Where Is Honest Reporting?

 That is what I ask myself almost daily. I, like you I suppose, are surrounded by media input: TV newscasters, Hollywood personalities, Opinion Moguls, Newspapers, Magazines, Global Warming pontificators, Global Warming detractors, Billionaires who think they know how society should change, your next door neighbor, my next door neighbor, you, me, others.

What are we to do with all the input? How are we to believe what we hear, or even what we see? How do we differentiate between fact and fiction?

I quote the following question from season 1, episode 1of a TV series titled Ragnarok: "Are the authorities presenting us a fake reality?"

I don't intend to be an alarmist or a conspiracy theorist or a panic-monger. My intention is to wonder why the established authorities consistently inform me that the President of the USA from January 19, 2016 to January 19, 2020 is an evil person when I have experienced that President Trump is the first President in a long time to make several campaign promises and follow through on them. So, how then is he necessarily evil? By what process do we determine such a specific resultant opinion?

It seems that if I listen to all the pundits, I am supposed to know things are true because they tell me those things are true. This may be true or it may not be true. How do we propose to separate fact from propaganda?

Propaganda sounds like truth and is presented to be truth.

If only one perspective is constantly being presented by the pundits, doesn't that imply that they want us to believe that one perspective and not question the presentation?

When someone is pushing their specific perspective on me, I must wonder why it is so important that I believe them and what they have to say. Why does it matter so much?

The few news resources that tell a different story from the rest are suggested to be spinning conspiracies or merely misrepresenting the facts. But, the question remains—how can we know for certain either way?

I suggest we each begin the process of reading information from both perspectives, listening carefully to both sides of every issue, and weighing the consequences of believing either side of every presentation. It seems we are on the verge of being manipulated, and I suggest we do our best to not let it happen.

Term Limits For Congress

 It is well past time to make an amendment to the US Constitution to limit the consecutive terms that may be served by a Congressional Senator or Representative. Many professional politicians do not serve the people of their district, but instead serve their own personal agenda.

I do believe we have some decent congress people, but it is difficult to separate the good from the not-so-good. It does seem that the concept of "swamp" applies to the US Congress due to the fact that there is no clear method for John/Jane Q. Public to see what is really happening in the Halls of Congress or to succinctly understand the implications of a 2000-6000 page Bill before the House or Senate.

If we limit the number of consecutive terns of office a Senator may serve to 3, we are allowing a good Senator to serve for 18 years, and that is plenty of time to serve. If we limit the number of consecutive terms for a Representative to 9, they would also serve 18 years. (These numbers are just used for an example.) It is also a good idea to determine early if a congressional representative in either house is serving the needs of that representative's constituency. If yes, vote them in office for another term. If not, vote them out of office.

There is a process described in the US Constitution for the amending of the Constitution. I think the US Constitution should be our guide as Citizens of the United States. If you are unfamiliar with this document, I include it for your benefit at United States Constitution.

Japan To Dump Radioactive Water Into The Ocean

Warning – Japan Intends To Pollute The Pacific Ocean

The Japanese government believes that in 2022 they will no longer be able to store any more radioactive water and will begin dumping it into the Ocean.

Why Do They Have So Much Radioactive Water?

Answer: Tsunami. 

The Japanese' Fukushima nuclear reactor plant was damaged beyond repair by the tsunami of March 2011. This article in The Guardian tells how much radioactive water they have stored and when they will begin releasing it into the ocean.

Who Will Be Affected By The Dumping?

Answer: Billions of Fish; the Fishing Industry; the population of Japan.

The Japanese Fishing Industry is understandably upset that so much contaminated water will be introduced into the ocean. Neighboring South Korea is also very concerned that this dumping will negatively affect their fishing industry as well.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) is struggling to deal with the groundwater that is mixing with the water that was used to keep the overheating power plant cores from melting down. Since seawater is not drinkable, groundwater is necessary to maintain a national population and the groundwater is mixing with contaminated water. Japan may not be able to provide water for their citizens in the years to come. Some new technology will need to be employed to create potable water for the Japanese citizenry.

TEPCO also admits that the water that is to be released into the ocean contains contaminates, including some nuclear material.

Is Dumping Unwanted Nuclear Water The Only Solution?

Certainly not! I did a little study and present the following information for consideration.

What Could Be Done?

Answer: Vaporization will remove radioactive materials and other contaminants. 

I found an article about distilling water to remove radiation. This might be able to be done on a large scale thereby vaporizing the water and leaving behind the particulate that includes all the particles of contaminating material.

The remaining nuclear material and all other contaminants can be easily contained in a small fraction of the space required to store the contaminated water.

The problem that remains is Tritium. 

What is Tritium & Why Is It A Problem?

Is Tritium Radioactive?

Tritium is a naturally occurring radioactive isotope of Hydrogen. It is known as Hydrogen-3 and notated as ³H.

Tritium occurs naturally but only in very minute quantities. Tritium is one of the least dangerous radionuclides because it has an extremely weak beta particle. 

A beta particle is the particle released when the half-life of nuclear material has been reached. Although Tritium has a fairly quick half-life of 12.3 years, the particle released when half-life has been reached has only enough energy to move about 6 millimeters (in the air). 

Its weak particle has insufficient energy to penetrate the layer of "dead skin" on the surface of the human body. Therefore the beta particle released in the atmosphere is almost meaningless in terms of radioactive damage. It is so weak it cannot be detected by a Geiger Counter.

Is Tritiated Water Dangerous

Water with Tritium acts almost precisely like water with normal Hydrogen. About 60% of the human adult body is water according to USGS.org in the article The Water In You: Water and the Human Body. Since Tritium occurs naturally, it is certainly in the water of the human body in minute quantities. It is processed out of the body like any water.

Additional Tritium can be introduced into the human body by breathing (vaporous moisture), drinking, or by absorption through the skin (as water) when using water contaminated by excessive Tritium.

Tritiated water is not H₂O. Tritiated water occurs naturally in minute amounts as either a molecule of HTO (1 atom of hydrogen, 1 atom of tritium, and 1 atom of oxygen) or as T₂O (2 atoms of tritium and 1 atom of oxygen). In either case, when the tritiated water has found its way into the human body and reaches its half-life, the released beta particle will cause ionization in the surrounding body material, slightly increasing the possibility of the surrounding tissue becoming cancerous.

According to Health Physics Society [Specialists in Radiation Safety], it is common for Tritium (³H) to exist in the human body. Therefore the danger of releasing stored tritiated water into the ecosphere is that it increases slightly the possibility of the occurrence of cancer in an organ or other tissue in the human body.

Can Tritiated Water Be Removed From Japan's Storage

A research team including 'Professor Tatsuhiko Ihara of Kindai University specializing in inorganic material chemistry, and researchers from Osaka-based Toyo Aluminium K.K. and others, has developed an aluminum filter with extremely tiny holes 5 nanometers or less in diameter each. The filter can stop vapors of tritium water, and the separation rate was "almost 100 percent," according to a team spokesman.'

That quote is taken directly from an article titled Researchers develop technology to remove radioactive tritium from water in The Manichi—Japan's National Daily since 1922.

The Final Note

There is no need to release radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean.

Japan can take measures to ensure the safety of its water table and the safety of the ocean. The nuclear water being stored can be vaporized and filtered to assure the removal of its contaminants. The process may be slow, so implementation should be started as soon as possible.

It is not only a problem to be shouldered by Japan. It is the result of a major natural catastrophe. The nations of the world should be involved together to manage the release of the water used to safeguard the world from the effect of the possible melt-down of the core of the Fukushima nuclear power plant.

Japan saved us all from the devastation the melt-down of the core would have caused in our ecosphere. Now we must all help Japan clean the water used to prevent that melt-down.

This is our world. Let's work to protect it.

Abraham Lincoln's Supreme Court

Watching the Vice-Presidential debate, I noted Kamala Harris' comments regarding Abraham Lincoln.  She stated that in 1861, Mr. Lincoln advised he would defer a nomination for an empty seat on the Supreme Court until after the impending election.  Putting words in Mr. Lincolns' mouth, according to Ms. Harris  “Honest Abe said, it’s not the right thing to do” and wanted the people to vote first. 

I was puzzled by her statement.  Firstly in 1861 Mr. Lincoln was newly elected to his first term.  There was no "impending election" in 1861.  November 6, 1860 was the date of the previous election.  The next election cycle would not occur until November 8, 1864.  Rather, I am sure she is referring to the vacant seat of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.  Justice Taney died October 12th, 1864.  

I would like to think if Ms. Harris had done the research herself she would be familiar with these dates.  I suspect someone on her staff provided this as a "talking point", in an attempt to cast a negative light on President Trump.  Implying he is acting in some immoral or unethical way in filling a vacant seat at the end of his term.

It's mentionable that Chief Justice Taney was the author of the infamous Dred Scott decision.  The opinion written by him states that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."

One would think that Mr. Lincoln would be eager to fill that vacant seat with a Justice more inclined towards his own policies.  The US was still embroiled in the Civil War, slavery was a very heated topic of the day.

However, according to the website which details the history of Congressional sessions, (https://history.house.gov/Institution/Session-Dates/30-39/) Congress was not in session from July 5, 1864 until December 5th, 1864.  Therefore, President Lincoln was unable to submit any nomination to Congress at the time of Justice Taney's death.  On December 5th President Lincoln nominated his former Secretary of State, Salmon Chase.  The first opportunity Mr. Lincoln had, his nomination was submitted, and Justice Chase was confirmed that very day.  The shortest confirmation in history.

This information, again, shows someone did not do their research regarding the talking point.  It shows a subversive attempt to rewrite history to match the narrative the Progressive Left want us to believe.  This is a perfect example of the selective editing Vice-President Pence accused Ms. Harris of.

Of further note regarding the Supreme Court in Mr. Lincolns' time, was the fear the court was attempting to legislate, rather than interpret the law.  In his own first Inaugural Address President Lincoln stated: I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

In our current era, that same issue is prevalent.  The Progressive Left are Federalists.  They want the Court to be another Legislative branch.  They worry over the potential reversal of Roe V Wade if more conservative justices are appointed to the court.  This is their justification for "packing the court".  They would appoint more Justices to ensure a Liberal bias in the Court.  What they don't want to admit is that a reversal of Roe V Wade would not make abortion illegal.  It would simply allow each state to make it's own laws regarding abortion.  The Left would have you believe the rights every citizen enjoys are at the behest of the Federal Government.  However, the 10th Amendment states clearly, those rights are at the behest of each State's government.  

Don't buy the rhetoric, research and study on your own.  Find the facts and judge for yourself.  Be fearless and make your own choices, rather than believe the misrepresentations dished up for your consumption.