Fukushima - It's Not Over

[r-j]

It's pretty bad. However you look at it, it's bad. The "pro nuclear power" people are trying to poo poo the idea that this incident was bad, while ignoring the facts that this is a huge environmental disaster.

Haven't you paid attention? It's worry and fear that is the real danger. Unlike a constant stream of radioactivity from melted reactor cores, fear and worry is the serious problem. Fear and worry are going to start hurting the sea life off of Fukushima.

That's the real danger here. And coal.

 

[Corsair 115]

No, the key question is how to stop this continuing disaster at Fukushima. That you, and clearly others, can't understand that, it's ridiculous.

I notice you completely ignore the fundamental point, which is the actual level of health risk posed to the public by what is happening. The reason you call it a disaster is because you presume substantive and widespread negative health effects. But if no such negative health effects actually exist, then it's really not a disaster anymore, is it?

So, feel free to provide solid evidence demonstrating the actual level of health risk that the incident is posing to the public. There's plenty of medical research on the effects different types of radiation and radiation exposure has on human health. The perceived level of risk is immaterial; what matters is the actual risk - the cold, hard numbers backed up by research and studies.

(I note with some confusion that here you are in this thread beating the drum of doom about a radiological disaster - while citing little actual evidence - yet in another thread you are actively denying the idea of human-induced climate change, in spite of volumes of evidence supporting that idea. It seems highly contradictory.)

 

[r-j]

I notice you completely ignore the fundamental point, which is the actual level of health risk posed to the public by what is happening.

No, you ignore the whole thread, which is about how the Fukushima disaster is far from over. I understand you want to downplay any possible risk, danger or threat from anything nuclear, but don't expect anyone to buy that.

 

[macdoc]

Once more you miss the point.
Nuclear technology is dangerous.
The production of power from nuclear plants has an exceptional safety record.

On you and other anti-nukes exaggerate the risks without a shred of science based evidence.

ALL technology carries risk and reward.
Electricity from nuclear has high reward with proven low risk.
note - low risk, not no risk.

You just won't accept that and waffle on about disaster using the usual empty polemics of the anti-nuke crowd.

continuing disaster at Fukushima.

What "disaster" would that be?? You mean the tricky technical problem of clean up after a 1,000 year earthquake wrecked a nuclear facility.
It's not a disaster- - it's a manageable problem with little health risk even to locals let alone anything in the pacific.
ALL you do is fear monger.....nothing else.....gets wearisome in the extreme.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exceptional safety record, and yet a few environmental disasters.
The disaster at Fukushima is a manageable problem, but that doesn't make it any less of a disaster. Is it "fear mongering" that Japan is going to monitor the health and status of residents affected by the disaster for the next 30 years?
I don't know if the reward is worth the risk of nuclear power. For some reason, private insurance companies don't find it a profitable venture to cover nuclear plants.

 

[Diogenes]

Exceptional safety record, and yet a few environmental disasters.
The disaster at Fukushima is a manageable problem, but that doesn't make it any less of a disaster. Is it "fear mongering" that Japan is going to monitor the health and status of residents affected by the disaster for the next 30 years?
I don't know if the reward is worth the risk of nuclear power. For some reason, private insurance companies don't find it a profitable venture to cover nuclear plants.

I think your insurance claim was adequately addressed some pages ago.

It is a use of good practices to continue monitoring. Suggesting something nefarious is pretty disingenuous...as the same could be said of any type of air or water quality monitoring programs...any pollution prevention or mitigation measures.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm not suggesting that anything nefarious is going on, but if the disaster wasn't so severe, why the need to monitor people for 30 years?

 

[macdoc]

They monitor people for all sorts of things over time including lead and copper.
Is your water supply a disaster? It's monitored too.
Your air quality?? - it's done daily.

Some aspects are of academic interest only.

This is nothing like Chernobyl and the most significant find on that regarding human health was the impact of fear.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You believe they are monitoring those people just out of academic interest?

I'm under the impression that the effects of this disaster will be insignificant on public health, but I doubt that the monitoring is just for academic interest.

 

[macdoc]

Unlike a constant stream of radioactivity from melted reactor cores

do you ever stop??......you have way more risk from the sun than anything from a Japanese reactor....give it a rest. ...or go write comic books

 

[Diogenes]

do you ever stop??...

(hence /ignore)

 

[Diogenes]

You believe they are monitoring those people just out of academic interest?

I'm under the impression that the effects of this disaster will be insignificant on public health, but I doubt that the monitoring is just for academic interest.

And that's not his claim.

 

[Dragoonster]

Yes, those silly Japanese, all worried about radiation in their food source. If only they knew that nobody was killed and coal is so much worse. Then they could go back to eating from the ocean around Fukushima again.

18,000+ ******* Japanese died in this disaster, and will never be able to die from "eating from the ocean around Fukishima". BTW, Zero so far have died from "eating from the ocean around Fukishima".

1) Coal IS so much worse per death, by orders of magnitude, if you at all care about that. About actual death instead of choosing your pet energy hatred and as soooo many others trying to scare people about deaths that never happen.
2) Apparently Japanese' only food source is at the Fukishima ocean or something (? Not sure your point).

Honestly. Fukishima "disaster" advocates should just shut up until they can say, cite at least ten deaths from it maybe ten years from now.

Didn't Miguel de Cervantes say something about this? Tilting at Nuclear Power?

Stop being stupid.

In the public parts of the forum, swearing must be completely masked.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Mark6]

You believe they are monitoring those people just out of academic interest?

I'm under the impression that the effects of this disaster will be insignificant on public health, but I doubt that the monitoring is just for academic interest.

Also for bureaucratic CYA. Always better to monitor and not need it, then not monitor and get sued when someone does get cancer.

 

[luchog]

The mindset of the people who write as if they already know everything is disturbing. It seems like the mindset that created this disaster in the first place.

No, the mindset that created the disaster was pure and simple greed and laziness. The desire to wring as much as possible out of the project by cutting corners without concern for safety. The same mindset that resulted in Chernobyl.

That's not even remotely related to the mindset demonstrated the proponents in this thread, which is to focus on actual demonstrated risks and benefits, not the sort of alarmist fearmongering which has proven repeatedly to be seriously divorced from the reality of the situation.

 

[luchog]

Exceptional safety record, and yet a few environmental disasters.

Compared to coal and oil, the environmental impact of Nuclear has been minimal. The number of "environmental disasters" can easily be counted on one hand, even if Fukushima is included, for a few isolated locations. Comparing that to amount of environmental caused by coal mining alone puts Nuclear power far into the safe side of the spectrum. And that's not including all the long-term problems caused by oil spills and pollution from petroleum-based fuels. And of course, compared to Global Climate Change resulting from the use of fossil fuels, the environmental impact of nuclear power has been almost insignificant. Even hydro has a far from perfect track record for environmental impact.

 

[r-j]

If only those stupid workers and the Japanese government could be educated by the JREF forum. They could all relax. Once they realize fear is the real danger, just start those six reactors back up, and strop fretting over silly radiation and living in fear.

And for gosh sake, move all those people back to their homes and businesses. Or at least the mildly radioactive areas. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/rs_radiation_declines_at_fukushima_0603131.html

You see how the yellow is bigger already? The yearly does (assuming you don't eat, breathe or touch any of the ⁹⁰Sr, ¹³⁷Cs, ⁹⁹Tc or plutonium) is only about 84 mSv/yr You need like 2,5000 mSv to even get sick.

Living in Denver you get 1.5 mSv/yr and that is nothing. Oh sure the fearmongers will try and say you might eat or drink or breath in radioactive particles, but that is ridiculous. Sure you can't farm or raise animals to eat, and maybe you want the kids to wear a radiation suit when they go outside, and sure there might be hot spots where cesium accumulates or something, but really, fear is the danger, not fallout from reactors exploding.

Even the high radiation areas are now maybe 176 mSv/yr, a meter above the ground. Oh sure, some fear mongering green will point out your feet will be almost in direct contact with the ground while walking or standing, and radiation increases with distance, and all that physics crap. If you wore like two foot soles you could reduce the exposure to your feet, it would only be like 7 sieverts a year, assuming you were outside all the time, which you wouldn't be.

Just keep the kids and animals inside, and don't eat anything from the area. It's all good. This fear is ridiculous. I read it online, so it must be true.

 

[DC]

i am amazed by the downplaying of the problem on one side and the fearmonegering on the other side.

 

[Diogenes]

i am amazed by the downplaying of the problem on one side and the fearmonegering on the other side.

There are explicit mathematical reasons for the former that are actually based on radiation health sciences. The latter, well, that's same-old, same-old.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Even the high radiation areas are now maybe 176 mSv/yr, a meter above the ground. Oh sure, some fear mongering green will point out your feet will be almost in direct contact with the ground while walking or standing, and radiation increases with distance, and all that physics crap.

Since the soil is planar radiation source, the radiation will not decrease with distance much. Only due the absorption of the particles in the air, which is not big. 1m or contact distance will be pretty much the same.