Fukushima Was Sabotaged

Fukushima Was Sabotaged

Piotr Bein 5.2.2012
On Henry Makow’s website, James Farganne advocates Jim Stone’s thesis that Fukushima-Daiichi disaster was triggered by Israeli-made Stuxnet, followed by explosions of nukes hidden in cameras deployed by Israeli firm Magna BSP in charge of plant security. Possibly, but alternative sabotage explanations also need  investigation. I commented:
From: Piotr Bein
Sent: Sun 29/01/2012 01:34
To: henry [at] savethemales.ca
Cc: Tedd Weyman; Busby Chris; Richard Bramhall; Dai Williams…
Subject: The Argument that Fukushima Was Sabotaged
Dear Henry, If artificially (HAARP or nuke) induced tsunami was used to cover-up a Stuxnet attack that has disabled the emergency cooling at Daiichi, causing reactor meltdowns and chain reactions in spent fuel pools (SFP), nuclear charges disguised in the Israeli security cameras would be superfluous. I am asking experts in the cc, if the signature of fallout from such a charge would be discernible from Daiichi fallout. If yes, then it would be a dumb plan.
A few of Farganne’s claims are far-fetched. Regarding the damage radius of an offshore quake, whether man-made or natural: by the time it reached the island, the quake would be weaker. On 3/11, the ground accelerations at Daiichi NPS were within design criteria, so certainly it wasn’t a calamity. Tokyo newsroom staff continued work during the quake, because its magnitude was reduced by the time it reached Tokyo.
Without a warning of the approaching tsunami, there would have been order of magnitude more victims. Most of the population at risk has sought high ground.
The height of tsunami at the Daiichi NPS was not 15 m. There are no believable proofs. Damage recorded at Daiichi NPS is not consistent with such a wave — see photo analysis here.
Farganne believes that planted nukes have destroyed the reactors, since a hydrogen explosion could not damage a reactor’s containment. A meltdown will destroy a reactor. Nuclear expert Tedd Weyman (Canada) wrote to my blog: “We know from the ballistic features of #1 reactor’s first explosion that it was NOT a hydrogen explosion, it was a super criticality – prompt critical -event, indicating core melt and inner containment breach.”
Likely, hydrogen released by the overheated nuclear fuel rods (exposed due to loss of cooling water), made its way to the outer building envelope and exploded, stripping the relatively light upper structures in units 1, 3 and 4. Unit 2 was vented through louvers in the upper part of the reactor building. Tedd Weyman writes about hydrogen produced by fuel rods in reactors and SFP: “Several metals and ceramics in nuclear reactors, when exposed to water, experience chemical interactions called hydrolysis and radiolysis. One of the most dangerous non-nuclear kinetic energy products of these reactions the formation of hydrides and the explosive gas, hydrogen.  The raw or new fuel rods (MOX fuel made of plutonium and uranium) as well as the spent fuel rods both produce hydrogen.”
Farganne is right that reactor 4 meltdown/explosion would be impossible since its fuel was removed before 3/11. Information from Daiichi is scant — do we know the damage to the reactor itself?  It was the contents of its SFP that caused an explosion, due to a “slow” chain reaction, according to nuclear reactor expert Arnie Gundersen (USA): the fuel pool likely had “a self-sustaining chain reaction” rather than receiving nuclear fission products in the fallout from the other units. 
Cheers, pb
Farganne replied (29.1.2012):
First, these are not my claims. They are Jim Stone’s. Stone established that there was no 9.0-magnitude earthquake anywhere, inland or offshore.
Second, you claim that offshore quakes weaken as they reach land. I am unable to find support for this claim. Can you support this claim scientifically?
Third, videos of the tsunami show commercial parking lots full of parked cars. The people were not warned of the tsunami. There was no “high ground” being sought.
Fourth, your link to a “photo analysis” of the tsunami yielded no photos.
Fifth, and this is something I couldn’t get to in the article, but Mr. Arnie “prompt criticality” Gunderson is not a real expert. Stone proved that the peak of Gunderson’s resume was toying with a 100-watt reactor in a college class. Yet he’s the resident “expert” on the “prompt criticality” theory of how those massive structures exploded.
Sixth, information from Daiichi is still coming in via sensors, and that information is distorted — by Stuxnet.
Seventh, you can see the damage in clear detail by looking at the classified drone photos of the disaster site as retrieved by the website Pink Tentacle and as analyzed in Stone’s report.
Have you even read Stone’s report?
Your blog seems quite serious, and I would like to believe that you are of good intentions. But something tells me that at the very least, you haven’t bothered to read Stone’s report.
Dr. Chris Busby, a leading independent expert on radiation, radioactive pollution and its health effects, replied on 31.1.2012 re a signature of the fallout from the alleged camera-nuke weapon :
The fallout would be distinguishable by the CTBTO (Test Ban Treaty analysis site) as there would be a disturbed Xenon 135/133 ratio. You would have to use a local CTBTO station. The nearest one which is 100km west published the Xenon 133 and 131m  ratios but failed to publish the Xe135 which it stated was below detection. This is not likely to be true for technical reasons and was therefore probably a cover up of a nuclear explosion. However the explosion could have been the R3 plutonium reactor which exploded on 15/3, with a pattern that did not seem to be a hydrogen explosion. This may have been what they wanted to avoid revealing, not a sabotage.
There are other indications of a possible cover-up in the CTBTO report:
Figures for March 14-15 are missing, because the detectors stopped due to the “planned power cut” in the Takasaki region on March 16.
Out of measurement range (too small or too large?) and No measure due to power failure March 15-16, 2011.
No correction of dead time (dead time :40 -75%) March 17-18, 2011. (Dead time: the time during which the radiation count rate is too high to measure.)
Including the impact of memory effect (40-97%) and No correction of dead time March 23-26, 2011 (Memory effect: that of radioxenon penetrating into the plastic radiation detector and affecting subsequent measurements.)
If power failures, out of range radiation, dead time and memory effects affect the readings, and some readings can simply be omitted, what is CTBTO good for? Isn’t it supposed to monitor the use of nuclear weapons?
I am replying to James Farganne on my blog, since there were problems with posting my comment and my name on Henry’s website. Emailed 5.2.2012 to Henry Makow, as I don’t have Farganne‘s e-address.

Dear James,
The article on Henry’s website bears your name. I read Jim Stone’s article last year. I support his Stuxnet and no-quake-damage hypotheses in our version of the sabotage that was meant to be a call for public investigation. My photo analysis to debunk alleged tsunami damage at Daiichi is here. If you knew Polish, you could find more on my blogs, incl. a motivational analysis for the Judeocentric Power Complex to do 3/11. So I am not your or Jim’s adversary.
Stone has debunked the alleged strength of 3/11 earthquake and tsunami damage to Daiichi. I like his analyses of Stuxnet effect on reactor systems and Magna’s involvement. But this does not justify his other, conjectural claims. Maybe the Japanese offer to enrich Iranian uranium was the cause (is Israel going to nuke China and Russia who are willing to help Iran?), maybe also Japanese support to Palestine, maybe something else…
I have translated Stone’s article into Polish, and Andrzej Szubert wrote a commentary with by-now forgotten information re work by US Army on building 4 before it blew up. Thus we have the following conspiracy hypotheses:
– Stuxnet alone + reactor and pool haywire, incl. unit 4
– Stuxnet + camera-nuke/s
– Stuxnet + explosives…
Stone claims that only a nuke could have destroyed building 4. I am asking persons in cc, if the damage to the reactor buildings would be impossible by nuclear reactions in SFP.
Interestingly, the newest TEPCO report on the disaster causation seems to confirm Stone’s hypothesis on systematic blockage of Daiichi safety systems and falsification of parameter readings by Stuxnet. I share his concerns about vulnerability of investigations, but we definitely need one. This crime exceeds 9/11 in direct effects: millions of potential cancer victims globally in the next 20 years alone, extrapolating from Chernobyl.
Back to your riposte, I agree there was no scale-9 offshore quake, except Stone is too technical and many readers may stop there, before reading his valuable analysis of Stuxnet effect. Attenuation of ground shaking is mentioned e.g. here. Stone refers to Wiki on the range of quakes:  thousands km for up to 9.9 scale, hundreds km for 8.9, with a caveat: The values are typical only and should be taken with extreme caution…  But the range is irrelevant; it’s obvious there was no big quake or tsunami damage at Daiichi.
You saw cars on parking lots. The owners are on top of the building — too late a warning, or to keep roads clear? Videos show police urging people to evacuate, and people safe at elevated places. Driving all the cars would block the roads and parking lots in higher terrain, thus dooming people below to drowning in their cars.
In section Futile photo-interpretations “after” tsunami you can find 6 hot links to photos. Two were missing in the English version. Thanks for pointing it out.
Your and Stone’s opinion on Gundersen is based on smears by proponents of nuclear power. Rod Adams, Gundersen’s critic and Stone’s source, seems versed on nuclear power technology, but naive on its politics and external costs. Isn’t radioactive pollution the worst effect of Daiichi in Japan and globally? Adams mocks it, Gundersen exposes it.
Re point 6, do we know for sure if Stuxnet is still at work?
Re 7, I have looked at the pic last year. The concrete goes all the way up to the roof, so the reactor and containment might be buried under the rubble — see photos of the reactor buildings that definitely differ in structure type. In damaged building 4, no concrete columns 5 m in cross-section are in sight (Stone says 15 ft.). January 2012 photos of building 4. More photos of January 30, 2012. An assembly of cleanup and re-construction pics at building 4.
Some videos (e.g. analysed by Gundersen re building 3 and building 4) show tops of spent fuel rod bundles and racks under the rubble, so it’s likely that the containment and reactor 3 are also underneath. Would the damage (incl. neighbour structures) be consistent with a nuke? Why hasn’t the alleged nuke blown off or vaporised the roof steel girders in building 4?

A better joint investigation would be achieved without smearing the independents. Have you or Stone contacted Gundersen with your conclusions?
Piotr Bein

The topic appears rather emotional, as Henry writes in a foreword: Jeff Rense refused to link to this article. He thinks it is a psy-op to absolve the nuclear industry of blame for Fukushima. Fine. But when I posted it anyway so people could decide for themselves, he announced he would no longer link to my site. You will no longer find my work on Rense’s site. Sad that a 10 year relationship should end in this fashion.

Even if the nuclear lobby wasn’t involved in blowing Daiichi up one way or another,  have they not approved an Israeli security company? Have they not perfectly covered up the aftermath? This would make them accomplices in the biggest reactor catastrophe, several times bigger than Chernobyl, according to independent experts and the lobby executives themselves.

By piotrbein