I write this with a heavy heart, concerning the state of things, but write this I must. Some years ago, I started on this journalism thing with the close help of Sarah C. Corriher. We did it, not because we really wanted to, but because we had to. Old fashioned, investigative journalism is all-but-dead, and quite a few people are living and dying horribly as a result. You need not look further than the diseased and chemically laden walking dead surrounding you, every time that you leave your home. Things should not be as they are, and we decided to do something about it; at least for anyone who could put faith into our mission. It is not one that we take lightly, for we have invested our savings, our personal honor, and the very safety of our family for it. Being an honest investigative reporter nowadays requires that one become a soldier in an information war, and this is largely why so few modern people do it. It is far from the easy path. Sarah can likewise attest to the sacrifices that we have made. We parcipitate in an old dance that is rarely observed in the largest news networks of this twisted age. Along the way, we have made plenty of people angry. We consider angering people to be a job requirement. Being a good journalist, as it was once defined, absolutely means being a trouble-maker. We are not team-players for any corporation, and we do not prostitute ourselves for either popularity or product endorsements. Good luck in finding these principles elsewhere.
Our character and journalistic ethics were tested tonight. We were asked to be guests on an Internet audio show with several other "experts", pundits, and "popular people". I matured out of the whole popularity thing before high (military) school, but plenty of those involved with alternative media embrace such shallowness wholeheartedly, and they dream of someday being one of those elusive "preps". I wish I were kidding, really.
Our character test came when we were pressured by a (former) friend of dprogram.net to join the typical pile-on of spreading terror about radiation from Japan. I believe this is when both of us first experienced the sick feeling. We have written about the radiation situation before; and for the most part, there really is no situation. Yes, there actually is a slight elevation in radiation levels on the west coast of the U.S., but you'd find yourself in much greater health peril driving by cellular towers. Unless you are already closely on the brink of developing a cancer (so close that it would almost certainly happen regardless of the radiation), then you have very little to worry about, and our media peers have been disgustingly lying about it as loudly as possible. We studied the U.S. military documents on atomic warfare testing, so we did the painful homework. That's called journalism, and some of our so-called peers in the alternative media really ought to learn something about it.
How is the alternative press any better, since it so readily spreads disinformation for the sake of higher ratings and pushing "special products" that will supposedly save us from an armageddon that will never happen? If any truth to their version of bad science, bad research, and dishonest journalism existed, then the U.S. would have been devastated by the greater radiation bombardment that occurred after the atomic attacks against Japan. The new so-called high efficiency light bulbs present a much greater risk of radiation injury to virtually everyone except the Japanese, but these sorry journalists don't talk about them because that topic isn't useful for their fear-mongering, so they concentrate on Japan instead.
The scam that we were pressured to partake in is being perpetuated by some rather high profile alternative sites, with people whom we considered to be friends. They'll just have to hate us, because we are not about to begin terrorizing you, lying for sleazy self-promotions, product plugs, or even to be one of the popular kids. It's not the way we operate.
For now, make note of those "news" sites which are flagrantly terrorizing you, and remember their lack of character. There really are monsters out there, and sometimes we don't see the ones in our own back yards.
Thomas
Related Articles
Quick Tip: Answering Questions about Radiation from Japan and Potassium Iodide
A Letter From The Editor: Waning About Journalism
You Should Consider Chlorophyll Supplementation
A New Method of Poisoning Us With Radiation: 'High Efficiency' Light Bulbs
Shielding Yourself From Radiation and Dangerous Radioactive Exposure From Cancer Patient Emissions
The F.D.A.'s Push For Radioactive ("Irradiated") Foods
Granite Counter Tops Pose Health Risks
More Radiation Poisoning Coming Soon to a Hospital Near You
JAMA Admits that Chemo and Radiation are Likely to Cause Death
Radioactive Airport Body Scanners and Official Child Molestation Procedures
What They Are Hiding About Daniel Hauser's Forced Chemotherapy To Malign Alternative Medicine
God's Nutrition: From The Big Guy Himself
Comments
If I believed one particular alt health news site (that I suspect you're referring to) I'd be suiting up right now in my radiation proof suit - and I live in Australia.
It's a tough gig tho, finding "pure" information. MSM is superficial and panders to it's corporate masters.
Spooks, mis-informants and fools need to be weeded out when one uses alternative news sources.
One can only do that over time, it's not always immediately obvious what the motivations of alt sites are.
I'd agree that there is some unjustified hysteria on alt sites regarding the "radiation issue" but having said that I also think that there is good enough reason for monitoring the situation and having some concern.
I appreciate that you've stood up for what you don't believe in (does that make sense?), keep up the good work.
I'd like to point out that radiation from nuclear waste, 'accidents' and weapons is not comparable to that from cell towers etc, at least not in the health risk context. We don't generally inhale cell towers, or ingest them.
The particles get into your body and zap your cells constantly at microscopic distances. Comparing meter levels in the environment is misleading about the actual health risk, which in nuclear contamination is more internal than external.
The industry uses people's ignorance of this to lead them to wrong conclusions.