reply to post by someguy0083
Would you attribute heart attacks of Chernobyl workers and those in the area to radionuclides and external radiation? You do know that external
radiation and ingested accumulated radionuclides cause many, many more diseases than just cancer, right? Deaths by radiation, more internal than
external, do not come with tatoos on the person's body saying Fukushima or Chernobyl, for example, caused this death. You have only correlations to
go by. When heart attacks and cardiovascular disease incidence rates raise statistically above the previous norm then you know something is up when
you can map the increases to the vicinity of the plants. Look up how many diseases radiation causes. Don't think you can only die by external
radiation of intense magnitude. Considering we have 70 years worth of information concerning the correlation of certain disease incidence rates and
radionuclide releases we can get a good idea of the amount of deaths. More than a thousand workers died at Chernobyl with many dieing years later of
heart attacks. Would you not attribute those heart attacks to Chernobyl considering the extraordinarily high rate of heart attacks in that population
compared to the rest of the country? I think some people forget that deaths due to radiation is a subject that is much more complex and unorthodox
compared to most forms of toxins we are familiar with and deaths and disease occur with "incubation" periods from 1 year to 20+ years. Some
diseases in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't start increasing/showing up until 20 years later! Look at Childhood acute leukemia rates in Fukushima
before and after 3/11. Patronizing people is no way to get them to believe you. People have died and many more will die from Fukushima, but most are
too ignorant to realize the nature of radiation in relation to human health. Prove causation of a death due to radiation that wasn't a fatal
external dose...You can't. You can only look at incidence rates and compare to before the accident and compare to other radioactive releases like
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl for example.
On a different note: They know exactly what happened to the plant and why what happened happened. That is just lazy reporting and you can tell the
MSM doesn't care if these "journalists" don't understand what caused the plant to have so many meltdowns. Fukushima wasn't even alone in losing
power and back-up systems. Hint, it wasn't an accident. (I am not talking about premeditated sabotage, either.) This isn't what I want to say
about the article though.
The article talks about clean up of some towns won't occur for a decade. Well, that is just a blatant lie. These towns will NEVER be cleaned up.
The "decontamination" work they are doing now is absolutely futile. These places are still radioactive and most are registering even higher dose
rates AFTER decontamination. There just simply is no way to completely remove the radionuclides littered from Fukushima or even to lower the levels
substantially instead of completely. If they somehow could clean up the land, bio-accumulation is still at work. Tree and plant pollen is some of
the most radioactively contaminated substances floating in the air of Japan. This will be a bad spring and summer. The food is tainted with this
stuff and the government and corporations are not testing the food. They say they do, but how many people have gotten food tested that is far above
the arbitrary limits imposed by the government. There are many cases of outright fraud by food producers labeling food from Fukushima as food from
other prefectures. All that entails is a little slap on the wrist. The limits from the government are extremely high anyway so if they would test
ALL food it wouldn't matter. They would still be putting highly contaminated food on the market. It's a bad situation no matter how you slice it
and to say that no one has died or will die from Fukushima is just pure ignorance. I know it's a huge subject to research, but the information is
out there. The deaths won't show up as black and white, although certain diseases like childhood acute leukemia at higher than ever incidence rates
is pretty black and white considering the disease is practically non-existent before the accident. This isn't a subject you can be concise with so
it's rather annoying sometimes to write huge posts, but I hope if you don't believe me you go search information from independent sources NOT
CONNECTED TO THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY. Berkeley depends on millions of dollars in grants from the DOE and industry, for example, and as such it's
credibility is called into question. The info is there, look for it and learn to separate PR from truth.