Japans Future Not So Bad: A Video You Really Must See…

“Cooking in the Danger Zone” (Chernobyl episode, filmed by the BBC, before Fukushima in 2007) www.youtube.com...

Get ten minutes 5 seconds into this video, and it shows you how wildlife (even animals like boer) are thriving. The presenter then gets taunted by others eating their radioactive lunch, and by 12.10 minutes he mentions how 300 people have permanently moved back into the exclusion zone.
By the 13 minute mark, he’s meeting a couple in their 80’s who have only spent 1 year away from the exclusion zone. He asks her: “Why do you want to live here again, despite the fact the land is contaminated with radiation”

She Answers: “It was even worse where they moved us to! Black earth. Your feet got stuck in it! We live better here than they do there. Half of them are dead, but we are still alive”.

He then (completely against BBC orders) enjoys a radioactive meal with her (him together with all the radiation experts, and Ukrainian guides with him).
By 14.17 seconds he asks "is it crazy" and she says “If it were contaminated we would have died long ago. But we’ve been eating it 20 years already”
It then transpires that the worst thing to have happened in her life, was actually being forcefully evacuated (had to abandon her beloved cow, ect).

By 22.39: He asks his (next lot of) hosts “does radioactivity worry you”. It soon transpires not only doesn’t it worry them, but they also support Nuclear Power generally “Since man discovered fire, he uses it to keep warm, to cook food. That same fire burns down houses, and kills thousands of people. It’s the same as fire. It all depends on how you use it” (replies one old man).

He then goes mushroom picking with the Mayor (out of all foods, mushrooms accumulate the most radiation!) it turns out, even in this town outside the official exclusion zone they are 8 times beyond safe limits. However the Mayor happily eats them (presumably goes mushroom picking, every week).

Stefan Gates then has his stomach tested for radiation. Turns out (although detectable by machine) he’s still well within the safe limits. www.youtube.com...


Some Facts to Consider…
All radioactivity depends on Half-Life (the time taken for something radioactive to lose half its radioactivity). The shorter the half-life the higher the radiation output, the longer the half-life, the more enduring the output.

So it’s truly amazing any old couple, in their 80’s (who’ve been there 20 years) are doing so well because (20 years ago) most of the radioactive isotopes still active today, would back then, have been in concentrations tens of thousands, of times higher. A good example being Iodine 131, with its half-life of just 8.02 days
van.physics.illinois.edu...
On the other hand: The concentrations of e.g. radioactive caesium will not have changed much at all (half-life 30.17) but then (although today it causes most of the remaining radiation) 20 years ago the radiation would have been so bad, that other things long since diminished, would have caused nearly it all.
And yet: This old couple are not only alive, but of the opinion they have fared much better than those who stayed evacuated.

80 year old couple? Don't see a lot of risk in eating the food.
in 3-4 generations... we'll see.

Seems pretty encouraging though.

Thank you very much for the thread and links. Very informative, will spend the next couple hours looking at this no doubt.

Living on the coast of California, we all like to think that the radiation from Fukushima doesn't amount to the mass amounts of nuclear testing that has occurred in our state/west coast/entirety of U.S
Though this may or may not be true, there is little we can do about it.

Educating oneself in this field is key to not being crippled by fear when it does come knocking at your door.

Radiation certainly isn’t harmless –everybody realises that, but the message of this 2007 documentary is twofold…
Firstly: What counts with the nuclear issue (just like any other issue) is context. One could spend a lifetime watching the propaganda of either side, but without seeking out the bigger picture you’re simply deceiving yourself at best, or wasting your time at worse.
Pro-Nuclear Facts MSM Doesn’t Want You to Know www.abovetopsecret.com... is another thread I authored about how actually (compared with fossil fuels) the death toll from nuclear energy is the least of our worries –even before the possible effects of global warming are taken into account.

Secondly: It says a lot about the power of positive thinking. I have often wondered whether e.g. health warnings on cigarettes are actually (massively) increasing the deadliness of smoking, since the human mind is certainly a powerful thing –powerful enough to cure a sick man of cancer by giving them nothing but chalk tablets i.e. through the Placebo effect.
Likewise it follows negative thinking, and fear, are going to have (all too real) deadly effects.
What struck me about that woman in her 80’s was her life energy. Would rarely stop talking, always smiling, was doing things everyday to sustain her own food supply. She told the presenter (when offering him radioactive food) “don’t worry God will protect you” (well God, or no God) an attitude like that has got to neutralise many of the negative health effects of a toxic environment (be it chemically, or radiologically contaminated).

The people I feel most sorry in Japan are those near the exclusion zone, who know that because radiation doesn’t stop in straight, round lines, their own house could be more contaminated than those inside it. They must fear, and fear, and as a result when they do get cancer, it won’t just have been the radiation to have caused it (indeed if that documentary is anything to go by) radiation might (even in most instances) have had very little to do with it. Rather what will have killed them, is the fear of death, creating death (just like the Placebo Effect yet in reverse).
And of course: This deadly situation can only be worsened by (some) of the very deceptive propaganda, so called environmentalists have put on youtube. By all means say bad things about Fukushima, just remember that’s there’s more than enough bad truth to go round, and when educating yourself about the downsides to radiation, just remember nothing in this world is 100% pure –not even the most chemically refined elements, even scientists have produced.

reply to post by Liberal1984

We all know somebody or heard of somebody who smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100 while another guy who never smoked in his life died of lung cancer at 50.

The moral of the story is that anecdotes may be touching and impactful, but they are of little value in assessing the effects of exposure to risk across a broad population.

You can take far higher radiation doses called LD 50, which means "Lethal Dose" that will kill 50% of the population, and interview the people that lived, and say that doesn't seem so bad because they're still alive.

So of course most people are going to live after being exposed to far lower doses than the LD50. But we pay an inordinate amount of attention to the 1 in 1000 person who dies from the extra radiation exposure, I guess because none of us wants to be that 1 person. Note if there are only 300 people in the exclusion zone and the excess death rate is 1 in 1000 you won't even necessarily see ANY excess deaths out of 300 people. And if a million people are exposed to it, 1 in 1000 works out to 1000 dead. But of course 999,000 people are still alive in that example.

You have to put things in perspective of statistics and not be overly influenced by anecdotal cases if you want to be logical. But then, whoever said people were logical?