Some Japanese towns to stay dangerously radioactive for at least a decade

page: 1
7

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Some Japanese towns to stay dangerously radioactive for at least a decade


www.cbsnews.com

(CBS News) As Japan continues to clean up after the deadly earthquake and tsunami that killed nearly 16,000 people on March 11, 2011, one thing is clear: something went really wrong at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, and the people who lived nearby will suffer for decades as a result.

...

While many have been critical of the government's handling of the Fukushima disaster, some are pointing out that at least they are finally being realistic about the scope of the crisis there.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.japantimes.co.jp
www.aljazeera.com
www.reuters.com
www.greenpeace .org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Japan declares 'nuclear emergency' after quake
America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?
Scientists test sick Alaska seals for radiation
TEPCO: Not Enough Money To Handle Fukushima Nuclear Reactor 4 Problems & US in Cover-UP




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Well folks, here again we see that the MSM is slowly catching on to what we have known for quite some time. Those who have been following the mega-thread (linked above) have been fully cognizant of the fact that areas surrounding the plant would be uninhabitable for decades.

The above linked news story indicates that the areas referenced will not be able to inhabited until at least 2022. I think that this is even an overly optimistic estimation sue to the fact that they still do not have control of the reactions that are taking place beneath the reactors.

The technology does not even exist to properly deal with the corium masses, even if they were able to get to them.

Bless the people of Japan, and the world as this is something we will be dealing with for decades to come.

www.cbsnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
welcome to the 21 century chernobly cities.... were society stood still and barren wastelands took over the lanscape... quite sad really



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dannikilla13
welcome to the 21 century chernobly cities.... were society stood still and barren wastelands took over the lanscape... quite sad really


You do know that after Chernobyl, over 1 million unplanned abortions were performed due to the panic over the accident, ending the possible life of over 1 million souls

yet the accident itself may have killed only a few thousand...

Radiation is not the big bad killer the media makes it out to be. Overall, industrial radiation accidents have killed a lot less than accidents in the traditional energy industries yet you are not panicking over the complete destruction of our environment by traditional energy industries, are you?

Nuclear energy is a gift



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by QQXXw
 



yet the accident itself may have killed only a few thousand...


According to some studies, the number is much higher:


A recent conference concluded that 9,000 persons worldwide survived with or died from cancer (3), while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000 (4).

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environment
and Socio-Economic Impact and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus,
the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 2nd Rev. Ed. Vienna, 2006. www.iaea.org/
publications/booklets/Chernnobyl/Chernobyl.pdf (accessed August 1, 2011).

4. Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., and Nesterenko, A. V. Chernobyl: Consequences
of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. New York Academy of Sciences,
New York, 2009.
emphasis mine

AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION? (455 KB .pdf)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw
Nuclear energy is a gift


Nuclear energy is a JOKE All we do is boil water with it and create a mess for future generations to deal with. We can use our TRASH to boil water

Save the limited nuclear fuel for when we grow up enough to figure out how to use that energy directly



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
reply to post by QQXXw
 



yet the accident itself may have killed only a few thousand...


According to some studies, the number is much higher:


A recent conference concluded that 9,000 persons worldwide survived with or died from cancer (3), while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000 (4).

3. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Chernobyl Legacy: Health, Environment
and Socio-Economic Impact and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus,
the Russian Federation, and Ukraine, 2nd Rev. Ed. Vienna, 2006. www.iaea.org/
publications/booklets/Chernnobyl/Chernobyl.pdf (accessed August 1, 2011).

4. Yablokov, A. V., Nesterenko, V. B., and Nesterenko, A. V. Chernobyl: Consequences
of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. New York Academy of Sciences,
New York, 2009.
emphasis mine

AN UNEXPECTED MORTALITY INCREASE IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS ARRIVAL OF THE RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM FUKUSHIMA: IS THERE A CORRELATION? (455 KB .pdf)



I've read the research articles coming out from Ukrainian authors quite a while ago, they had an agenda and vastly over-estimated the death toll. They basically attributed common causes of death to radiation.

The article you linked only claims a very low increase (4%~) in death in the united states following Fukushima, which can be attributed to absolutely anything, including people biting the bullet due to un-necessary panic, we don't even know if the statistics in that article are reliable



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


This is the type of fear mongering I am talking about



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.

And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.

At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plants
edit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw
I've read the research articles coming out from Ukrainian authors quite a while ago,


Reality

Chernobyl Then and Now
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I think people are forgetting the difference between correlation and causation. Fukushima occurred, high rate of school shooting this year, positive correlation.

correlation=/=causation



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.

And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.

At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plants
edit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)


Why are you so against nuclear energy? If we had used nuclear energy from the start our planet would be a lot greener (not a cue for you to make a joke) and a whole lot less polluted. Nuclear energy IS clean energy, or at least the closest we have to true clean energy. Using nuclear reactions to drive turbines is not the most thermodynamically efficient way to do it, but it is the most efficient way that we currently have which means we either use nuclear or develop alternative energies, going back to old traditional energy production or to the dead end ideas of solar and wind should not be an option

Germany too will come to its senses and re-think the decision



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 





while a compendium of more than 5,000 research papers put the excess death toll (from cancer and all other causes) at 985,000



Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian language version of this report. This report is not peer reviewed nor is it endorsed by the New York Academy of Sciences.[60] The New York Academy of Sciences also published a critical review by M. I. Balonov from the Institute of Radiation Hygiene (St. Petersburg, Russia).[61]


Not even peer-reviewed, and Greenpeace is a big red flag, they have an agenda.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by QQXXw
 


Care to tell us which firm you're lobbying for?

Don't try and convince people that nuclear energy is anything other than a joke.

If it's so great, why haven't humans evolved enough to use it in a responsible manner, rather than to kill each other?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw

Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.

And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.

At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plants
edit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)


Why are you so against nuclear energy? If we had used nuclear energy from the start our planet would be a lot greener (not a cue for you to make a joke) and a whole lot less polluted. Nuclear energy IS clean energy, or at least the closest we have to true clean energy. Using nuclear reactions to drive turbines is not the most thermodynamically efficient way to do it, but it is the most efficient way that we currently have which means we either use nuclear or develop alternative energies, going back to old traditional energy production or to the dead end ideas of solar and wind should not be an option

Germany too will come to its senses and re-think the decision



From a scientific standpoint I'd agree, but you're completely blind to the human element.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


My mother was exposed to radiation and now at 59 I have breast cancer. My mother died at 53 and sister at 61 of cancer.

Radiation alters your DNA on a chromosome level - Gods, don't you knuckle heads get it?????

Once "they" (whoever they are) alter your DNA/CHROMOSOME level you are fuc^%$.

Until human scientists can figure out WTF is really going on.

Wake TFU.

Our DNA has been tampered with big time..............and most people ignore or deny this fact because it's too bitter of a pill to take.

No, war fare of the future isn't going to be big machines roving the planet, it will be a quiet assimilation of our DNA.on a chromosome level - a covert vs overt operation and most of you are so stupid as to not see it.
edit on 24-4-2012 by ofhumandescent because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by QQXXw

Originally posted by zorgon
How is it fear mongering? Its the simple plain truth.

And it will come back to bite us in the very near future.

At least Germany got smart... they are shutting down all their nuke plants
edit on 24-4-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)


Why are you so against nuclear energy? If we had used nuclear energy from the start our planet would be a lot greener (not a cue for you to make a joke) and a whole lot less polluted. Nuclear energy IS clean energy, or at least the closest we have to true clean energy. Using nuclear reactions to drive turbines is not the most thermodynamically efficient way to do it, but it is the most efficient way that we currently have which means we either use nuclear or develop alternative energies, going back to old traditional energy production or to the dead end ideas of solar and wind should not be an option

Germany too will come to its senses and re-think the decision



This planet we call home moves on whether we are here or not.
It is what we do that affects us.
We poison ourselves.
Much worst things have happened to the planet and it survived,as did the little mammals that eventually became us.

Nuclear energy is bad for us because we do not have the tech to properly control.
They say we do,but look around and see for your self.
The planet Earth is fine,it's our grandchildren we worry about.

We have the tech to get away from fossil fuels, to stop using nukes,but we won't use them.

It will take a big wakeup call before it happens.




top topics
 
7

log in

join