Prestigious doctor: US nuclear 'Baby valley of death,' Millions to die

page: 4
139
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons


If you're main criteria for deciding who to trust is that they happen to be people/sources you like, without evaluation of that criteria you aren't better off.

 


I never said that. But if you take a look at the source and they have no educational background to what they are talking about, or they have fake diplomas, or a history of lying, hoaxing, etc.

That tends to play into their credibility.





posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aeons


If you're main criteria for deciding who to trust is that they happen to be people/sources you like, without evaluation of that criteria you aren't better off.

 


I never said that. But if you take a look at the source and they have no educational background to what they are talking about, or they have fake diplomas, or a history of lying, hoaxing, etc.

That tends to play into their credibility.





Yes. It does.

But the fact remains that your government changed the guidelines for safe exposures to radiation. Because, you're being exposed to more radiation, and in your lifetime you'll continue to be exposed to the increased radiation.

Now, if I want people to ignore that reality, I can do so easily. I make sure the information - which is true - is only said by idiots, charlatans and other unsavoury characters. That way, when you'll never think that the basic information is true, because you'll only see the snake oil saleseman when you think of it.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
But the fact remains that your government changed the guidelines for safe exposures to radiation. Because, you're being exposed to more radiation, and in your lifetime you'll continue to be exposed to the increased radiation.

Source?

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.
edit on 21-6-2011 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 



You want a credible expert, no?


Gundersen, a licensed reactor operator with 39 years of nuclear power engineering experience, managing and coordinating projects at 70 nuclear power plants around the US, says the Fukushima nuclear plant likely has more exposed reactor cores than commonly believed.

"We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl," said Gundersen. "The data I'm seeing shows that we are finding hot spots further away than we had from Chernobyl, and the amount of radiation in many of them was the amount that caused areas to be declared no-man's-land for Chernobyl. We are seeing square kilometres being found 60 to 70 kilometres away from the reactor. You can't clean all this up. We still have radioactive wild boar in Germany, 30 years after Chernobyl."

...

Japan's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters finally admitted earlier this month that reactors 1, 2, and 3 at the Fukushima plant experienced full meltdowns.

TEPCO announced that the accident probably released more radioactive material into the environment than Chernobyl, making it the worst nuclear accident on record.

...

In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the Fukushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.

The eight cities included in the report are San Jose, Berkeley, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Portland, Seattle, and Boise, and the time frame of the report included the ten weeks immediately following the disaster.


source

Seriously, is it so hard to do the math? Perhaps this guy is simply mongering fear, but everything indicates that this disaster is significantly worse than Chernobyl and considering the impact Chernobyl had on human health, it is likely that Fukushima is gonna be hell of a lot worse.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Aeons
But the fact remains that your government changed the guidelines for safe exposures to radiation. Because, you're being exposed to more radiation, and in your lifetime you'll continue to be exposed to the increased radiation.

Source?


The FDA. Who changed your exposure limits for ingestion of radiation, after a couple of weeks of shutting down reporting on it. Feel free to go look.

I'm sure you can find a publication that still lists the old limits. I doubt they've outlined it for you.
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2


You want a credible expert, no?

 


What I found in the article is:


In April 2010, Gundersen released a report (commissioned by several anti-nuclear groups) which explored a hazard associated with the possible rusting through of the AP1000 containment structure steel liner. In the AP1000 design, the liner and the concrete are separated, and if the steel rusts through, "there is no backup containment behind it" says Gundersen.


Someone who is paid by anti-nuclear lobby.


And:


Janette Sherman an MD, but also an activist. Here is the essay she wrote with the other fellow.


She is using numbers that are not calculated properly.


4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant.


You see, she did not pin those numbers up to the birth rate, like the following:


In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.



Which means, her numbers are bunk. Proof of nothing.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons


The FDA. Who changed your exposure limits for ingestion of radiation, after a couple of weeks of shutting down reporting on it. Feel free to go look. I'm sure you can find a publication that still lists the old limits. I doubt they've outlined it for you.

 


If you believe that, must mean you read it somewhere. If you read it somewhere, (and feel so strongly about it) you should be able to provide a source for it.

Not the other way around. It should not be up to the people you are trying to convince, to go on a fishing expedition.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Aeons
But the fact remains that your government changed the guidelines for safe exposures to radiation. Because, you're being exposed to more radiation, and in your lifetime you'll continue to be exposed to the increased radiation.

Source?


The FDA. Who changed your exposure limits for ingestion of radiation, after a couple of weeks of shutting down reporting on it. Feel free to go look.

I'm sure you can find a publication that still lists the old limits. I doubt they've outlined it for you.
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Can you should me a publication indicating that it has changed? I'd love to learn.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Again - please feel free to actually READ the 1000 page thread, because the links about it are in there.


Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Aeons
But the fact remains that your government changed the guidelines for safe exposures to radiation. Because, you're being exposed to more radiation, and in your lifetime you'll continue to be exposed to the increased radiation.

Source?


The FDA. Who changed your exposure limits for ingestion of radiation, after a couple of weeks of shutting down reporting on it. Feel free to go look.

I'm sure you can find a publication that still lists the old limits. I doubt they've outlined it for you.
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Can you should me a publication indicating that it has changed? I'd love to learn.


Prove it. I've directed you multiple times to the thread that you can find all of that in.

I'm sure that doesn't suit you, as it is FAR more work than writing "source" after everything.

edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I can give you a source to a media report of Japan raising their acceptable exposure limits. Now why can't you do the same for me regarding the FDA?

Raises dose limit for Workers.

Rasises dose limit for Children.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.


And lazy people can be given a source, but it won't matter anyways because they really aren't looking for an answer.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.


And lazy people can be given a source, but it won't matter anyways because they really aren't looking for an answer.

Or maybe I'm chasing a source that doesn't exist. If it actually occurred, it seems like I should be able to find something online, or you should be able to provide the source. But neither of us can. Interesting.

Care to fearmonger any more?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.


And lazy people can be given a source, but it won't matter anyways because they really aren't looking for an answer.

Or maybe I'm chasing a source that doesn't exist. If it actually occurred, it seems like I should be able to find something online, or you should be able to provide the source. But neither of us can. Interesting.

Care to fearmonger any more?


Why no.

Everything the world is peachy. Nuclear reactors giving off radiation into the ocean for months and months doesn't do anything. I can't believe anyone ever thought that exposure guidelines were EVER necessary.

Pure silliness, all those decades wasted on all that nonsense. Radiation is good for you.

Care you actually go READ the thread? No? Good to know.
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


All your post tells me is you are afraid of radiation, probably don't understand it is why. All is going well in the states, no radiation nor the need to increase the safe exposure levels.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Maybe it was your back up explanation when the swine flu failed?
People can't accept that the swine flu wasn't that serious to begin with, and the only reason there was panic was because the media covered it.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


All your post tells me is you are afraid of radiation, probably don't understand it is why. All is going well in the states, no radiation nor the need to increase the safe exposure levels.


So. It puts out particles that have half lives of 10,000 years, but you think that measure of iodine is the sole indicator of how fantastic things are?

Or are you just under the impression that all those particles just never go anyhwere inconvenient for you?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.


And lazy people can be given a source, but it won't matter anyways because they really aren't looking for an answer.


Why did the US raise the exposure limit if the EPA declared that the levels of radiation are of no public health concern? It just doesn't make sense.


WASHINGTON – During detailed filter analyses from 12 RadNet air monitor locations across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified trace amounts of radioactive isotopes consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident.

Some of the filter results show levels slightly higher than those found by EPA monitors last week and a Department of Energy monitor the week before. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are still far below levels of public health concern. EPA’s samples were captured by monitors in Alaska, Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands and Washington state over the past week and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis.
EPA

As far as the 1000 page thread goes, I skimmed through some of it. Right now [at the end] they are talking about the French guy (Wasn't he exposed during the crisis?) and half of it is posts from right after the quake.

That's like me telling you to read a Stephen King novel as we are discussing the plotline.
edit on 20-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by randyvs
 


Maybe it was your back up explanation when the swine flu failed?
People can't accept that the swine flu wasn't that serious to begin with, and the only reason there was panic was because the media covered it.


Swine flu by itself killed quite a few people. It is still killing poeple. It is doing so by itself at a number equal to other flus combined. It is killing a different group of people than the other flus.

There is a pandemic that is likely to happen. The statistics on that don't change because you don't like that this one didn't kill enough people for you to not disdain it.
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by adeclerk
reply to post by Aeons
 


So you can't link us to a source? I'm almost surprised, but most bold claims lack a source, anyways.


And lazy people can be given a source, but it won't matter anyways because they really aren't looking for an answer.


Why did the US raise the exposure limit if the EPA declared that the levels of radiation are of no public health concern? It just doesn't make sense.


WASHINGTON – During detailed filter analyses from 12 RadNet air monitor locations across the nation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified trace amounts of radioactive isotopes consistent with the Japanese nuclear incident.

Some of the filter results show levels slightly higher than those found by EPA monitors last week and a Department of Energy monitor the week before. These types of findings are to be expected in the coming days and are still far below levels of public health concern. EPA’s samples were captured by monitors in Alaska, Alabama, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands and Washington state over the past week and sent to EPA scientists for detailed laboratory analysis.
EPA

As far as the 1000 page thread goes, I skimmed through some of it. Right now [at the end] they are talking about the French guy (Wasn't he exposed during the crisis?) and half of it is posts from right after the quake.

That's like me telling you to read a Stephen King novel as we are discussing the plotline.
edit on 20-6-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)


If I change the limit, then tell you it doesn't meet the new limit, I'm not exactly lying now am I?
edit on 2011/6/20 by Aeons because: don't know why that's bold.






top topics



 
139
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join