Saturday, August 18, 2012

I'm Tired of Troll Jousting Over Fukushima

This morning in the Wall Street Journal there was a 2 page article in the Review section written by a Richard A. Muller titled, "The Panic Over Fukushima"

It made me sick because it was yet another piece of propaganda, from its implicit assertion that the dose of radiation received by people in Fukushima was less than the level of radiation that "people happily live with in Denver," to its absolute erasure of all forms of radiation contamination except for gamma.

The article makes me so upset that I really don't think I can analyze it without getting a very bad migraine.

So, instead, I'm going to include some finds about the author of the article by a couple of regular commentators at Enenews (Aigeezer provided these links).
Richard A. Muller (born January 6, 1944) is an American professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Academic site:

Headlines About Muller:

Richard Muller, Koch Brothers Funded Scientist...

Will the Real Richard Muller Please Stand Up

Majia Here: I think these headlines (and articles) raise questions about Muller's neutrality.

Is the nuclear industry now encouraging him to publicly acknowledge the existence of global warming so that he can be positioned to promote nuclear as an "objective" authority?

He has a new book out. It cannot be searched at amazon. Here is a link and a summary I've pasted from the comment section:

Energy for Future Presidents

[excerpted] The book itself is a review of what scientists know about the energy problem not only in the United States but worldwide. In Part I of the book, entitled "Energy Catastrophes", Mr. Mueller discusses two recent energy disasters using a non-emotional analysis. One of the disasters is the tsunami in Japan that damaged the nuclear reactor site as well as homes and factories and human lives. 

He feels that the nuclear part of the disaster has been grossly overstated and he gives his reasons for that conclusion. Many people around the world wanted to completely disassociate themselves from nuclear energy after the Fukushima disaster. However, Muller believes that nuclear energy is still a safe energy source and it is important that we not give up on it. He also discusses the Deep water Horizon accident in the gulf, which spurted oil into the sea for seemingly endless days. He also felt that the damage was grossly exaggerated and attempted put it in perspective. He felt the cleanup activities worked well....

Well, doesn't that sound objective.

However, whatever you think of him, his biography provides:


See here for a glowing biography with not a shred of evidence of any experience with, or knowledge about, the biological effects of radiation

This is yet another example of widespread and very deliberate efforts by authorities in the media and nuclear industry to manufacture expert opinion and interpretation of news events.

I've found many instances of outright Fukushima propaganda by the journal and other mainstream media, which I've been trying to bring attention to and debunk:

Glaring Propaganda in the Wall Street Journal (2011)

How Does Propaganda Work (2012)

More Propaganda in the Wall Street Journal (2012)

Wall Street Journal Propaganda (2011)

Nuclear Pushes on Despite Fukushima

Plant Erupts into a Poison Fruit

Science Corrupted by Private Funding?


  1. Majia, you are doing a much better job than me at exposing the truth. Dont get sick of jousting, just don't joust at useless sites such as Fluffpost.

    Your stuff is worldclass and it will make a difference. methinks

  2. My reaction is pretty much the same as Steveo.

    It's useless to make ad hominem attacks, even though it is useful to expose corporate and financial links. Your blog is useful and to the point as it is.

    What is interesting though from your own post here, is that apparently Muller retracted from his previous stance against the evidence of climate change (global warming) and even apologized, but at the same time, he went to serve another propagandistic platform on the nuclear. This would indicate that there is an apparent change of the order of priorities for corporate industry.

    May it be that the nuclear industry now feels iwhich direction the (hotter) wind is blowing...?


  3. You're doing a great job
    Thank you
    D'un Renard

  4. Great post Majia.

    Your comments reinforce that all reading on the Fukushima issue must be done with critical thinking and understanding of the sources from which information is being provided. There is no light reading on this topic.

  5. Muller seems to be available to the highest bidder.

    Apparently the warmers bid higher than the deniers for his services,
    and of course the nuke industry pays well.

    Now, the article itself does sound very impressive and scientfic. If I read the article, and didn't know anything about Fukushima - I would conclude that Japan is in less danger than Denver, and that 194 people will get cancer as a result of Fukushima.

    I believe it is wrong to attack the guy's credentials, because I personally think the honesty and intelligence of the individual is much more important than their credentials.

    You have to attack misinformation with facts - they hate that, but it's the only way.


  6. If you want to get an idea of how Muller is coming to some of these conclusions you can watch literally hundreds of hours of him teaching physics classes on free webcasts of his class provided free by Berkeley... I think you will find that your accusations are likely false and he only seeks to bring clear scientific reasoning to these very hard issues (global warming, nuclear power, clean energy etc.)


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.