow the story comes down to completely ignoring or downplaying the plume of radiation that passed over the Pacific to North America back in 2011 (not to mention spikes in radiation that are occurring), as well as painting the picture of an accident that was not quite as bad as it looked - certainly not referring back to those early documents.

Are we to be expected to swallow the version put out by Tepco, American nuclear authorities (whose main raison d'etre is to promote nuclear power) and swallowed ( and perpetuated) by most of the world's media?  

In this country New Zealand the policy of the media is simply to ignore the whole thing.

Any critical look at the facts has to explain how THIS 

became THIS

So, for sure there is definitely a case to answer.

Beyond that I cannot rightly say.

I cannot reconcile all of the above with the likes of the BBC report of the conducted tour by Tepco of Reactor no. 4. 

I certainly don't feel that I can take such reports at face value any more - least of all from the likes of the BBC, which has been demonstrated to have faked material in the past.

It is not in my nature to come to a 100 % definitive conclusion in the face of such contradicting information, so I would not, myself, use epithets such as "horse and pony charade", although I respect the people who have reached that conclusion.

I too, rely on the reputation of the likes of Arnie Gundersen.  He is a nuclear engineer, a whistleblower and truth teller who could never be accused of being in the pocketbook of the nuclear industry.

I am left having to recognise that the truth may be a little more complicated, certainly than the lies of Tepco et al, but also than the conclusion that the observations of those watching events from the NRC in those early days of March, 2011 - which although were expressed so confidently in those documents represents the 100% definitive version of events

Is it possible that there was a cover-up but also that conclusions had to be modified in the weeks and months following based on facts coming out?

I don't know (although it must be clear I have my suspicions

But my last question to myself is how do I reconcile those early observations of Arnie Gundersen with his description of Reactor no. 4 now.

I do wish he would respond to Mike Ruppert's letter and clear up the confusion.

Postscript

Two resources I will recommend once again.

One is Hatrick Penry's article, Fear and Loathing on Fukushima Unit 4.

A lot of early material on the Internet (such as footage of the explosions during the meltdowns) has the habit of simply disappearing from the Internet. Was it not for the 'alternative' press and the work of tireless individuals keeping it, this would have disappeared as if it never happened.

So I would recommend this play list of videos dating right back to the earthquake and tsunami and tracking the story since then. GO HERE

Mike Ruppert's interview with Hatrick Penry is available HERE