Stop the Fukushima fear mongering!

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


Maybe the Member done it because of the huge Amount
of wrong Information about this Accident in the so called
"Alternative Media"?

Many People really think that we are glowing here,
that our Life is ruined and that Japon in lost,
this is not the case at this Tuesday and at 7pm,
the Damage is done in a relative small Area only,
99,9995 %of the People here accumulated less than 1 Millisievert!

There is hope but only when we fight back,
all the bad Fukushima Threads make the People intellectual rigid
instead of ready to fray against the Nuclear Complex,
Japon and the whole World is not lost yet and we need to go on!

Why do the People in the US/ Canada are not on the Streets
and organizing powerful Demonstrations,
why do they not articulate their Fear?
edit on 5-11-2013 by Human0815 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jaxnmarko
 


I really hate it when some people online disagree with someone, they tell them to stop watching fox news. First, I'm pretty sure fox is all about oil, not nuclear power. Second, anyone can say the same about anyone watching left-wing propaganda "news". CNN, MSNBC, ABC, Reuters, etc etc... They are all the same. I think people that childishly assume anyone that opposes their ideals are immediate fans of fox news because they don't understand and simply shut themselves from trying to understand.

Someone has an opinion that differs than yours, deal with it. OP is on the opposite end of your ideals, and there are many others that also think that way. I know I don't think of nuclear power to be necessarily dangerous, but it's like a gun. It's not dangerous to own or use one if you know how to handle them. Just because you can turn a gun into a deadly weapon, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I bet you most people that own a gun only use it at target practice. Nuclear power is the same concept and this isn't something that I got from fox news, because I don't watch it. This is just common sense. But there are people like you that come around and want to dictate what others believe in just because they see things differently. From now on, please refrain from ever saying "stop watching fox news" because it'll only bite you in the ass for acting so childish.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I don't understand the OP's figures or their stances...seems like misinfo...

What I really do not understand is how someone can start a thread
& never respond. I could be wrong but I only saw OP's opening statements
& no follow ups. I have yet to start me own thread due to being paranoid
about covering every aspect of information I can find on the said topic.

Not a derail just an observation that I see many get fried for...

I am thankful for ALL the Fuku updates on what is REALLY happening!

Cheers
Ektar



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Prof. Donald Mosier, MD, Scripps Research Institute Department of Immunology, worked as consultant to the National Cancer Institute: The current exposure guidelines for radiation are 20 years out of date and far too high. And secondly in the last 5 years in the area of cancer genomics, we’ve learned how many mutations are associated with cancer, how mutations directly cause cancer, and that explains why the risk of very low dose radiation is so high. We need to update our exposure guidelines dramatically. […] When I say that the current guidelines for exposure are far too generous, we’re talking about a log of 10 — 100 fold — too generous […] The facts are very clear, a very low dose of radiation is dangerous. Cancer is caused by many mutations, but it’s the last mutation you have that pushes you over the edge, and that last mutation doesn’t take much radiation […]


ENE News



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 





...radiation is about a thousand times safer than suggested by current international safety standards -- but readers should look at the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds.


www.radiationandreason.com...

So who you going to believe? An Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford , or the money grubbing fearmongering shady lawyer who runs enenews?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by Carreau
 





...radiation is about a thousand times safer than suggested by current international safety standards -- but readers should look at the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds.


www.radiationandreason.com...

So who you going to believe? An Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford , or the money grubbing fearmongering shady lawyer who runs enenews?


If you would have read the quoted content you would see that this isn't the opinion of the "money grubbing fearmongering shady lawyer who runs enenews", it is a quote from another source.

How credible that source is? I can't be sure.. but it's this guy:


Prof. Donald Mosier, MD, Scripps Research Institute Department of Immunology, worked as consultant to the National Cancer Institute

edit on 06pmWed, 06 Nov 2013 12:44:08 -060013WednesdayWednesday1311 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by daryllyn
 


Yes, but it is enenews that has been posting all these articles that demonise nuclear energy and radiation, picking out only the scary ones. He will not allow anyone to post anything that questions anything he puts on his site, and he has zero knowledge of things nuclear.
Here is the opinion of another Professor Emeritus, who is an oncology specialist.



A retired Canadian professor of biophysics is trying to bring thinking on ordinary nuclear waste into the 21st century. Nuclear "waste" is not dangerous garbage, UT professor emeritus Peter Ottensmeyer asserts. Instead, it is a valuable source of vast and useful energy -- 134 times the amount of energy that was derived from nuclear fuel before it officially became "waste."


He says he has great respect for radiation, but not fear, which is how it should be. We have to have respect for many things in our daily lives, but fear is due to a lack of understanding, and that is the problem with radiation and nuclear power, 99% of people have absolutely no idea, and will not take the time to educate themselves, but just go with the scariest nonsense they can find. I have to think that many scaremongers who post on ATS are on the enenews payroll.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by Carreau
 





...radiation is about a thousand times safer than suggested by current international safety standards -- but readers should look at the evidence for themselves and make up their own minds.


www.radiationandreason.com...

So who you going to believe? An Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford , or the money grubbing fearmongering shady lawyer who runs enenews?


The problem here is the nuclear industry, the DOD and the AMA have reduced the entire health metric concerning radiation to: "Can it be proven to cause cancer?"

This was stellar effort on their behalf as nothing can really be proven to cause anything, but the knew that if they made sure that line was reversed in certain situations, "it cannot be proven to cause cancer" then the argument ends.

You will notice the discussion of any health issues regarding nuclear waste devolves into "well, damn it, does it cause cancer or not?" No one ever says, "does it cause a human any problems in expressing their consciousness through their body?"

There are three main things that cause a human problems expressing themselves through their body: Fluoride, EMF's and Radiation. They have some interesting corporate, PR and medical commonalities which I'll let you figure out.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


we will when we see a picture of you swimming in the water by the power plant. until then please stop posting BS.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   


I have to think that many scaremongers who post on ATS are on the enenews payroll.
reply to post by GaryN
 


If you have proof that a ATS member is on the "enenews payroll" post it or stfu.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Carreau
 


I think it is a honest and justified Question because Enenews is
leading in providing Pseudo-Information and you need only 2-3
People to led the Discussions inside the alternative Media
or Conspiracy Forums!

After Chernobyl we had a similar Situation
and after it was discovered that the leading People got
and accepted Payments from Soviet-Russia the whole
Card house was falling apart!



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Human-san, you continually preach about how normal everything is and how blown out of proportion all reports of radiation are. You also claim that any posts proclaiming increased levels are unfounded and nothing but fear mongering, bring the result of unsupported opinion rather than science.

Please, tell me how the following fall into either of those categories:


The accident of the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant of Tokyo Electric Power Cooperation (TEPCO) after the great east Japan earthquake (11 March 2011) elevated the background level of environmental radiation in Eastern Japan. Around the Tokyo metropolitan area, especially around Kashiwa and Nagareyama cities, the ambient dose equivalent rate has been significantly increased after the accident.


Measures against increased environmental radiation dose by the TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident in some local governments in the Tokyo metropolitan area: focusing on examples of both Kashiwa and Nagareyama cities in Chiba prefecture

Hosted by the Oxford University press website.


Release of radioactive material into the air, water, and soil raised concern about internal radiation exposure and the long-term risk of cancer in nearby residents.1 However, radiation exposure has not been measured.

...

A total of 3286 individuals (34.6%; 95% CI, 33.6%-35.6%) had detectable levels of cesium (Figure). Cesium was detected in 235 children (16.4%; 95% CI, 14.5%-18.3%), ranging from 210 to 2953 Bq (median, 590 Bq), with a concentration of 2.8 to 57.9 Bq/kg (median, 11.9 Bq/kg). In contrast, 3051 adults (37.8%; 95% CI, 36.8%-38.9%) had detectable levels of cesium, ranging from 210 to 12 771 Bq (median, 744 Bq), with a concentration of 2.3 to 196.5 Bq/kg (median, 11.4 Bq/kg). This difference in exposure risk between adults and children was statistically significant (χ2 = 246.5, P < .001).


Internal Radiation Exposure After the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Disaster

Hosted at the Journal of the American Medical Association.


According to Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP) accident, vast amount of radioactive nuclides including radioactive iodine were spilled out into the environment. There is no question about that detailed ob- servation of distribution of radioactive nuclides and evaluation of the radiation exposure of residents is extremely important.


Measurement of Iodine-129 concentration in environmental water samples around Fukushima area - Role of river system in the global iodine cycle

Hosted at The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System.

All emphases are mine.

So Human-san (and OP, if you will ever return), how much fear mongering and unsupported assertions are in the above-referenced, peer reviewed scientific papers?

edit on 7-11-2013 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-11-2013 by jadedANDcynical because: Have to keep editng, there is no preview button for some reason
edit on 7-11-2013 by jadedANDcynical because: Last edit?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by jadedANDcynical
 


Kashiwa:



I've been to Kashiwa, as you can see,
as well as the surrounding Towns (look my Channel)

But this are well-known Hot-Spot and the People get all
the Information they need.

I would be careful to stay there for 2-5 Years
and with Kids i would move away!

We can't and we should not demand that People act like us.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 



The problem here is the nuclear industry, the DOD and the AMA have reduced the entire health metric concerning radiation to: "Can it be proven to cause cancer?"


Peter Ottensmeyer has written a lot of material on radiation and cancer, and I have only scratched the surface, but from what I have seen so far, he says it is very difficult for radiation to cause cancer, as low levels can not alter the cellular machinery enough. At higher levels, cancer cells are prevented from growing or killed, that is why you have radiation therapy, which Mr Ottensmeyer is a pioneer of and expert on. Lower levels then, as with hormesis, may kill any pre-cancerous growth before it can develop into cancer.
So it does need to be proven that radiation causes cancer, instead of saying it MIGHT, otherwise we would have to prove every new substance or device that comes along does NOT cause cancer before it could be sold. Your EMF and cell phones/wi-fi etc are an example, they could not PROVE they DON'T cause cancer or other ill effects, but most people don't care about that anyway, so why worry about such low levels of nuclear radiation?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I applaud your reasoned OP and willingness to go beyond the group psychosis on ATS regarding Fukushima-doom-mongering.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by crankyoldman
 



The problem here is the nuclear industry, the DOD and the AMA have reduced the entire health metric concerning radiation to: "Can it be proven to cause cancer?"


Peter Ottensmeyer has written a lot of material on radiation and cancer, and I have only scratched the surface, but from what I have seen so far, he says it is very difficult for radiation to cause cancer, as low levels can not alter the cellular machinery enough. At higher levels, cancer cells are prevented from growing or killed, that is why you have radiation therapy, which Mr Ottensmeyer is a pioneer of and expert on. Lower levels then, as with hormesis, may kill any pre-cancerous growth before it can develop into cancer.
So it does need to be proven that radiation causes cancer, instead of saying it MIGHT, otherwise we would have to prove every new substance or device that comes along does NOT cause cancer before it could be sold. Your EMF and cell phones/wi-fi etc are an example, they could not PROVE they DON'T cause cancer or other ill effects, but most people don't care about that anyway, so why worry about such low levels of nuclear radiation?


You just proved me point. You selected a section from my post and stuck to the Cancer issue exclusively and fully, and completely, dodged the notion that radiation, coupled with several other ingredients makes it impossible for a human to express themselves fully. It has been demonstrated that cellphones placed next to the head alter the moral compass of the person holding the phone - ergo they behave in ways that are not normal and not for the good of their evolution. So you found some guy who says it isn't a problem, Barry Trower says otherwise. So, what, do we let them shoot each other to see who wins? Better yet, lets just agree that at some point it might be an issue, but since we don't know when it isn't a problem until then. That makes good business sense.

Fine, radiation has not been "Proven" to cause cancer. You win. Okay. I'm not afraid of cancer anyway. Prove to me it is does not alter my ability to express my consciousness through the body. Prove to me it does not alter my moral compass. Prove to me it does not alter the way in which Earth expresses itself. Prove to me that over time, the waste products lying around all over the planet, including in the ocean, do not inhibit my ability to express myself in any way shape or form. If it does, even in the slightest bit, ask yourself: what gives the nuclear industry the right to alter my expression?

It does not surprise me at all that human race on planet earth does not care at all about their ability to express themselves in the body. There is no mystery as to how and why this happened, but it does not make it any less sad. The entire human expression has been reduced to a argument by the science overlords to "does is cause cancer, if so, why and if so, can the cancer be cured?" It took only 50 years for that to happen, 50 years for nearly the entire population of the US to simply define their entire existence by whether they: got cancer, didn't get cancer, or survived cancer. In fact, there is no way to have any health discussion with any scientist or health official that doesn't start and end with cancer. Cancer is the new badge of honor, if you "survived" it people applaud as if you went to the moon, and you get to champion a cause.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

For the record crankyoldman, I do not have a cell phone, and have no wifi or other wireless in my house. Not that I am worried about the radiation and cancer, the energy levels are just too low to do any damage. What I am concerned about, and not that I have anything to hide, is the idea of being tracked 24/7 by the mobile devices, and yes, as you say, EM can be used to change the way you think, should 'they' ever get the notion. Cell phone towers can be software configured to act as what is called a phased array, and using that method it is possible to steer a beam of much more concentrated energy and focus it on your head. The Russians documented how they could change behaviour with EM energy many years ago, it's not just a conspiracy theory. Time will tell if cell phone users develop any physical ailments, and some do suggest an increase in tumours close to where the phones are held is already showing up, but who knows, maybe they are also smokers or something.
Anyway, on with the show...



posted on Dec, 6 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
It's fair to be concerned. Chernobyl was an inland occurance. Not on the ocean like Fukushima. These particles are going into the ocean and the food chain. Into our food chain. The world ships around food more than ever before. We get a lot of product from that region. Exposure to the Fukushima event is known to be bad. I'd be surprised if no ill effects spread from Japanese waters. I think it is reasonable to keep track of the ongoing effort to contain this disaster.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Crankgorilla
 




Exposure to the Fukushima event is known to be bad.


No it isn't. All SCIENTIFIC evidence indicates LESS cancer and ill health in groups exposed to the levels of radiation that all Fukushima people were exposed to. Even the front line workers and particularly the Fukushima 50, exposed to much higher levels, have shown no ill effects. There are SCIENTIFIC assesments that say there will be NO effect from the radiation entering the sea, but nobody wants to hear that, they love their fear "high" like a crack addict loves his pipe. If you do deep enough research, you will find that sites like enenews have some very dubious connections to some very powerful organisations, be very wary of anytng that has no SCIENTIFIC references included.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

One direct examination has been conducted: In its 10th report, dated March 2013, the Fukushima Prefecture Health Management Survey reported examining 133,000 children using new, highly sensitive ultrasound equipment. The survey found that 41 percent of the children examined had cysts of up to 2 centimeters in size and lumps measuring up to 5 millimeters on their thyroid glands, presumably from inhaled and ingested radioactive iodine.


Nuclear Denial: From Hiroshima to Fukushima

And what's more:


Experts concerned about radiation effects point out that the small cysts and lumps found in many of the children surveyed, which are signs of possible thyroid cancer, have appeared alarmingly soon after the accident; that the radiation would not be expected to be limited to the Fukushima prefecture; that there is evidence of unusual numbers of cysts and growths in children living on the West Coast of the United States (Mangano and Sherman, 2013); that it is not clear that the Fukushima survey subjects were randomly selected (some refused examination); and finally, that it will take some years to see whether the abnormalities increase in size, so follow- ups are essential (Caldicott, 2012; Osaki, 2013; RT, 2013).





new topics
 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join