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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Clairaudience

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


Your right but when it goes wrong its the most dangerous,dirty and inefficient form of energy.




posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Clairaudience
 




fear mongering surrounding the Fukushima DISASTER.


use disaster in a sentence

If it's not a disaster, it must then be a harmless catastrophe? Harmless b/c the ocean is vast enough to isolate the "incident?"







edit on (12/18/1313 by loveguy because: format



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


I will give you that a great deal of what has been reported and published regarding Fukushima has been biased, in both directions, however I do not think that the issue is as small as you seem to imply.


In this paper we show the relation between distance and contamination levels by inverse regression analysis. The results indicate the effects of quasi radioactive cesium 137 by the Fukushima accident look like less serious than those of the Chernobyl accident. However, contamination levels are possibly higher than the Chernobyl as the cesium is concentrated by the water systems in limitation region. Water paddy field look like shallow pond saved mud included cesium 137. Moreover, the cesium137 will distribute and concentrate by high density irrigation canal and urban water-system. For example, the highly contaminated Taisho river bottom soil Cs134: 4,335 Bq/kg, Cs137: 5,456 Bq/kg was found at 1/11/2011 at Kitakashiwa bridge of Kashiwa city in Tokyo metropolitan area, 200 km south-west from the plant13. Therefore we must carefully and continuously monitor the contamination to the freshwater ecosystem and human health.
emphasis mine

Overview of active cesium contamination of freshwater fish in Fukushima and Eastern Japan

The contamination is widespread on Honshu




Method

...

The sample of freshwater fish was collected by each prefectural government by emergency policy of food security. In the survey, the fish sample collected 5–10 kg in one survey station. The measure is using wet condition fish. Ayu and small fish was measured hole body, while big fish measured the part of food portion.


These are fish from all over the area and if it's in the fish it's in everything else in the water. As it all washes down stream, for decades mind you, it will continue to accumulate and concentrate.

If we're still around these parts in 20 years time, we can take a relative look at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Until then let's keep looking for ways to not use this "hell of a way to boil water" shall we?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


You've trivialized at least 10,000 additional cancer deaths a year. Probably north of 50,000 if they would turn the monitors back on and you could make accurate measurements.




Figures please. Not plucked out of thin air at random, but real, tangible ones.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Alekto

InverseLookingGlass
reply to post by Clairaudience
 


You've trivialized at least 10,000 additional cancer deaths a year. Probably north of 50,000 if they would turn the monitors back on and you could make accurate measurements.




Figures please. Not plucked out of thin air at random, but real, tangible ones.



See the problem is that the Japanese Gov. is trying to sweep this under the rug as best they can so TEPCO is not liable for the cancers or deaths or the people evacuated from their homes.




In a message posted on Friday, Fujiwara accused the government of covering up the truth about the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant, and spreading misinformation about radiation and leaks of radioactive water there.

“As a citizen I am really concerned about it,” Fujiwara wrote in another message. “Our nation has a right to know.”

Fujiwara joins the Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association in opposing the bill as a violation of the right to freedom of speech that will undermine Japan’s democracy.


www.japantimes.co.jp...

Lets take Chernobyl for example the NRC says 15 people died from cancer related to the Chernobyl disaster.



To date, about 6,000 thyroid cancer cases have been detected among these children. Ninety-nine percent of these children were successfully treated; 15 children and adolescents in the three countries died from thyroid cancer by 2005.


www.nrc.gov...

Then you have the New York Academy of Science that say over 900,000 people died.




The book presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the Chernobyl disaster, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.


en.wikipedia.org...:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment

Sorry for the wiki article but the original is a PDF

Now Im not saying either of these are correct but I do think that the NRC's number is quite low and its because they have an agenda to promote Nuclear Power and cover up the negative side effects. You can make a scientific study say anything you want if you have enough money and power.



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
So, essentially you are claiming tens of thousands of people are dying from cancer but cannot provide any figures?


edit on 20-12-2013 by Alekto because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Alekto
 


I didn't claim any thing of that sort. Go back and read my post. I was just pointing out that Governments and Corporations like to cover up things so they are not liable. Like TEPCO waiting 3 months to say there where melt downs when they knew the day it happened.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

winofiend
Well I heard that the radioation is much more than they told us.


From whom. And how? Could you identify your sources please? Links if possible.



posted on Dec, 24 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Whatever you do, don't eat brazil nuts. They can have up to 444bq/kg.

OMG we're all going to die!!


edit on 24-12-2013 by webedoomed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Clairaudience
I remember the first time i was called that ( fear monger-er) regarding fuku...ah... if only it were yesterday...NO SERIOUSLY IF ONLY IT WERE YESTERDAY< but it has been almost four years and the situation at fuku is still CRITICAL ( to say the least ),...
the constant and ongoing releases from three core meltdowns and between four and six contaminated ,under cooled or overflowing cooling pools, over the last three and a half years has not and cannot be contained cleaned or controlled and is and will be in the environment for decades,

The massive build up of "spent" radioactively poisonous cooling water ( that has been used trying to cool melt downs and thus cannot be re-used ) at fuku is still growing and will need to be tended for several decades ( AT THE VERY LEAST)

but ...given that the definition of fear is just ;


...
a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
Synonyms: foreboding, apprehension, consternation, dismay, dread, terror, fright, panic, horror, trepidation, qualm.
Antonyms: courage, security, calm, intrepidity.
2.
a specific instance of or propensity for such a feeling

3.
concern or anxiety; solicitude:
a fear for someone's safety.
4.
reverential awe,

5.
something that causes feelings of dread or apprehension; something a person is afraid of:
Cancer is a common fear.
6.
anticipation of the possibility that something unpleasant will occur


I am sure that the only MONGERING;

... broker, dealer —usually used in combination 2 : a person who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually petty or discreditable

...is by those whom need the presception of an inconvenient reality to be unreality



posted on Nov, 25 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Another day goes by and another couple hundred thousand tons of toxic cooling water flows into the Pacific to enter our food chain.

Another billion hot particles fall from the jet stream all over the northern hemisphere and thousands of new cancer victims get diagnosed.

Another major earthquake rocks Japan and the hundreds of thrown together radioactive water tanks at Fukushima.

But don't give it a thought.

Focus instead on the phony ebola epidemic or the orchestrated civil unrest in Ferguson.

The fact that three reactors have gone full meltdown and uncontrollable fusion reactions are happening in the open air, as I type these words, isn't even breaking news anymore at ATS.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alekto


From whom. And how? Could you identify your sources please? Links if possible.


Many sources..but time is the best educator( after a year are you still in the dark) . Remember two things; science is rarely publicized by "governments (and ACADEMICS they "sponsor")" or 'corporations' ( in the us there is not a difference) until they can capitalize on it..perhaps the best example ( that you are asking for ) is pure science...
observation ....
data...
analysis....

from the Fuku situation has ANYONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR tePCO ( Locally (in Japan) ( OR) internationalLY)) given the public, or even tried, HONEST and CLEAR SCIENTIFIC observation ?...

no

NO

Provably, time and again, NO

WHICH means...; is the data you are implying but not supplying as proof more pertinent the data that you are questioning? ; there are over one hundred links to Tepco falsifying data, in the origin thread...

THEY CONSTANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY LIED ABOUT BOTH RADIANT RADIATION AND RADIOACTIVE FLUID LOSS....


that is important (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2014 by Silverlok because: stand aside



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
My immediate reaction after reading this was to facepalm myself. This nuclear disaster IS a HUGE deal. There is no telling how many people are going to die from cancer, or how many birth defects will arise in the future, all due to this event. And to say there wouldn't be any would be completely disregarding the facts. Obviously all of the data points to radioactivity being bad for you, in that it damages cells. The amounts of radioactivity released by this disaster are enough to cause significant damage, even with minimal exposure. But those living in the area cannot avoid overexposure to these deadly radioactive particles. And if it were not such a big deal, why should they even worry about safety when building these plants? Why evacuate all the people and create an exclusion zone, like in Chernobyl, if radioactive leaks are not a big deal?

And you are completely wrong in stating that nuclear power is a safe OR clean source of energy, because it is neither. Nuclear energy is BY FAR the most dangerous thing that manking has ever harnessed. And saying it is "clean" is utterly ridiculous, considering that radioactivity is pretty horrible for living cells, which by the way humans are composed of. We know that the amount of radioactivity released at this plant was dangerous, because people were getting sick soon after the event, and for radiation to make you sick in such a short amount of time, one has to be exposed to a hefty amount. And then there is the fact that radioactive particles take so long to decompose, due to the long half-life of many such particles, meaning that they will stick around for a very long time...And they have to go somewhere. And to say that the ocean dilutes radioactivity is misleading because of this, as these particles are still there and are still having an effect on the environment. And there are no natural events that are dangerous to humans where radiation is concerned, aside from things originating from beyond the earth. Radioactive elements occur naturally, but are not a threat to humans in the vast majority of instances.

Anyway, nuclear energy is neither safe, since radiation will kill you, and it is not clean, considering the fact that there is radiation to begin with. We are talking about nuclear fission here, which is pretty much the only nuclear power that we have. If we were talking about nuclear fusion then that would be another story, but we cannot harness it at present. When we finally are able to create fusion power stations, THEN we can say that nuclear energy is both clean and safe, since there will not be any radiation to contaminate everything, since radioactivity is not a byproduct of fusion.
edit on 12/2/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Silverlok

originally posted by: Alekto


From whom. And how? Could you identify your sources please? Links if possible.


Many sources..but time is the best educator( after a year are you still in the dark) . Remember two things; science is rarely publicized by "governments (and ACADEMICS they "sponsor")" or 'corporations' ( in the us there is not a difference) until they can capitalize on it..perhaps the best example ( that you are asking for ) is pure science...
observation ....
data...
analysis....

from the Fuku situation has ANYONE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR tePCO ( Locally (in Japan) ( OR) internationalLY)) given the public, or even tried, HONEST and CLEAR SCIENTIFIC observation ?...

no

NO

Provably, time and again, NO

WHICH means...; is the data you are implying but not supplying as proof more pertinent the data that you are questioning? ; there are over one hundred links to Tepco falsifying data, in the origin thread...

THEY CONSTANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY LIED ABOUT BOTH RADIANT RADIATION AND RADIOACTIVE FLUID LOSS....

..."THEY CONSTANTLY AND CONSISTENTLY LIED ABOUT BOTH RADIANT RADIATION AND RADIOACTIVE FLUID LOSS...."...and the voice of green peace is where ?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Making no mention of waste disposal either and the fact that certain byproducts are dangerous for millennia, how the F is that supposed to be inexpensive?

Oh that's right, all those estimates of price/kwh don't include that part of the equation as is the case with fracking and it's waste disposal and giving the petrochem industry a pass on it's poisoning of the land, sea, & air.

Hemp could replace huge portions of what nuclear and petrochem provide for us.



posted on Dec, 5 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: JiggyPotamus



Hemp could replace huge portions of what nuclear and petrochem provide for us.


Hemp could replace huge portions of what Budweiser and Camels provide for us.

Ftfy.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join