It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stop the Fukushima fear mongering!

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


First I will say that I do not agree with your assertion that nuclear energy is the safest, cleanest, or most efficient form of energy nor is it the cheapest. I do agree that there is a wide swath of misinformation and doom pRon going on about the disaster. There has been far more contamination caused by nuclear weapons testing over the years and the amount of contaminated water leaving that site is like a drop in a great lake.

Of course some people will never be convinced of that mainly because of a lack of understanding and education on things nuclear. While I wouldn’t vacation inside of fukishima I wouldn’t have any problem going there. I recently watched a documentary on Chernobyl where they showed an old couple who refused to move after the disaster I think they are in their 80s or 90s at this point and will most likely die of old age before radiation takes them. That is supposed to be one of the most deadly places on earth. Oh well some people love doom pRon.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


So what's the pay like at Tepco? You get good benefits? Tar and feathering insurance maybe? I'm sure they have GREAT Christmas parties don't they?



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Hrmmm Lets see.

When Fukushima first happened they said that it was worse than 10 Chernobyl's.

Chernobyl's reactor four was covered with a concrete sarcophagus 7 months later.

Fukushima is still on-going.

Those 300 tons of radioactive water... is not lightly radioactive, But HIGHLY radioactive. When they talk about that water, they're talking about it being tens of millions of times higher radioactively per liter than what is considered the usual safe to release radioactive water (which gets diluted down).
edit on 4-11-2013 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


Please. Stop perpetuating the

Dispersion HOAX

It's a proven hoax.




.
edit on 4/11/13 by soficrow because: wd


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I find it highly "troll-able" that the OP post this ludicris thread and then doesn't even come back to defend his statement.

This should be moved to LOL, if the OP does not come back and rebutle.

I'm with the other threaders, is this the TEPCO president???



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Can you elaborate on this?

Thanks



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


I say we should all take up a collection and send you to vacation in Japan. You are seriously mistaken if you think this does not have the potential to be a worldwide event. Never mind the water and dilution process, what about the air? I do not think the media has been honest about this situation and Japan is horribly mishandling this. Do you really think that it is safe to be anywhere near that plant? Your assertion about the fear mongering is ridiculous. Just out of curiosity, would you want to be the fish in the 1% of the ocean that die from this radiation? Would you want to eat the fish from Japan? I wouldn't eat fish from any ocean at this point. The ocean currents cannot be controlled, so basically if there is a major contamination it will go wherever the current takes it, which is basically anywhere. Australia, New Zealand, Alaska, Canada, Russia, etc. It really is not fear mongering to be concerned about this, but it is denying ignorance to believe you have a clue.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Clairaudience

Stop the Fukushima fear mongering!


It is time we put an end to the fear mongering surrounding the Fukushima disaster.
The amount of unfounded and ill-informed threads and comments on ATS concerning the Fukushima incident have blown out of proportion, and sadly this is not only true for ATS but the general media coverage on the event as-well.


I've seen it reported that the amount of radioactive water being poured into the ocean is 30,000 tons per day. If this were true, which its not, then it would take approximately 137,000 years for this accident to contaminate a whopping one percent of the ocean. The actual number is close to 300 tons per day...so really it would take 13,700,000 years to contaminate the ocean 1 percent.

By the way, 300 tons per day is the equivalent of 16 common garden hoses pouring into the ocean. It would take seven or eight days for this leak to fill an Olympic size swimming pool.

Cesium is water soluble so the radioactivity is quickly diluted by the 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of sea water in the ocean. One nuclear reactor cannot contaminate the entire Earth. They all said we were going to die when Chernobyl happened too. You should be more worried about the nuclear bombs they test within and near the US.

LINK

I also want to add that there are natural occurring radiation sites beneath the ocean and on land that release a hundredfold more radiation than Fukushima and Chernobyl together and yet the world hasn't come to an end, nor has our food supply been affected, our water sources, or the overall health of the human population.

Fact of the matter is, the effects and consequences of the Fukushima incident locally as well as globally are minimal and insignificant, in the short term and long term. There have been zero deaths attributed to the radiation thus far, and none are to be expected in the future.

Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy we have. It saddens me that the amount of misinformation out there has undermined and corrupted the future of nuclear energy and its revolutionizing potential to finally end the energy crisis. Now we are less likely to see big investments and major progress in nuclear technology which could ultimately make it even safer and more reliable.

All I ask of you is to reconsider your current beliefs, and maybe we can restore the confidence in this amazing source of energy.





I agree with you my friend

Now I want to talk to you about this bridge coming up for sale in Brooklyn ...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
There have been several posted attempts by folks to down play this fiasco. This has to be the worst attempt yet.

Creating the straw-man 30k tonnes and then debunking that by saying the real number is not a problem is pathetic. Leaving out the single most important fact: that waste dump is endless, 20-30-40-50 years of water/dump, water/dump, water/dump. In 2050 they will be exactly in the same place as they were on 3-12-2011!!!!

Ignoring the fact that man made radiation does not have the same effect on the human consciousness expression as natural radiation is born of not only ignorance but a shameful distaste for the human's themselves and each post that leaves this fact out should be seen as disinformation at best, shillage at worst.

I am particularly tired of this pathetic attempt at logic: "there is more radiation from nuclear bomb tests" or "there is more radiation from natural sources." If some came out after Sandy Hook and said, "what's the problem Stalin killed more children" or "more kids died in the Sumatra Tsunami" or "this mass killing pales in comparison to kids who die from malnutrition" they'd be flogged. But for some reason taking to unrelated things and connecting them is reason in this case?

The fact that the original post is so woefully incomplete is beyond comical, as this person reduced the most complex of issues to a 4.5 paragraph "statement of facts" so incomplete as to defy all reason. If this were a school paper the teacher would give it an "incomplete" as there isn't enough here to give it an "F."

If people are going to attempt to defend the indefensible, it is incumbent upon them to do: due diligence, write/rewrite/rewrite, be thorough and complete, and make sure the avoid the tiresome cliches attached to the problem.

OP, here's a thought: provide an solution to the problem you see as no problem, then we can all sleep knowing that TEPCO's concern about SPF 4 are unfounded - they know if it detonates they will have to abandon the site permanently which means there will be no more sea going waste water at all.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 

Put your money where your mouth is. Go over to Fukishima and camp out there for a few weeks. Make sure to go fishing in the ocean for your food and drink the local water. Good luck with that.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Clairaudience

Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy we have.



Why don't you go live to fukushima right now!

this is amazing... God have mercy on your soul.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
We don,t need to send the OP anywhere. Just start feeding them the fish known containing radiation from Japan. Fish caught from across the ocean from Japan at that.

Pacific Bluefin tuna for one as told in this ATS thread the OP turns a blind eye on. Wake up OP
Celebrated Physician: Fukushima has humanity “on brink of a possible worldwide nuclear holocaust



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Clairaudience

I also want to add that there are natural occurring radiation sites beneath the ocean and on land that release a hundredfold more radiation than Fukushima and Chernobyl together and yet the world hasn't come to an end, nor has our food supply been affected, our water sources, or the overall health of the human population.



Hello,

Can you provide examples of these please?

Thank you.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   


I also want to add that there are natural occurring radiation sites beneath the ocean and on land that release a hundredfold more radiation than Fukushima and Chernobyl together and yet the world hasn't come to an end, nor has our food supply been affected, our water sources, or the overall health of the human population.
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


Yes, please explain how naturally occurring radiation is the same as that from the process of nuclear fission.

If you don't understand the difference, you really need to do some research.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Nuclear power is safe and clean, absolutely...

If done smartly, if cost is not a consideration, if all appropriate saftey measures are taken.

You know if you don't put it on an earthquake prone tsunami prone coast line...


Chernobyl is estimated to have rasd cancer rates through out Europe and Russia by up to 2% and that's a conservative estamate. (2% across an entire populous just from one little ol plant)

Fukushima is something we won't know the out come too for years to come, it is the hieght of stupidity to ignore it as we truly don't know what will happen.

It might just be Chernobyl level and just (some "just") cause cancer rates to jump a bit, or it could be far worst.

Common sense would dictate either way we have to handle it ASAP...



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

sulaw
I find it highly "troll-able" that the OP post this ludicris thread and then doesn't even come back to defend his statement.

This should be moved to LOL, if the OP does not come back and rebutle.

I'm with the other threaders, is this the TEPCO president???


I agree, OP is trolling ATS calling for an end to to fear mongering
in the hopes that all the truth he's been reading here can be dismissed.

Because the truth has him by the short curlies.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 




Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most efficient form of energy we have.


I have to disagree on that point. Well, at least based on our current technology and abilities. History is pretty clear on that position.
As for the future? It seems almost wholly dependent on a form of fusion and considering that this avenue could lead to accidents that... in a worst case scenario, could possibly produce things similar to a nuclear detonation... we have a ways to go yet.
I understand that we need to escape the vaseline jar and move away from fossil fuels but overreaction often leads to regret. We need to set some goals, devote our efforts on a global scale and then be patient.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I side with the OP.

All of the indications - from my point of view - are far more people die from just coal power alone than nuclear power. I'm not even considering the rest of the fossil fuels, neither am I including in this the potential global warming effects.

Fukushima is a disaster and will have wide ranging impacts, but to say nuclear is worse than coal is outrageous deception - it's too blatant. I'm not in any form suggesting the world should become one huge melt down with everything being radiated, I'm only putting nuclear power in context with other forms of power and making a judgment. What else can I do? Last I checked, this isn't a perfect world. I don't get to choose between two (or more) perfect angels with a blameless history, instead I have to get into the trenches where the slime is and all the things we dislike.

Want me to back up what I say with some links?

Here:
www.acs.org - ACS News Service Weekly PressPac: May 29, 2013 - Despite safety and other concerns, nuclear power saves lives, greenhouse gas emissions...

If nuclear power had been used more it would have saved even more lives. The reality is coal and gas still hold a huge portion of the market globally. For example, in 2012 nuclear is listed as being only 2% of energy production IN CHINA. In the US, coal and gas account for 68% of electricity production; nuclear was 19%. Broadly speaking, the US accounts for about 30% of all nuclear energy production in the world.

Here:
www.theguardian.com - European coal pollution causes 22,300 premature deaths a year, study shows...

It's my opinion the energy landscape is grossly weighted in favor of fossil fuels DESPITE all the evidence which has been collected against it. It's obvious to me there's a prejudice against nuclear power probably because of ignorance about how it works and the relationship with atomic weapons. There's also a vast fossil fuel industry giant going back more than a hundred years with long reaching tentacles.
edit on 4-11-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


Well OP you nearly had me there ... I read and I couldn't believe my eyes ... I was about to reply that having been a member of ATS since 2007 your OP was the most naive contibution I had ever read (and trust me there have been many over the years).

Then I realized that you have not commented / replied to any of the posts on your thread ... so now I'm inclined to think your OP was a simple case of you winding us up and watching us go ... at least I hope this is the case because if your OP was meant to be taken seriously then you really need to get a grip of reality sugar.

Woody



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Interesting OP.

I wonder.

Who are you working for now? lol
edit on 4-11-2013 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join