Fukushima doom

This is why I love this place like I love my scotch and coke..

Good or bad you guys give a no bs response and it educates people quickly.

thanks!

a reply to: 5StarOracle

A localized catastrophe.
Global, not so much. The Pacific is wide, and deep. Very.

a reply to: Phage

Obviously the impact has been greater near the incident stands to reason...
It has and will continue to have a global effect on multiple levels...
www.sciencedirect.com...
These models give rather small projections but the numbers will only grow with time...
Until something real is done to contain or reverse the damage...
According to a Stanford study within 20 years up to 2500 global deaths could be attributed to Fukushima although they predict the number would be more likely closer to a much smaller 180 global deaths...
What is odd about that is most cancers which would be caused by Fukushima would likely take longer then 20 years to be detected or cause death...
I guess only time will reveal the truth of it...

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

the part i want some input on is - the user in the movie took a geiger counter on a flight that flew from Japan to the US -

the movie shows different times of the flight path and the geiger counter's reading..

I have posted this before but....this all depends on the time of year... Below 12,000 ft the radiation is slightly above normal background.. Picture a clock face and a pointer.. it will point to 08:30 or there abouts.. Above 20,000 it will point to around 10:00.. above 30,000 it will point to 11 to 13:00 above 39,000 the needle will point to 15:30.. So... I did not watch the video but on a normal transcon flight as you burn off fuel you climb to a higher altitude thus you will get a higher rad reading ..

If I get the time I will watch the video and get back to you if I see something worth a new reply..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle

A localized catastrophe.
Global, not so much. The Pacific is wide, and deep. Very.

Although I agree with the sentiments of the posters who point out how this video was very flawed - I still disagree with your assessment of this disaster.

The Pacific isn't big or deep enough, and those pesky ocean currents move stuff around long distances.

I don't think we'll really know the effects till after 2050 though because this is truly a slow-motion scenario.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

What is odd about that is most cancers which would be caused by Fukushima would likely take longer then 20 years to be detected or cause death...

One wonders how it may compare to the cancers caused by nuclear weapons testing in the 50s-80s. Or other miscellaneous environmental dangers.

a reply to: muzzleflash

The Pacific isn't big or deep enough, and those pesky ocean currents move stuff around long distances.

Yep. A lot of molecules, a whole hell of lot, vs. a few.

A few which don't really last a long time. Interesting thing about radionuclides; the more dangerous they are, the shorter their half-life.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle

What is odd about that is most cancers which would be caused by Fukushima would likely take longer then 20 years to be detected or cause death...

One wonders how it may compare to the cancers caused by nuclear weapons testing in the 50s-80s. Or other miscellaneous environmental dangers.

Just throwing this out there :

Look at worldwide cancer "epidemics" so to speak :

www.cancerresearchuk.org...

I wish that I could get hold of stats dating back before 1940... Not easy... Any ideas?

Warmest

Lags

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Caution should be taken when interpreting trends over time for cancers worldwide because changes probably also reflect changes in data recording.

Your source.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Caution should be taken when interpreting trends over time for cancers worldwide because changes probably also reflect changes in data recording.

Your source.

Agreed Phage but as I said : I wish I could find earlier data.

Can you mate?

Lags

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Nope.

"Data recording" would also involve things like cancer being generally ruled as "natural causes." In the olden days.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Nope.

"Data recording" would also involve things like cancer being generally ruled as "natural causes." In the olden days.

So you can’t Phage?

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Phage is a noun, not a verb.

I cannot Phage.

the simplest solution for all of this is to stop using nuclear fuel until we can find a safe way to dispose of the waste or convert it into continually less harmful substances!
It will cost billions to de-commission all of the sites but it would be the best approach in my mind
just build vaults around the reactors and set up a specific task group to watch these sites for any environmental changes which could cause damage to the environment and wildlife and humans.

So we need to shut down every reactor and exchange the energy loss with renewable's !

and fast!

a reply to: Phage

You suffer from Aphagia ?

doesnt it mean " to eat " or "swallow" ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Phage is a noun, not a verb.

I cannot Phage.

Right on👍

So to answer my question?

a reply to: Phage

Without looking up the data... because like you said yourself, to do so would be almost useless, for in the olden days
Said cancer cases would mostly be deemed caused by natural causes...
Yet knowing that... If one were to look up cancer cases and deaths per annum before and after nuclear testing I’m rather certain that data would see a dramatic rise after nuclear testing... may as well include Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
I’m sure John Wayne would have had something to say about making movies so close to nuclear tests which ultimately destroyed him had he known the possibilities...

Then again I’m thinking we still are fed lies in the here and now they are just bigger better lies...
What’s worse almost then the lies is people that know just don’t talk at all...

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

I'm a believer that fukushima is a much bigger problem than we're being told..

I watched a youtube today that was released a few weeks ago summing up some aspects of Fukushima teeat the news arent telling us..

one particular part I want peoples opinions on is at the 14minute mark onwards..

Whats peoples thoughts on the radiation levels in a plane like that?

I am not a believer that it cannot be diluted and studied further, we ultimately have no choice but to keep abreast of the situation...there is not cause for alarm.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Phage is a noun, not a verb.

I cannot Phage.

Actually your response was an example of classic phaging. I've seen you phage many times.
And that was me MissSmartypantsing you.

a reply to: sapien82
Incorrect.

-phage

a combining form meaning “a thing that devours,” used in the formation of compound words, especially the names of phagocytes:

www.dictionary.com...