Sunday, October 22, 2017

Why is Enenews Down?

Some readers here may have frequented the anti-nuclear, aggregator website,

Enenews was a news aggregator site that appeared online during the early days of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. It appears to have been finally taken down from the web this last week.

I found Enenews particularly significant because it hosted the most frequented English-language discussion of Fukushima cam imagery. As of June 2016, Enenews was ranked 153,579 in Japan and 69,699 in the US by Alexa.

Enenews’ first post was dated March 23, 2011.[i] On May 22, 2011, the “general discussion” forum was established, with the second post on this forum alerting readers to a video from the online TEPCO webcam that had been saved and uploaded to YouTube.[ii] Enenews established a dedicated webcam discussion forum June 26, 2011 to facilitate conversation about the cams.[iii]

In a research paper I recently completed I argue pessimistically that webcam watching had no discernable impact on mainstream news or political discussion of conditions at the plant beyond the few references cited above, as of 2016.

Webcam watchers’ sustained failure to problematize cold shutdown outside of online platforms eroded participation in webcam watching and sharing. In 2015, it became impossible to post new comments sequentially on the webcam forum because of technological glitches, effectively ending four years of protracted discussion at Enenews. Webcam watching participation and discussion dropped off significantly as a result, although a few watchers continue to record observations on personal blogs and at a new, less-trafficked platform ( Interest in webcam screenshots rises after periodic reports of earthquakes centered near the plant.

I stopped frequenting Enenews regularly when the webcam discussion forum failed, checking in only periodically to read comments in the discussion forum.  The quality of comments in the various discussion forums had become rather stale, but most recently I observed some very HIGH QUALITY discussion and hypothesizing regarding radiation's biological effects on this discussion forum, which can only be accessed through the Wayback Machine now:
Hidden Fukushima nuclear waste being released into ocean — ‘Surprisingly’ high levels of radiation now detected along Pacific coast and in groundwater far from reactors — Expert: No one expected this — “Alarming example of how radiation has spread”
I cannot but wonder whether this high quality discussion is what led to the abrupt mid-month shut-down of Enenews:

    • CodeShutdown
heres a question; is ONE atom of cesium137 per cell a concern? Can it do anything at all to speak of? Pretty sure it isnt radiating until it decays and then its a quick trip or two to barium stability. One atom.
According to an estimate made by engineers at Washington University, there are around 100,000,000,000,000 or 100 trillion atoms in a human cell. Could ONE atom of cesium do anything to disrupt 100 trillion atoms?

Its a key question, and one must know the answer to successfully argue against Woods Hole's continued statement that Fukushima radiation is of no concern.
Ive been giving answers for a long time! Now I want to hear some answers from other people

      • waitinanquakin
oh well -
…the amount of energy absorbed by a mass of cells is not what determines biological effect. What matters is the spacial concentration of ionizing events in relation to cellular molecular components hit. Internal emitters are densely ionizing.

You know what this also means? The ICRP model is a FAILED model in relation to describing the effects of internally ingested LLR.
The model has been myopically designed not to recognise the effects of low level radiological exposure, and only cancer and directly observable birth defects of living newborns, despite the a plethora of other illnesses may result from organic molecular damage. The evidence of numerous studies bears this out. (Thank you white wolf)

        • CodeShutdown
or-well steps to the plate! Good job too

I ask about one atom for a reason. Is one atom densely ionizing? I mean forget about low and high energy tracks…just the radiation from one atom. I would say no, its not a high density radiation source…its not doing much of anything until it cant take the unstable thoughts and then it goes to barium then stable, 90% of the time. One atom is not a constant source of becquerels.

If my little stab at it was correct, we are at a biologically significant dose of Cs137 with an average of one atom per cell. A near fatal dose is about 130 atoms per cell (whole body average). Compare to K-40; we have about six million radioactive potassium atoms (k-40) per cell! (unless I messed up the numbers!)

This is the foundation that lets Beusseler say there is no harm from the fallout…"our radioactive ocean" is the Woods Hole and NOAA theme to placate the public. The scientific and legal base is the ICRP dose model. You might guess I have some thoughts about this low dose conundrum.


October 5, 2017 at 11:31 pm Log in to Reply

I think its key to realize that just adding free radical de activators is not the be all and end all of why herbs and vit c and stuff can combat cancer from low level radiation. Gerson found that the cell voltage had to be high to combat cancer…but later research found that the intercellular communication that relies on the ion channels, the bioelectric fields has a primary role. Cancer isnt a single cell disease. Low level radiation is not a DNA double strand break problem for the most part. Added free radical load has an effect but what it is EXACTLY? It is the cascade of effects, resulting in a breakdown of intercellular communications which ultimately leads to a metasticized cancer.

The fact that chitin and other endogenous material have this ion exchange property that bioaccumulates radiation of high specific activity seems like a VERY good line of research.

You see, the high specific activity shouldnt come into play if the cesium is evenly distributed at the atomic level (not totally true, but for the point). One atom out of six million. But if the cesium accumulates into hot regions of fungi, or amino acid neurotransmitters, or parasites, then the inter-cellular communication system is disrupted. Kill the parasites, the fungi (not very easy!!), get the heavy metals out, fortify the body with its required nutrition and low level radiation will not have the cancerous effect.

I recommend using the wayback machine to go back and read the commentary on this excellent forum discussion.


[i] Smoke/steam rising from all 4 reactor units — Workers evacuated (VIDEO). (2011, March 23). Enenews. Available from,

[ii] FORUM: Discussion Thread for May 26 - June 1, 2011 (2011, May 26). Enenews. Available from, The specific comment link is

[iii] Fukushima webcam discussion thread June 26, 2011 – December 14, 2011. (2011, June 26). Enenews. Available from,, accessed June 27, 2011.