What is the TRUTH about the Radiation Risk?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
This is a complete and (supposedly) unaltered transcript of the conversation with the Chief Scientific Officer with David Fitton at the British Embassy in Tokyo on 15 March.

Of course, being the UK Govt's Chief Scientific Adviser, we all know he's lying through the back of his teeth
Or do we? Would he lie to the British Embassy?
edit on 16-3-2011 by Essan because: the thread title was too boring .....





posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
It's interesting that a more sobre (albeit serious) view of the situation is getting absoutely zero attention.
I'm not qualified to comment on what this chief sciencey guy had said today at the British Embassy, but would be very interested to hear the opinions of others on here who might have more knowledge than me . Is the guy overlooking anything do you think ?


PS) Your thread title has changed ? I think your previous one might have eventually gotten this thread more attention
edit on 16/3/11 by cosmicpixie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
sorry
edit on 16/3/11 by cosmicpixie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Honestly no one knows the full extent of the radiation risk yet because the nuclear disaster is still underway.

Impossible to know the full ramifications now, isnt it if several plants are still melting down?



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
What is the TRUTH about the Radiation Risk?

Probably that they aren't telling the truth. I hate to say it but I think they are downplaying the risks and what has happened so they don't spark fear and pandemonium.


The least they can do is be truthful with people.



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by cosmicpixie

PS) Your thread title has changed ? I think your previous one might have eventually gotten this thread more attention


I'd like to think you're right, but I got the impression a non-sensational thread title was going to quickly drop down the page and no-one would read the link, so I changed it


I'm not qualified to say what the UK Chief Scientist and his coeagues has said is correct or not, but my money on it not being far off the mark. Though circumstances may of course change. I certainly don't think the situation is going to end up anything like as serious as Chernobyl. Of which I was directly affected.

As an aside, I also find it sad there's been little attention given to the fact that these 40 year old reactors withstood an earthquake thousands of times stronger than they had been built to survive. It was simply the incredible bad luck of the tsunami knocking out the diesel generators - and surrounding infrastructure making it impossible to get spares in quickly - that did for them. If the earthquake had been under land, they'd have been fine!





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join