Why Are We Not All Dead Already?

crazyewok
Cancer rates are up because people are living longer. 100 years ago TB,polio, smallpox, Tetnus or Cholera would get most people before cancer. It why cancer rates in the 3rd world are so low.

Thats ridiculous. How would longer life spans affect people under the age of 50 or 60 getting cancer? Cancer rates in the 3rd world are low because they have a lower exposure to the carcinogens that flood our first world environments. Third world people eat foods grown naturally themselves, rather than chemical and hormone-laden sludge pumped out by food factories. Plus they dont have a few hundred megatons of radioactive isotopes lying around in their soil from decades of nuclear bomb detonations.

crazyewok

the owlbear


Cancer rates are crazy.
What is it now? One in three will be affected by cancer somehow.
It doesn't seem to be improving, either. I knew some people who grew up generationally from those desert tests in the States. Now every male gets/has prostate cancer, most women have one of several types. Only the old timers get a check from the government.
There is a reason the world quit testing above ground and in the atmosphere.

Cancer rates are up because people are living longer. 100 years ago TB,polio, smallpox, Tetnus or Cholera would get most people before cancer. It why cancer rates in the 3rd world are so low.

Okay. I recognize that could be a factor. I also know there are people who have suffered directly due to the above ground testing of nuclear weapons. I have a few friends and acquaintances from the Ukraine as well that had first hand accounts of how awful Chernobyl was. Thyroid problems, various cancers, the livestock was hit hard and thousands of animals killed.
The US government wouldn't be paying people if they didn't HAVE to. It is more than a causal link. It is fact. And take those tests times the number that occurred after the BOOM...radiation does dissipate faster but exposure does long term genetic damage that may not show up for generations.

dfens
Cockroaches survive nuclear explosions, how are we different?

Cockroaches do not survive nuclear explosions. They are less susceptible to genetic damage from ionizing radiation due to having a much simpler genome than humans, but an actual nuclear explosion will vaporize them into ash same as anything else. I mean did you really think a creature you can smash into goo with one stomp is somehow magically immune to 6000 degree heatwalls and explosive blasts equivalent to a million metric tons of TNT? Come on now.

X-MEN hopefully. But for some silly reason, we will plod on.

semperfortis
I would only change the 10 year period to one of a hundred.

Maybe ... maybe not. Remember that dead things aren't the things that mutate.

Change/mutation occurs at the smallest scale (rarely ... if ever ... on complex organisms). Only a handful of successful viral mutations could wipe out complex life on Earth. The ocean if filled with risk. The low level radiation of Fuku is enough to accelerate/cause change. There is, and has always been, enough background radiation in the Earth's environment to do this already. That said, Fuku is like playing the lottery with four numbers to guess at instead of six. Might have been a five number lottery, but Fuku is adding contamination to the ocean system.

reply to post by semperfortis


Your argument seems a little oversimplified. There are known consequences from past testing such as increased cancer rates and deformities. You needn't look further than Fallujah, Iraq from all the depleted uranium. I could only imagine how much more unhealthy we all are as a society globally because of the insanity of world leaders.

Besides try telling that to the fish and wildlife in and around Fukushima and the fallout radius from there and the inevitable continuation of said disaster because it isn't over yet. What's with the hot steam now emanating from reactor 3 again? Is someone going to piss on my leg and tell me its raining?

What happened is/was a tragedy of proportions to a level we won't truly understand for a long time. I am sure some if not many short term effects will present themselves clearly and imminently. No excuses should be afforded and all eyes from all nations should be focused in that direction. Pressure should be placed on TEPCO and Japan to allow the clean up is to the satisfaction of the worlds eyes.

reply to post by Rosinitiate


And if they don't, what do we do? Invade?

When that was the excuse for Iraq (i.e. not enough transparency with their programs among other things), no one much liked it.

So, to get back the point, does starting a war make it any more likely that the place would get cleaned up to your satisfaction ... or anyone else's for that matter?

crazyewok
reply to post by semperfortis

 

But at the end of th day that 500% is still way below minimal safety levels.

Way above minimal safety levels? Sure



All these homes are vacant. Feel free to move in to any you wish.

reply to post by ketsuko


There are proper diplomatic channels that could be used, resources spent that could make this epic disaster more tolerable. They are more interested in saving reputations, positions and finances than to be transparent and open. If this was happening in America i would be saying the same thing.

reply to post by semperfortis



Plant Operators Caught Faking Radiation Readings
The very core of the Fukushima disaster timeline that has been regurgitated by the mainstream media and government agencies alike was almost exclusively based on information provided by plant operator TEPCO — a company that is now on record as having lied to the population of the world in a major way. And there were no signs they would ever tell the truth unless forced to. It wasn’t until an independent investigation revealed the actual levels of radiation released from the plant (around 2 1/2 times more than TEPCO would even admit) that TEPCO was forced to go on record and state that the radiation levels they released were indeed much lower than reality.


naturalsociety.com...

Its because Fukushima is an unknown.....

Never have 3 cores melted down at the same time.... the geology of the area does not allow for a Chernobyl like solution... there is simply too much ground water moving through the area, becoming radioactive and then into the Pacific ocean.


Its because Fukushima is an unknown.....

It can't be fixed.... it can't be neutralized.... and above all.... it can not be stopped.

It going to keep on spewing radiation for hundreds if not thousands of years.


We as a species are on unknown ground when it comes to Fukushima.

The radioactive material in most bombs has a short half life (e.g. Hiroshima). However, some, such as the one used at Bikini Atoll (if you watch Spongebob, the island and the beginning of the intro is there), have material with very long half lifes.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Ok I am sorry to get off topic but why would they call it Atlantic salmon if its farm raised? That just makes me mad since I've been thinking I'm eating the real thing.

For the topic at hand - good point. I think for me the concern lies in an actual melt down of Fukushima or an explosion. I believe it was Wrabbit who said when we begin to see health issues or deaths in Japan then we begin to worry so that is also a good point. It's darn close to perfect as an energy source - they just need to figure out how to turn it off (undo it "if" something goes bad).

Radiation Exposure can be lethal if you are at the peak of the meltdown or leakage. It continually builds up, as it has a long half-life, so it will stay active and disrupt your DNA and eventually lead to cancer, birth defects for your offspring and general poor health and appearance. No need to panic, but taking some simple precations may just make your life much better long-term!

radiation safety guide

reply to post by semperfortis


Are you contesting the understanding that increased background radiation causes increased mutation rates?
Therefore higher overall 'cancer' or 'deformity' rates in hypothetical affected area?

You are saying that isn't true?
I am confused I guess because you are pretty much stating an opinion rather than asserting facts.

As nuclear technology goes, it has been less than a century since this really got going.
And theoretically speaking, nuclear meltdowns negative effects have to be viewed on a timeline of hundreds to thousands of years.

So...what were you saying again?

reply to post by semperfortis


Meltdowns are much worse than tests, based on the type of radiation. (I presume this has already been mentioned, since the thread has gone a few pages but tl;dr)

So…

"OMG Fukushima"

Well. Look at Chernobyl. Side effects of radiation being deposited downwind carried on for 50 years. It didn't wipe out entire nations or anything of the like though.

So you have a guy that walked on the beach with a geiger counter and "Oh Noes, alarm is going off we're all gonna die".

Meh,

Not really scientific. They need to go up and down the entire coast and take readings, and do that every day. You might get a cloud of radiation passing over but Fukashima is not releasing constant radiological crap into their air every second. A lot is going in or has gone in the ocean, but very small relative to the size of the ocean.

The reactor hasn't gone into "meltdown", uncontrollable, disastrous mode yet. And if it did, still doesn't mean the end of times. But surely a lot more attention will be paid to it.

The only thing surprising I find out of the whole ordeal is that a global body wasn't formed to tackle the problem, since it is something that will affect the entire world to some degree, whether minute or major.

semperfortis
So everyone likes the "Doom Porn" of Fukushima

Well if the events at Fukushima are going to kill us all, why are we not dead already?

Over the past 50+ years HUNDREDS of nuclear devices, spewing radiation, have been detonated in, on and above the oceans

United States: 1,054 tests.. 106 directly impacting the Pacific

Soviet Union: 715 tests

United Kingdom: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory) ("Some" in the Pacific)

From the first nuclear test in 1945 until tests by Pakistan in 1998, there was never a period of more than 22 months with no nuclear testing.

Nuke Testing

If all the doom porn advocated are correct.. We died years ago

I know there will not be much interest in this as it does not feed the mania, but I thought perhaps some people would want the truth

Semper

As of right now the danger level is low,were not all going to die however things at fukishima have the potential to be devastating.

I think this is going to be long and slow process with the full effects not seen for another 10 years at least. It's kind of like smoking and lung cancer, why isn't every smoker dead yet?? It will not affect everyone right away but will increase the chances for cancer later and of course the more exposure the greater the danger.

reply to post by Lynk3


Really? The most dangerous of all combined?