Since I live in CA....this is a little troubling...Fukushima

Re SB's link. These people make their living by pandering to the paranoia of conspiracy theorists. Also those breathless 'facts' are couched in less than proven terms.. examples below.

Many are blaming Fukushima...... Something is causing fish all along the west coast of Canada to bleed from their gills,
... It is being projected... (never trust computer modelling 'projections.') ... One test in California found that 15 out of 15 bluefin tuna were contaminated with radiation from Fukushima. (which test where and by whom?) ... Some experts believe ... (real experts know.) ... It has been estimated .... One recent study concluded that a very large plume of cesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster will start flowing into U.S. coastal waters early next year… (but didn't a previous point already say that it had gotten there as was affecting fish already? Should they get their stories straight?} .... . 21. It is being projected.... 22. It is being projected... 27. According to the Wall Street Journal, it is being projected...
Are you starting to understand why so many people are so deeply concerned about what is going on at Fukushima?... (Yes, because sites like this blow it out of proportion to elicit donations from the scared sh*tless.)
Click to expand...

Never put 100% faith in what you read on any site with a donation button on it.

There may very well be casualties long term from Fukishima, but they haven't really proven that yet. They still presume, estimate, suspect, and project about it. And the figures and projections change radically depending on what site you are reading.

As to the 'projected' dangers, how many are dropping like flies in Japan? Around 130 was the figure I saw, with 'perhaps' another 2,500 in big risk of cancer in the future. You'd think it would affect the people living near the plant, and still eating the fish, first wouldn't you? Not saying there's no danger lying in waiting, just saying that trucks kill more of us than radiation sickness.

There is also not a bloody thing anyone can do about it now except help them mitigate any continuing pollution! Pointing at nuclear energy as being the universal bad guy and closing down nuke plants like it's excorsizing the Devil or something is a reaction that needs a lot of thinking about.

It wasn't nuclear energy that caused that disaster. It was pure human negligence and a lack of standards and control of them. Human stupidity caused it. Closing down nukes to protect us from ourselves is simply nannying taken to extreme. Shooting offenders against keeping to safety standards is all that's required to ensure nuclear safety.

Japan went that road. They closed down all their nuke power plants. Guess what direction Japan's deficit is heading on the economic scale?
A graph showing the direct correlation between the return to fossil fuel generation and the deficit is self evident. It's sending them broke!

What if all yours were to shut down overnight? Could the US manage okay without it now? Could Europe?
What's the answer to Fukishima? What are the suggestions for dealing with nuclear power generation?

It's a cleft stick without diligent attention to safety issues. A few hundred thousand, maybe,perhaps,projected, affected by radiation or a few million dead of hunger, and cold?
Sometimes we just have to accept that sh*t happens but it's not always exactly due to the cause we immediately suspect.

The improved availability of nuke power allowed population to grow to it's present numbers and level of technology, the price of that is utter reliance on it. 'Green' technology is nowhere near replacing it. So how do you wanna go?

Japan will be okay, they can go back to burning whale oil. ... sorry couldn't resist that dig, but what goes round comes round, one way or another. No free lunches.
 
"Green technology is nowhere near replacing it".

Oh, rly?

If it isn't, it's not from lack of ability. It's because the utility companies are fully backing nuclear as the power of choice, because it's there, already in place, and they don't wan t to interrupt their money train.

It's because the fat-cat politicians and lobbyists would miss their kick-backs from those same utilities.

You know, there IS a point where cynicism, instead of helping, can hurt.
 
Here's a blog site of a committed Environmentalist who backs nuclear power. Who'da thort?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

It's not just cynicism, I know how much input vested interests have in this... on both sides. The headlong race over the environmentally obsessed cliff of cutting out fossis AND nuclear fuel is every bit as cynical, in not listening to any alternative suggestions to cover us in the interim until Green technology does become viable, you know. Doing something futile for the sake of doing it to appear 'environmentally pious' is a waste of time and money.

Neither side of the argument has everything down pat 100% there must be compromises made by both sides. Hopefully they will be made on logical acceptance of the facts of life's costs for existing on this planet, and not purely by greed, emotion, and disinformation. :cool:
 
Diwundrin said:
Here's a blog site of a committed Environmentalist who backs nuclear power. Who'da thort?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
Click to expand...

Do you TRULY believe that the IAEA and WNN folks are disinterested parties? Do you think that a "committed environmentalist" (small "e" to de-emphasize the political aspect) can't be bought?

It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up there in his ivory tower?

Do you think the estimable Dr. Brook eats fish from the California coast? Drinks from the public water supply? No, he's down under, where the currents don't have even a quarter of the effect they have on the Western American coast.

"Sustainable nuclear energy" - yeah, it sure is - it'll keep poisoning us through our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren!

It's not just cynicism, I know how much input vested interests have in this... on both sides. The headlong race over the environmentally obsessed cliff of cutting out fossis AND nuclear fuel is every bit as cynical, in not listening to any alternative suggestions to cover us in the interim until Green technology does become viable, you know. Doing something futile for the sake of doing it to appear 'environmentally pious' is a waste of time and money.
Click to expand...

Of course I'm not as OCD on this topic as some, but I wasn't aware that it was such a black-and-white issue. Nobody I know is telling us to shut down every reactor tomorrow, sink the oil platforms and close the valves on the gas supply. Of course there would be a wind-down period, but if the conversation is not entertained by both sides then nothing is going to happen, and when it comes to the money aspect THAT is the Prime Directive.

Who has the money? Certainly not the Alternative Energy folks. Only 13% of the U.S. energy bill is footed by them.

But change is coming - it HAS to. Otherwise we're going to be seeing more and more Fukushimas.


Neither side of the argument has everything down pat 100% there must be compromises made by both sides. Hopefully they will be made on logical acceptance of the facts of life's costs for existing on this planet, and not purely by greed, emotion, and disinformation. :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm just truly astonished that you don't see the lethality of nuclear, as well as the environmental costs of coal, gas and oil. It seems as if you wouldn't trust a radiometer shrieking out a heavy-metal anthem while passing it over your tuna fish sandwich, instead passing it off as a glitch.

We've raped the Earth far too long with non-renewable fuels, the de-weaponization of nuclear energy has proven far too high a risk - the only sane answer is renewable resource utilization. Fighting tooth and nail for the creation of yet more ticking time bombs while you build all those solar panels is folly.
 
Do you TRULY believe that the IAEA and WNN folks are disinterested parties? Do you think that a "committed environmentalist" (small "e" to de-emphasize the political aspect) can't be bought?

It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up there in his ivory tower?
Click to expand...

They're believed and above reproach when they claim to be proving 'the science' of Climate Change!
(Kachinnng!)
Wassamadda, do we only believe the ones that agree with us?

Of course I'm not as OCD on this topic as some, but I wasn't aware that it was such a black-and-white issue. Nobody I know is telling us to shut down every reactor tomorrow, sink the oil platforms and close the valves on the gas supply.
Click to expand...

No Greenies in your Government then? Ours send delegations of feral protesters to close down the Newcastle coal loader every couple of weeks and demand that Australia stop selling coal. They want CSG mining stopped. They worry about the Natural Gas wells in the Timor Sea in case they kill a turtle. They protest about oil wells anywhere and to keep them busy someone moots drilling on the Gt B. Reef and they go mental! They also blow their foofoo valves at the mention of nuclear power, so yes, here, they want ALL power generation other than solar, closed down. Now! They held the balance of power in the Senate, would you believe! So they blackmailed the hung Parliarment for all they were worth. We get rid of most in July when the half Senate turnover takes place and hopefully they'll be heard less. I think all but one got tossed out, but Warri is the numbers gal.


I'm just truly astonished that you don't see the lethality of nuclear,
Click to expand...

What? Because a few have fallen over spectacularly? How many 'disasters' have there been again? 2? Against how many nuke power stations that have never had a hiccup? 100s? Remind me.

More likely to suffer and die from coal pollution than radiation from power plants if you live close to one. Perspective please.
 
Diwundrin said:

They're believed and above reproach when they claim to be proving 'the science' of Climate Change!
(Kachinnng!)
Wassamadda, do we only believe the ones that agree with us?
Click to expand...

Please, keep climate change out of this.

I don't only believe those that agree with me - I'm poking holes in your paper god.


No Greenies in your Government then? Ours send delegations of feral protesters to close down the Newcastle coal loader every couple of weeks and demand that Australia stop selling coal. They want CSG mining stopped. They worry about the Natural Gas wells in the Timor Sea in case they kill a turtle. They protest about oil wells anywhere and to keep them busy someone moots drilling on the Gt B. Reef and they go mental! They also blow their foofoo valves at the mention of nuclear power, so yes, here, they want ALL power generation other than solar, closed down. Now! They held the balance of power in the Senate, would you believe! So they blackmailed the hung Parliarment for all they were worth. We get rid of most in July when the half Senate turnover takes place and hopefully they'll be heard less. I think all but one got tossed out, but Warri is the numbers gal.
Click to expand...

You're using the actions of a miniscule percentage of wackadoos to justify nuclear power?

What? Because a few have fallen over spectacularly? How many 'disasters' have there been again? 2? Against how many nuke power stations that have never had a hiccup? 100s? Remind me.
Click to expand...

Number of worldwide incidents since 1952 recorded by the IAEA and from reports gathered independently (since, surprise, surprise, the IAEA does NOT report all occurrences) - 33.

Nuclear-accidents.jpg

On a scale of 1-7, there has been one 7 - Chernobyl. Fukushima was rated a 5. In addition to those we have one 6, three 5's, five 4's, five 3's, five 2's and 12 - 1 or unders.

Please don't ask me to count the number of oil spills, coal mining disasters, gas explosions or other events that, if they didn't take lives outright, further eroded the earth.

More likely to suffer and die from coal pollution than radiation from power plants if you live close to one. Perspective please.
Click to expand...

Dying from coal pollution is insidious, just like dying from radiation. We tend to put out stats that show only immediate deaths, not long-term diseases.

I don't know about your neighborhood, but I live within 100 miles of 5 nuclear plants. If any of them go, I'm toast. Here's a few of the major U.S. reactors (104 total) contained within 65 plants -

nuclear-plants-in-us.jpg

An IAEA report shows the number of mortalities from people living near a nuclear power plant had increased thusly:

Due to Leukemia, all ages:
Before plant: 258
After plant: 6,077

Due to All Cancers except Leukemia, all ages:
Before Plant: 8,991
After Plant: 141,635

That's just normal, everyday living - and dying - around nuclear plants, without explosions or major natural disasters.

Tell me again how safe nuclear power is?
 
dbeyat45 said:
Phil, what do you see as "the environmental costs of coal, gas and oil" ?
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

Like you haven't seen the effects of living in a coal-mining town? Of oil spills? Natural gas explosions? The burning of gasoline and kerosene in vehicles?

I'm not getting into a climate thing here with you - I have no desire to do that. I'm just wondering that you don't see how the earth is being polluted by these fuels ...
 
SifuPhil said:
Please, keep climate change out of this.

I don't only believe those that agree with me - I'm poking holes in your paper god.
Click to expand...
No. You don't wriggle out that easy. You describe 'my' source as "It's run by a scientist and university professor - do you think he's beyond reproach? That he's even in touch with the real world, sitting up there in his ivory tower?" What I'm pointing out is these are the exact same types used as proof of expertise when it comes to the C.change argument. It's not about climate change, it's about what credentials we accept depending on what we point we want to make.
You're using the actions of a miniscule percentage of wackadoos to justify nuclear power?
Click to expand...

No. and you know it! You said "Nobody I know is telling us to shut down every reactor tomorrow, sink the oil platforms and close the valves on the gas supply."
I'm merely informing you that yes, there are people who want to close everything down with no back up system. We don't even have nuke power stations so I presume it's everyone else's they want close. Yes they're wackos, they're 'Greens.'
Number of worldwide incidents since 1952 recorded by the IAEA and from reports gathered independently (since, surprise, surprise, the IAEA does NOT report all occurrences) - 33.

View attachment 4713

On a scale of 1-7, there has been one 7 - Chernobyl. Fukushima was rated a 5. In addition to those we have one 6, three 5's, five 4's, five 3's, five 2's and 12 - 1 or unders.

Please don't ask me to count the number of oil spills, coal mining disasters, gas explosions or other events that, if they didn't take lives outright, further eroded the earth.
Click to expand...

I said 'disasters'.. not incidents.
Dying from coal pollution is insidious, just like dying from radiation. We tend to put out stats that show only immediate deaths, not long-term diseases.

I don't know about your neighborhood, but I live within 100 miles of 5 nuclear plants. If any of them go, I'm toast. Here's a few of the major U.S. reactors (104 total) contained within 65 plants -

View attachment 4715

An IAEA report shows the number of mortalities from people living near a nuclear power plant had increased thusly:

Due to Leukemia, all ages:
Before plant: 258
After plant: 6,077

Due to All Cancers except Leukemia, all ages:
Before Plant: 8,991
After Plant: 141,635

That's just normal, everyday living - and dying - around nuclear plants, without explosions or major natural disasters.

Tell me again how safe nuclear power is?
Click to expand...

I lived in a coal town for 10 years. It was measured that around 39,000 tonnes of dust settled on that town per annum.
It had a frightening amount of cancers. People all round me were developing cancer. Brain tumors, breast cancer colon and cervical cancers. Lung cancers of course but not one could pin them on coal. I don't know of any children with leukemia so can't comment on that.

One doctor though gave up his practice to devote his full time to studying children there who had asthma way out of all proportion to the National average. Towns with underground mines didn't have those figures, but Singleton is surrounded by huge open cut mines and they are studying the premise that the blasting chemicals are more likely to be triggering the cancer cluster and the asthma. It's also heavily sprayed with agri chems. for pastures and crops.

Coal itself can cause lung cancers, although it's more to do with the silica dust than the coal dust. A branch of my family have been coal miners for generations in that area, working underground, and none of them had asthma. A few died of silicosis induced lung cancer but not the range of cancers evident in the Hunter Valley region now. It's more than coal to blame.

Could you imagine the hoohah if there had been a nuke plant there? Would they all have been caused by radiation?

How many are dropping off early because of those plants around you? Are there proven cancer clusters caused by them? What's the life span of the people who work there every day? Do they last a week or 20 years or what? Do any live long enough to retire? If we are to believe the scare mongers then it would be a death sentence not a job. Are no agri or other chemicals used in heavy industries that could perhaps be carcinogenic? Were the clusters around Love Canal nuclear power plant caused?

As before, perspective.

I don't mind in the least that they eventually phase out coal powered energy, and nuclear, when they find something viable to replace them with.

I hate the pollution more than most, I've lived with it at it's worst. But coal is cheap, reliable, efficient and at present, at least here in OZ, utterly irreplaceable. We can't just stop using it because we've been too scared to build nukes and are now 20 years behind the world and looking at 10 more to build any at all. Nobody has the billions to spare to set up solar arrays that could replace a fraction of the power coal or nuke generates. We're too small and scattered a population for it to ever pay it's way.

I'm not out to trash the planet. I simply state the bleeding obvious to the blinkered environmentally obsessed.

I'm not some mad scientist trying to irradiate the planet either. I know there are dangers in nuclear power. But they are dangers that can be controlled. That's up to us. Build them and look after them better.

Too many want to live in some magic Utopia where everything is safe, and perfect, and cheap, and doesn't interfere in their lifestyle or weigh on their conscience. Life ain't like that. There are trade offs. They can have their nice clean air with nuke power while they set about inventing that magic Green renewable energy that no one but the rich can afford to use. That's really all I'm trying to point out.

... and if that didn't make sense, tough, I'm tired and outa 'gas'. Calling time out. 'night. :eek:fftobed:
 
I was just looking at some pictures of the fish that are getting tumors, and other deformities from the radiation. I am including the link here to the article, and the pictures. Some of these fish are pretty awful to look at, but it sure shows us what kind of fish are being caught and processed as food.
I love seafood, and especially salmon and oysters, but reading this article is enough to make me think that maybe I don't want to be eating it anymore.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/232-pat
 
Happyflowerlady said:
I was just looking at some pictures of the fish that are getting tumors, and other deformities from the radiation. I am including the link here to the article, and the pictures. Some of these fish are pretty awful to look at, but it sure shows us what kind of fish are being caught and processed as food.
I love seafood, and especially salmon and oysters, but reading this article is enough to make me think that maybe I don't want to be eating it anymore.

http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/news/232-pat
Click to expand...

I don't doubt political leaders are not forthright about the pollution caused by Fukushima. Our consumption of seafood has been cut drastically. Even so, I like to look at the source of internet news; this Turner Radio Network appears to be a real can of worms:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/turnerhealthcanadaconcealinghoax06jan14.shtml

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/profiles/hal-turner
 
Thank YOU Jr!!

Do yourselves a favour. Make a cuppa cawfee, settle comfortably, and read this rather long but extremely well explained and illuminating article.

Unless of course you get off on flapping around like headless chooks screaming the sky is falling. No cure for that syndrome, sorry.

Firstly the pictures: If those tumours and lesions are caused by radiation in the oceans they swim in then why don't they ALL have them?

I've seen those white fungal eggy things growing on goldfish in living room tanks. They're fungal, not radioactive.
A seal with a chunk of face missing is more likely to have had a close encounter with something toothy than with radioactivity.
Polar bears with chunks of fur missing are a rarity are they? They don't shed or rip bits out of each other on a seasonal basis then?

Tasmanian Devils are verging on extinction from a tumorous growth on their faces that eventually kills them. It's finally been pinned as viral infection. No radiation involved. Have to find something else to make that one sound really really scary won't they?

Want pictures of perfectly healthy wild animals living in Chernobyl? and likewise healthy humans around Fukishima? No? thought not.

The MAPS. As I said before they are total bullsh*t! Read the part of the article about them.

The DANGER: It's perfectly safe to swim in the sea around Fukishima which registers no higher radiation levels than average over ALL oceans... everywhere... there is radiation in everything... even sunlight! You wanna live in a lead box? At least wait until you die,to do that, live life as it comes for now, preferably calmly.
Radioactive material is heavy, it sinks, it doesn't bob about like dust on the surface to be carried anywhere far at all. I wouldn't eat bottom feeders from around Japan but that's about the scariest it really gets.


Not saying this one is any more 100% right than any other garbage we read on Facebook and the 'Net but at least have a look at the other side's, the non scare mongering side's, view of the situation. The more we learn, the less scared we become. It works, try it.

Here's the link again.
http://deepseanews.com/2013/11/true-...hima-disaster/
 
... and the study by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) in California recently showed that the number of dead sea creatures blanketing the floor of the Pacific is higher than it has ever been in the 24 years that monitoring has taken place, a phenomenon that the data suggests is a direct consequence of nuclear fallout from Fukushima. The results were published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

I agree that there are insane articles, but I also believe there are cover-ups. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in-between.
 
I don't see how there could not be any problems from that 'incident', but I'm not going to panic or stop eating seafood because of that. We don't eat much of it since the price is so ridiculous on most of it, anyway, and considering what chemicals we've consumed in other foods for eons...why stress over it.

I try to keep in mind that media adores stirring panic over whatever story is current, and the sky is falling constantly. Ok, maybe that's an exaggeration too, but it's not worth a breakdown - and, yes, I like to hear both sides before deciding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top