Persistant Myths From Japan

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

The myth that Fukushima radiation levels were too low to harm humans persists, a year after the meltdown. A March 2, 2012 New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor John Boice: “there’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance for success – the doses are just too low.” Wolfgang Weiss of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation also recently said doses observed in screening of Japanese people “are very low.”

Views like these are political, not scientific, virtually identical to what the nuclear industry cheerleaders claim. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo issued a statement in June that “no health effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.”


How many people have to suffer through cancer and suffer from deformities before the world realizes nuclear power = BAD nuclear power = DEATH nuclear power = HARDLY ENOUGH POWER TO JUSTIFY IT"S USE nuclear power = NO TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TO CLEAN THE WASTE. The lies in Japan are being told as to not alarm the public to the dangers of nuclear power. There are many reported still birth and deformities not being told to the public.enenews.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Its going to have to take the Japenese peoples them selves to fix this situation I believe.

I wouldnt stand for it, I know the whole of England wouldnt stand for it....i dunno how things work over there tho.

regarding the subject globally, its going to stay this way untill they admit they have free energy.

A sad situation I know.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
What? Nuclear power is extremely efficient, and clean to the environment. It does not pollute water (the water output and intake is in a closed system which doesn't even come close to the reactor core), does not pollute the air (that's steam), and nuclear waste isn't as dangerous as people think. Radiation is reduced to background levels after passing through eight-odd feet of water, significantly less if you use heavy metal shielding.

Nuclear power has a bad reputation for the same reason that we have the abbreviation MRI... "nuclear" has a bad rep in the media.

(MRI would have been NMRI if people weren't afraid of getting "nuclear" scans. The funny part is, MRI uses no ionizing radiation, but PET/SPECT/CT scans all do.)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pondrthis
What? Nuclear power is extremely efficient, and clean to the environment. It does not pollute water (the water output and intake is in a closed system which doesn't even come close to the reactor core), does not pollute the air (that's steam), and nuclear waste isn't as dangerous as people think. Radiation is reduced to background levels after passing through eight-odd feet of water, significantly less if you use heavy metal shielding.

Nuclear power has a bad reputation for the same reason that we have the abbreviation MRI... "nuclear" has a bad rep in the media.

(MRI would have been NMRI if people weren't afraid of getting "nuclear" scans. The funny part is, MRI uses no ionizing radiation, but PET/SPECT/CT scans all do.)


Nuclear power has a bad rep?!?!, there is no form of technology invented to deal with the waste of a nuclear reactor. They only power 20% of America but cost $10 billion a reactor. Mmmm...seems worth it.
I guess if your an owner you might see it as a 'bad rep'. It has a bad rep because it is bad, causes harm to people, not even close to what one would call efficient energy.


Currently, without any central repository, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Nevadans like Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who has doggedly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, say it makes more sense to leave such waste where it is than to risk transporting it across the nation’s public highways and rail system, during which accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.

But others say that the current system, or lack thereof, leaves Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service concluded in a 2007 report that tons of radioactive waste were ending up in landfills and in some cases in consumer products, thanks to loopholes in a 2000 federal ban on recycling metal that had been exposed to radioactivity.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Yea good stuff
edit on 12-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


Not all nuclear reactors are bad,

Just saying, the ones inn current use are, but not all are.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It has high initial cost, but the energy per unit waste and per unit raw uranium cost is VERY high. It is also not dangerous to people when the proper facility care is practiced.

The reason it's inefficient in the US is because our government has only embraced it to a half-assed level. Nuclear plants are sitting dormant all over the place, and the active ones are running at fractional capacity.

W.r.t. the claim that "there is no technology to contain the waste", you mean "there is no technology to destroy the waste". The waste products of nuclear reactions are elemental in nature, so there is no way to destroy them. However, their effects are completely neutralized (brought down to background radiation levels) when placed in spent fuel pools ~ 8 feet under water. Most spent fuel pools are ~ 50 feet deep, though, with spent fuel placed no higher than 30 feet deep. Combine this with the fact that a lead box blocks radiation effectively also--and there is also no way to destroy lead, mind you, so we might as well use it--and you can see that the hazardous effects of nuclear waste are minuscule compared to the byproducts of fossil fuels.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pondrthis
 


LOL "and clean to the environment"....are they very clean when they have a breakdown??

Have you seen the 3 eyed fish on the simpsons??

Will everyone world wide thats been effected by radiation agree its very "clean"??
edit on 12-3-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


When they leak, no, they're not safe. But neither is a hospital cyclotron, or a university chemical lab. If the government were serious about nuclear power, though, they would pay to keep the facilities in working condition and engineer preventative solutions to potential natural disasters.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pondrthis
 



The New York Times recently ran a piece proclaiming the issue of spent nuclear fuel as a major problem. The US has 104 operating nuclear power reactors. There are 439 power reactors operating worldwide, they provide only 6% of the world’s power. The US reactors alone produce 2000 metric tons of fuel each year. As of 2009 the US alone had produced about 64,000 metric tons of spent fuel. A 2009 estimated said the planned (and now scrapped) Yucca mountain storage facility would have hit it’s 70,000 metric ton capacity by 2010.

Currently no country has a permanent storage facility for nuclear fuel waste. A few are exploring the idea at various underground locations. In Germany the Castor waste transports have been generating weeks of massive and sometimes violent clashes with police. Germany currently does not have a permanent storage facility. Fuel is taken to an interim facility in Gorleben after vitrification in France. Germany has considered a permanent facility in an underground salt dome. Researchers have expressed concern as the irradiation of salt could cause an explosion and chain reaction of explosions in such a facility.


Sounds safe to me


Even at the safest conditions there is still a problem of disposing of the spent fuel and no solution yet except bury it and that fell through.
edit on 12-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Team: Radiation exposure in Tokyo far below limit



Total exposure was 0.048 millisieverts for infants; 0.042 millisieverts for pre-school children; and 0.018 millisieverts for adults. (For the Time of 365 Days, edited by me)

The figure for infants is about one-twentieth of the permissible level. The team estimates that this level of radiation exposure will increase infant cancer rates later in life by 3 per 100,000 individuals.

The risk is said to be a little lower than that caused by exhaust gas from diesel-engine cars. The team says a shipment ban on foods that contain radioactive cesium above legal safety levels has reduced the risk of cancer by 44 percent for infants; 34 percent for pre-schoolers; and 29 percent for adults.

In the figure for infants, 8 percent of the risk reduction is due to the distribution of bottled water by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

www3.nhk.or.jp...

This is Tokyo average and not F"Shima

edit on 12-3-2012 by Human0815 because: explanantion



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human0815

Team: Radiation exposure in Tokyo far below limit



Total exposure was 0.048 millisieverts for infants; 0.042 millisieverts for pre-school children; and 0.018 millisieverts for adults. (For the Time of 365 Days, edited by me)

The figure for infants is about one-twentieth of the permissible level. The team estimates that this level of radiation exposure will increase infant cancer rates later in life by 3 per 100,000 individuals.

The risk is said to be a little lower than that caused by exhaust gas from diesel-engine cars. The team says a shipment ban on foods that contain radioactive cesium above legal safety levels has reduced the risk of cancer by 44 percent for infants; 34 percent for pre-schoolers; and 29 percent for adults.

In the figure for infants, 8 percent of the risk reduction is due to the distribution of bottled water by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.

www3.nhk.or.jp...

This is Tokyo average and not F"Shima

edit on 12-3-2012 by Human0815 because: explanantion


Originally posted by PageAlaCearl

The myth that Fukushima radiation levels were too low to harm humans persists, a year after the meltdown. A March 2, 2012 New York Times article quoted Vanderbilt University professor John Boice: “there’s no opportunity for conducting epidemiological studies that have any chance for success – the doses are just too low.” Wolfgang Weiss of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation also recently said doses observed in screening of Japanese people “are very low.”

Views like these are political, not scientific, virtually identical to what the nuclear industry cheerleaders claim. Nuclear Energy Institute spokesperson Tony Pietrangelo issued a statement in June that “no health effects are expected among the Japanese people as a result of the events at Fukushima.”


How many people have to suffer through cancer and suffer from deformities before the world realizes nuclear power = BAD nuclear power = DEATH nuclear power = HARDLY ENOUGH POWER TO JUSTIFY IT"S USE nuclear power = NO TECHNOLOGY EXISTS TO CLEAN THE WASTE. The lies in Japan are being told as to not alarm the public to the dangers of nuclear power. There are many reported still birth and deformities not being told to the public.enenews.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 12-3-2012 by PageAlaCearl because: (no reason given)


Maybe my comprehension skills are whack?

I was under the impression we were discussing fatalities linked directly to F-shima, in correlation with the reports we are continually receiving unabated.

This stuff ain't being reported in the MSM is it?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Don't worry. There is about to be a big propaganda push about Japan looking to rely less on nuclear and more on petroleum from its trading partners.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   


Ah yes... just like clockwork, it's the "I don't understand Radiation, and therefore let's revert to a stone age level of technological sophistication because the world isn't perfectly safe in all ways!"

So, for a QUICK RECAP ON THE SAFETY OF RADIATION...

Let's have a brief comparison with other things.... shall we?


According to the World Health Organization, drowning is the 3rd leading cause of unintentional injury death worldwide, accounting for 7% of all injury related deaths (est. 388,000 deaths by drowning in 2004, excluding those due to natural disasters)

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's ban WATER... YAY!!!


Fatalities in auto-mobile accidents in 2006; 42,642

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's ban CARS!!!! YAY!!!!


There were 550 electrocutions in the US in 1993

en.wikipedia.org...

LET'S BAN ELECTRICITY!!!! YAY!!!!!


One of the worst nuclear accidents to date was the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986 in Ukraine. That accident killed 56 people directly



.....A study published in 2005 estimates that there will eventually be up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident among those exposed to significant radiation levels.

en.wikipedia.org...

So... *AGAIN*, that's:

Drowning: 388,000 deaths PER YEAR
Cars: 42,000 deaths PER YEAR
Electricity: 550 deaths PER YEAR


AND THE GREATEST NUCLEAR


DISASTER OF ALL TIME?



56 deaths, with an estimated 4,000 additional cancer deaths "Related" to the accident.


I tried looking for the statistics of deaths resulting from NON-DISASTER nuclear power.... but I can't seem to find any.



Stop spreading fear about technology that you do not understand, and stop trying to get the whole world to continue it's addiction to the global fossil fuel cartels by attacking practical energy alternatives.

IT just makes you look like a useful *TOOL* of the establishment.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
And as an aside to my prior rant.... the next person who brings up a cartoon 3 eyed fish in a discussion about Real Life radiation, I will point at and laugh at great length, out loud.




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
And as ONE MORE additional addendum....


In the US alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century,[17] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.....

....Firedamp explosions can trigger the much more dangerous coal dust explosions, which can engulf an entire pit. Most of these risks can be greatly reduced in modern mines, and multiple fatality incidents are now rare in some parts of the developed world. Modern mining in the US results in approximately 30 deaths per year due to mine accidents....

....Chronic lung diseases, such as pneumoconiosis (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced life expectancy. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4,000 new cases of black lung every year in the US

en.wikipedia.org...


Between 2004 and 2008, there was an average of 34 deaths per year in the oil and gas well drilling industries.

www.ehow.com...


Melanoma, the most serious type of skin cancer, will account for more than 75,000 cases of skin cancer in 2012. It accounts for almost 9,000 of the nearly 12,000 skin cancer deaths each year.

www.cancer.org...

edit on 13-3-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: STOP THIS STUPIDITY NOW



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pondrthis
Radiation is reduced to background levels after passing through eight-odd feet of water, significantly less if you use heavy metal shielding.

If it is reduced to only "background levels" after 8 feet of water, why do they have to go to extreme engineering lengths to build multi-layered steel-reinforced concrete structures? Surely a tank to hold water would be sufficient then, at much reduced cost?

The reality is radiation from nuclear power IS dangerous.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


If you think only 56 deaths occurred as a result of Chernobyl you are no better than the Commies who tried to cover it up. I dispute your definition of "direct" too. If Chernobyl hadn't blown up, those 4000 cancer deaths wouldn't exist, so isn't that a direct cause?

You also forget all the genetic deformities etc.. that occur as a result of radiation. You realize that sterility is a result of radiation exposure too? NO births are as bad as still births as far as a death count is concerned.

Before stating the impact of nuclear vs. other problems, be sure to count ALL the effects.

Everyone forgets the true heros of Chernobyl: The Liquidators. There were 240,000 of them. They are either dead, dying, or suffering illness as a direct result of Chernobyl. 56 dead and maybe 4000 cancer deaths doesn't cover all these people! The total number of people affected by Chernobyl is thought to be closer to 1,000,000. That ignores the effect on the wildlife/environment.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 15-3-2012 by mirageofdeceit because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 



If you think only 56 deaths occurred as a result of Chernobyl you are no better than the Commies who tried to cover it up.


56 Direct deaths, yes. This is a Fact.

The indirect deaths I remember quoting as "Estimated" at near 4,000.

I see that you conveniantly neglected to remember where I quoted this, and are in full on Attack mode....

That's fine, I can Dance.


I dispute your definition of "direct" too.


It's not my definition of "Direct", it's the World Health Organizations definition... take it up with them.

From your Article:


A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.



If Chernobyl hadn't blown up, those 4000 cancer deaths wouldn't exist, so isn't that a direct cause?


Radiation is the only thing that causes cancer?

Nothing else can?

You tracked the radioactive particles from debris at Chernobyl as it passed into the person who got the cancer?

You know for a fact what caused their cancer?

This is all true, eh?




You also forget all the genetic deformities etc. that occur as a result of radiation.


Did you have any specific information on the genetic deformities that Chernobyl caused?

as in, how many, how severe, etc?


You realize that sterility is a result of radiation exposure too? NO births are as bad as still births as far as a death count is concerned.


No, sterility is NOT a result of radiation exposure.... it is a *POSSIBLE* result of radiation OVEREXPOSURE.

We are being exposed to radiation on a daily basis, as we have always been.


Before stating the impact of nuclear vs. other problems, be sure to count ALL the effects.


Would you like to make up, or exacturate any more effects before we continue?

I'd like to have a complete list of this specific brand of "Crazy" that you are reading off of.


Everyone forgets the true heros of Chernobyl: The Liquidators.


Honestly, I never heard of them in the first place...


There were 240,000 of them. They are either dead, dying, or suffering illness as a direct result of Chernobyl.


All of them? Really?


Between 1986 and 1992, it is thought between 600,000 and one million people participated in works around Chernobyl and were exposed to some level of radiation. Because of the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s, evaluations about liquidators' health are difficult, since they come from various countries (mostly Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, but also other former Soviet republics). Furthermore, the government of Russia has never been keen on giving the true figures for the disaster, or even on making serious estimates.[citation needed] However, according to a study by Belarusian physicians, rate of cancers among this population is about four times greater than the rest of the population. All the figures quoted by various agencies are controversial.


So, you have no actual numbers to back up your conjecture.... and a claim that 600,000 people are "Dead and dying from radiation" despite the fact that the event was roughly 30 years ago, and most of them are probably in their 60's by now....

Yeah... you are basically just pulling material out of your bum, now...


56 dead and maybe 4000 cancer deaths doesn't cover all these people!


What is your source to say that they are all dying from radiation?

You keep barking, little doggie.... but I have yet to see you bite.


The total number of people affected by Chernobyl


is thought


to be closer to 1,000,000.


"Is thought", by whom?

edit on 15-3-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia/mirageofdeceit
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 



If you think only 56 deaths occurred as a result of Chernobyl you are no better than the Commies who tried to cover it up.


56 Direct deaths, yes. This is a Fact.

The indirect deaths I remember quoting as "Estimated" at near 4,000.

I see that you conveniantly neglected to remember where I quoted this, and are in full on Attack mode....

That's fine, I can Dance.


I dispute your definition of "direct" too.


It's not my definition of "Direct", it's the World Health Organizations definition... take it up with them.

From your Article:


A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.



If Chernobyl hadn't blown up, those 4000 cancer deaths wouldn't exist, so isn't that a direct cause?


Radiation is the only thing that causes cancer?

Nothing else can?

You tracked the radioactive particles from debris at Chernobyl as it passed into the person who got the cancer?

You know for a fact what caused their cancer?

This is all true, eh?




You also forget all the genetic deformities etc. that occur as a result of radiation.


Did you have any specific information on the genetic deformities that Chernobyl caused?

as in, how many, how severe, etc?


You realize that sterility is a result of radiation exposure too? NO births are as bad as still births as far as a death count is concerned.


No, sterility is NOT a result of radiation exposure.... it is a *POSSIBLE* result of radiation OVEREXPOSURE.

We are being exposed to radiation on a daily basis, as we have always been.


Before stating the impact of nuclear vs. other problems, be sure to count ALL the effects.


Would you like to make up, or exacturate any more effects before we continue?

I'd like to have a complete list of this specific brand of "Crazy" that you are reading off of.


Everyone forgets the true heros of Chernobyl: The Liquidators.


Honestly, I never heard of them in the first place...


There were 240,000 of them. They are either dead, dying, or suffering illness as a direct result of Chernobyl.


All of them? Really?


Between 1986 and 1992, it is thought between 600,000 and one million people participated in works around Chernobyl and were exposed to some level of radiation. Because of the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s, evaluations about liquidators' health are difficult, since they come from various countries (mostly Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, but also other former Soviet republics). Furthermore, the government of Russia has never been keen on giving the true figures for the disaster, or even on making serious estimates.[citation needed] However, according to a study by Belarusian physicians, rate of cancers among this population is about four times greater than the rest of the population. All the figures quoted by various agencies are controversial.


So, you have no actual numbers to back up your conjecture.... and a claim that 600,000 people are "Dead and dying from radiation" despite the fact that the event was roughly 30 years ago, and most of them are probably in their 60's by now....

Yeah... you are basically just pulling material out of your bum, now...


56 dead and maybe 4000 cancer deaths doesn't cover all these people!


What is your source to say that they are all dying from radiation?

You keep barking, little doggie.... but I have yet to see you bite.


The total number of people affected by Chernobyl


is thought


to be closer to 1,000,000.


"Is thought", by whom?

edit on 15-3-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)


I'm just here to thank you for pointing-out the topic of this fine thread.
No star for you.

keyword; deflection
edit on (3/15/1212 by loveguy because:

edit on (3/15/1212 by loveguy because: trying to reply to correct post.






new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join