August 16, 2013 § Leave a comment

Something Wicked This Way Comes: The story of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest, provable cover-up

August 16, 2013 at 1:57pm

Something Wicked This Way Comes: The story of Plume-Gate, the world’s largest, provable cover-up

By: Hatrick Penry


Flawed, downplayed or bungled modeling: How the NRC taught me to love the Plume

Throughout the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima there is quite a bit of discussion concerning modeling of the plume and fallout. In order to issue radiation warnings, knowledge of the plume’s speed, direction and intensity must be known. This is done by way of computer analysis: the two fundamental variables being the source term(s) data (sources of radiation being emitted) and the length of duration that the emanations will last for. Other possible factors to consider are the type of fuel itself, such as the Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel in Unit #3 (which is more dangerous than the standard fuel that was being utilized in Units 1-2), and certain atmospheric conditions such as wind speed and direction.

The reality of the Fukushima disaster is that it WAS a worst-case-scenario for reactors 1-4. Consider the loss of electrical power for weeks on end and the initial ‘Plan B’ type of ‘water-cannon-concrete-truck’ cooling system response that NRC officials said was all but useless. How does it get worse than no cooling and no power for weeks?

If one considers the source terms and length of emissions that a true ‘worst-case-scenario’ would represent, it is easy to understand why the NRC and DOE had to downplay, delay and purposefully bungle the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. As a result President Obama was able make the statement that experts did not expect harmful levels of radioactivity to reach the U.S. and thus there were no warnings or alerts issued for American citizens. Meanwhile, other countries as far away as France, did issue rainwater warnings and green leafy vegetable warnings as well.

At the end of the day the simple fact remains: the truth about Fukushima (especially as revealed in the NRC FOIA documents) and nuclear power cannot coexist. Until the day of the fateful earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the establishment had been effective at suppressing the truth about the nuclear industry, even after Chernobyl. But now the size and scope of the effects of Fukushima make it impossible to ignore that truth any longer. And now that truth is beginning to chip away at the foundation of lies upon which this toxic industry has been built. How much longer before that one crucial keystone is removed that will topple the entire structure?


Tactics used to downplay modeling/sampling:


1)      To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, simply reduce the length of duration of the source term(s), ie: reduce the length of time that radiation will be emitted from the damaged reactor(s). Throughout the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima a 4-5 day emission period was considered for most of the modeling of the radioactive plume and fallout. What’s wrong with that? Over 2 years after the catastrophe there are still emissions by air and sea and no end in sight. If, as many experts suspect, we are facing a quadruple ‘China syndrome’ the radioactive effluents will continue to be released for many years.


2)      To reduce the size and intensity of plume and fallout models, reduce the number of source terms. Of course with Fukushima, they knew right away that all power had been lost to Units 1-4 and that those units, without power or proper cooling for weeks on end, would all be source terms of a very high magnitude. The evidence shows that there were plenty of models circulating that downplayed the number of source terms, just like they did with the duration of emissions.


3)      To reduce the intensity of plume and fallout models, simply delay taking measurements and samples until 24 hours after the initial criticality. A 24 hour delay will allow time for the plume (and higher concentrations found in the initial release) to blow away. Subsequent measurements in the same location will not be as high.


4)      When a measurement or sample from the field is alarmingly high, simply question the veracity (methodology or type of test) and insist that another sample be taken to double-check the first. By the time that person can take another test, the concentrated plume that he or she sampled from originally has now shifted with the wind direction and the subsequent sample will naturally read much lower as the plume is no longer in the same place. The 2nd, much lower test result, will be the one utilized.

5)      When it comes to sampling, choose only short lived radioactive isotopes such as Cesium and Iodide. Never test for long lived radioactive isotopes such as plutonium. The less number of radionuclides you sample for, the less alarming the result will be.


6)      When sampling H2O, especially seawater from the ocean near Fukushima, take samples from the surface of the body of water and not from the sea floor. Heavy particulates which may be more radioactive, such as plutonium, will naturally sink to the bottom and can be avoided in this way.


7)      When it comes to a ‘worst-case-model’, create a wide range of possible ‘worst-cases’ with one of them being the ‘least-worst-case’. This is the one to promote. Although logic dictates there can only be one ‘worst-case-model’ the NRC and DOE are not the kind of agencies to let logic get in the way of their work protecting citizens and the environment (or our men and women in the armed forces for that matter).


Now let’s have a look at evidence obtained from the NRC Freedom of Information documents pertaining to Fukushima:


From the NRC FOIA documents: Delay on a worst-case run (model). Note the comment about undue influence.

From the NRC FOIA documents: Evidence that some runs (models) are not realistic.

 From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘Melt-core’ worst case get’s big numbers on the West Coast. No problem, call in specialist Kathy Gibson. She’s a magician with a plume model. And has almost as many of them as there are cards in a deck.

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: No one can agree on a worst case. Seriously?

(below) From the NRC FOIA documents: Here is a reference to the March 14th ‘lube oil fire’ which NRC employees claimed could not have been a lube oil fire at all…but something else. The discussion centers around running a model for this event and running it from the 14th forward. If you model from a later date the ‘volatiles’ may have decayed and may no longer be present thus the model will be inaccurate. See tactic #3 above.


From the NRC FOIA documents: An email from Chris Miller (USNRC) to Ron from the DOE which incredibly enough is a list of reasons why the NRC needs the DOE to deploy their fixed wing aerial measuring system and almost comes across as a plea for help. Was the DOE actually questioning the NRC’s need for their fixed wing aircraft?

From the NRC FOIA documents: Looks like it got so bad with the ‘least-worst-case-scenarios’ that the U.S. Ambassador in Japan actually had to request a ‘pessimistic’ model.


Disappearing Act: How the NRC, EPA and DOE concealed ‘harmless’ levels of radiation detected at U.S. nuclear power plants following the Fukushima disaster


Another critical aspect to the Plume-Gate cover-up centers on the ‘rooftop grabs’ (radiation measurements) taken from nuclear power plants here in the United States. Officially, we were told by President Obama and authorities that experts did not expect harmful levels of radioactivity to reach the U.S., Hawaii or Alaska. However, inside the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima, there is a mountain of evidence that indicates authorities were aware of the severity of the situation (a ‘worst-case-scenario’) but made every effort to downplay and conceal the radioactive plume and fallout from Americans. This includes an effort to conceal radiation measurements in the form of ‘rooftop grabs’ here in the U.S.

If one examines the NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Fukushima it doesn’t take long to realize that radiation measurements outside the U.S. that were relatively harmless were left untouched by the hand of redaction. The simple fact is the only measurements you can find and read are low-level ones i.e: There are no high-level readings to speak of.  Is this a coincidence?


Now let us examine the ‘rooftop grabs’ from nuclear power plants here in the United States. Again, we are told by authorities that radiation from Fukushima was detected, but levels were well below a safe threshold. We are even allowed to see some low-level measurements that are not redacted. The problem is that, just like samples taken near Fukushima, we are only allowed to see the ones that were relatively insignificant. The only difference is that instead of being redacted, the high level rooftop grabs were forwarded up the chain of command until they reached a password protected database. Why such secrecy over harmless levels of radioactivity? Let’s reexamine the facts:


1)      Authorities insist (to this day) that no harmful levels of radiation have or will reach the U.S. or its territories.


2)      In the NRC FOIA documents we are allowed to see measurements taken that were low-level.


3)      In the NRC FOIA documents there are multiple sections where a discussion leads up to what must be an alarming measurement/sample but then there is heavy redaction and we are not allowed to see the figure.


4)      Authorities insist (to this day) that nuclear power plants in the United States did detect radiation from Fukushima but that levels were harmless.


5)      In the NRC FOIA documents we are allowed to see the measurements from NPPs that were low-level.


6)      All other samples taken from United States nuclear power plants were forwarded up the chain of command into a password protected database accessible only by the ‘Federal Family’.

If the levels of Fukushima radiation that reached the United States were/are so low, to the degree that they were/are harmless, why are we allowed to see only a handful of the measurements, while the bulk of them are either redacted or secreted into a password protected database? If all the samples and measurements taken were indeed harmless, shouldn’t the public at large have access to them? Why the secrecy? Why not prove that Fukushima fallout is indeed harmless by allowing us to see the redacted and password protected measurements, settling the issue once and for all?


(Authors note: to be clear, there is a difference between the modeling of fallout and the actual sampling and detecting of fallout in the field. Modeling is an assumption, an estimate of the plume and fallout, generated by computers. Sampling and detecting yields actual real time results of radiation levels (with varying degrees of accuracy) at a specific location or locations.)


From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘elevated environmental samples at NMP and Ginna’

 From the NRC FOIA documents: ‘The Licensee does not believe that the iodine resulted from licensed activities’ (i.e.: the radiation being detected is NOT from nuclear power plants in the U.S.) Note at the bottom they are concerned with who will be collecting this data.


From the NRC FOIA documents: Add Palo Verde, SONGS, Diablo Canyon, Columbia and Millstone to the list of U.S. nuclear plants that detected fallout from Fukushima. Note that ‘Industry has agreed to collect the data and provide to NRC for distribution with Federal Government.’

From the NRC FOIA documents: Particulate grab samples from San Onofre and Palo Verde that we are allowed to see.

From the NRC FOIA documents: U.S. nuclear plants are instructed to alert the NRC if they detect ‘radiological changes’.

From the NRC FOIA documents: March 23rd, 2011 add Kewaunee nuclear plant to the list of U.S. plants that detected Fukushima fallout. Notable quote: ‘Notice on industry data collection similar to what was following the Chernobyl accident in 1986.’

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the focal point for data from U.S. nuclear plants and is developing an online database.

Evidence of a briefing sheet that is approved for circulation inside a nuclear plant.

 Checking for clearance before forwarding the briefing sheet along to the DOE, EPA and the states. I’ve never seen the DOE or EPA denied modeling or sampling results but I’ve found evidence that U.S. states were.

Checking for clearance before sharing sampling data with the DOE, EPA and California (CA).

Evidence of a password protected database for air and standing water samples from U.S. nuclear plants. The public at large does NOT have access to this data.

Unrelated to the rooftop grabs, this Sandia ‘spent nuclear fuel fire’ study from 2007 is encrypted and requires a password to open and read. Why is this information not accessible to the American public? 


Seek and Destroy: NRC Spends Millions to Search for Negative Press

The strategy is simple. The NRC wants to know who is writing or speaking out against nuclear power and they want to know the moment an article or video is published. In a flash, the ‘Cyber Situational Awareness Team’ springs into action to ‘handle’ the situation. This is Big Brother at his best, clamping down on free speech and spreading disinformation through blogs and social networking sites such as FaceBook. Once the negative media is located, and this appears to be nearly instantaneous, the NRC begins an all-out information war to counter the effects of that particular piece. In many cases, a simple phone call will do to have an article removed or edited. Remember, these folks have corporate connections everywhere; writers have bosses and bosses work for owners. When the corporate owner of your newspaper calls and demands that you remove and anti-nuclear article, you better believe that article get’s pulled (or edited) 99.9% of the time.

Now I ask my fellow Americans, why is it that the nuclear power industry must act in this way? If nuclear power is clean and wholesome, as they insist it is, then why must the NRC spend millions in an effort to find and attack information that portrays them in a negative light? Shouldn’t the NRC ask themselves, why is there so much media speaking out against nuclear power?

And where are the countless activists speaking/writing out against solar power? Do solar power companies spend millions searching the press for articles that speak poorly of solar power? Something to think about.


 Part 4

Appendix of other important findings from the NRC FOIA documents

Let’s talk about Potassium Iodine (KI). Our nuclear plants don’t stock it and we are told by NRC officials it’s not that big of a deal to have in the event of a nuclear accident. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s see how important KI is to have in an accident like Fukushima:


From the NRC website: the revised rule requires that States consider including KI as a protective measure. Considering to NOT stock KI is not a violation. Confused yet?

(Former NRC Chairman Jaczko on KI: it is the responsibility of the state and local governments. Representative Markey’s response: “I just don’t think they [the states] have the expertise…”

FROM THE NRC FOIA documents: this is a measured (not modeled) plume map showing a cloud over 60 kilometers long from the 30th of March, 2011. Is the NRC being rational with it’s 10 mile recommendation for stocking KI? (to my knowledge, maps such as this have not been shared with US States.)

From the NRC FOIA documents: US States are denied the SitRep (situation report). How can US States make an informed decision about the use of KI when critical information is withheld from them by the NRC and other agencies?


There is evidence within the NRC FOIA documents that the US has many non-seismically qualified spent fuel pools and NPPs. Please watch the following video:

There is evidence within the NRC FOIA documents that show that NPPs on the East Coast and West Coast are not prepared Earthquakes and Tsunamis. Please watch this video:
There is evidence that TEPCO has been intentionally discharging radioactive water into the Pacific since March and April of 2011 and this evidence comes from the NRC FOIA documents. NRC has known this all along. Please watch this video on this important subject:

There is evidence that officials were aware of radioactive plumes and clouds around the coast of Japan but elected not to move Navy ships to safety as this would have been an indication that the situation was much worse than officials were insisting. Please read the article linked here:

Part 5

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment:

Bobby1 Fatality Index Study:

Sherman/Mangano Fatality Index Study:

Sherman/Mangano elevated hypothyroidism on West Coast study:

NRC FOIA documents pertaining to Japan:

Part 6
About the author:

Tony Muga aka: Hatrick Penry is a 45 year old broadcaster, musician and published alternative media author hailing from Gainesville, Florida. He is best known for his work on Plume-Gate, the orchestrated cover-up by U.S. authorities of the radioactive plume and fallout from the Fukushima meltdowns. Find out more about Hatrick Penry and Plume-Gate at his website, his YouTube Channel and word press blog: ‘Uncovering Plume-Gate’.

Hatrick Penry also wishes to acknowledge MrsMilkytheclown and Kevin Blanch for their inspiration and dedication to exposing Plume-Gate. I love you guys!



Hatrick Penry’s source:



Tagged: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading MORE BULL SHIP at Will County Pro-se.


%d bloggers like this: